Sunday, May 31, 2026

Invasive pythons & hurricanes drive opposite population shifts in endemic Florida rodents

South China Botanical Garden, Chinese Academy of Sciences

Graphical Abstract — image:
Density estimates of two endangered rodent subspecies, endemic to Key Largo, Florida, USA. These findings illustrate the contrasting dynamics of two native species associated with the prevalence of invasive Burmese pythons and global change. The woodrats’ decline emphasizes its potential risk of extinction as global change continues to impact island ecosystems.
view more
Credit: Shauna M. Sayers, Brent S. Pease, Brandon W. McDonald, Isabella R. Collamati, Jeremy D. Dixon, and Michael V. Cove.

Date: May 29, 2026

Carbondale, USA: Invasive species and extreme weather pose dual threats to island endemic wildlife, yet their combined impacts remain poorly understood. A long-term study published in Biological Diversity (2026) tracks population dynamics of two endangered rodent subspecies—the Key Largo woodrat (Neotoma floridana smalli) and Key Largo cotton mouse (Peromyscus gossypinus allapaticola)—from 2017 to 2024, following Hurricane Irma’s landfall and the establishment of invasive Burmese pythons (Python bivittatus) in the Florida Keys.

Researchers conducted systematic live-trapping across 10 grids in North Key Largo, deploying 49 Sherman traps per grid over four seasonal sessions (2017 spring, 2017 December, 2022 fall, 2024 spring). Using spatially explicit capture-recapture (SECR) models, they estimated population density, detection probability, and movement metrics for both species.

Woodrat populations collapsed dramatically: density dropped from 3.59 individuals/ha (2017) to 0.61 individuals/ha (2024), with spatial distribution contracting from 10 to 4 grids. This decline coincided with post-Irma habitat degradation and rising python detections, as woodrats—large, slow-reproducing prey—became prime python targets.

In stark contrast, cotton mouse density surged from 1.57 individuals/ha (2017) to 5.35 individuals/ha (2022), before declining to 2.70 individuals/ha (2024). Their broader habitat tolerance and higher fecundity likely buffered python predation and hurricane impacts.

The study confirms hurricanes as potential python dispersal catalysts and highlights invasive predators’ disproportionate impact on endemic ecosystem engineers like woodrats. It underscores the urgent need for targeted python removal, habitat restoration, and continued monitoring to prevent woodrat extinction—while balancing cotton mouse population management.

Original Source

Sayers, Shauna M., Brent S. Pease, Brandon W. McDonald, Isabella R. Collamati, Jeremy D. Dixon, and Michael V. Cove. 2026. “Density Estimates of Endangered Endemic Rodents Suggest Broader Impacts of Invasive Burmese Pythons Following a Category 4 Hurricane in the Florida Keys,” Biological Diversity: 1–11.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bod2.70027

Keywords

Burmese python, cotton mouse, endangered species, invasive impacts, natural disturbance, woodrat

About the Author

Shauna Sayers (First author and corresponding author), School of Forestry and Horticulture, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, Illinois, USA. She is a wildlife biologist specializing in the conservation of endangered and threatened species in the Florida Keys, USA. Her research centers on how invasive predators, hurricane disturbances, and habitat alteration jointly shape the persistence of native wildlife.

About the Journal

Biological Diversity (ISSN: 2994-4139) is a peer-reviewed, international, open-access journal sponsored by the South China Botanical Garden, Chinese Academy of Sciences, and published in partnership with Wiley. Launched in 2024 and issued quarterly, it is dedicated to advancing biodiversity conservation, safeguarding ecosystem functions and services, and promoting the sustainable utilization of biological resources under global environmental change. The journal welcomes original research, reviews, commentaries, and short communications across a broad spectrum of disciplines, including botany, zoology, microbiology, taxonomy, phylogenetics, genomics, cytology, ecology, climatology, economics, sociology, and real-time policy theory. It publishes innovative research addressing pressing global challenges of biodiversity loss and ecosystem degradation.

Journal

Biological Diversity

DOI

10.1002/bod2.70027

Method of Research

Data/statistical analysis

Subject of Research

Not applicable

Article Title

Density Estimates of Endangered Endemic Rodents Suggest Broader Impacts of Invasive Burmese Pythons Following a Category 4 Hurricane in the Florida Keys

Article Publication Date

14-May-2026

COI Statement

Ethics Statement: All trapping and handling were conducted according to Southern Illinois University Carbondale Institutional Animal Care and Use Guidelines' Animal Care and Use Protocol #23‐022, Native Endangered Species Recovery Permit #ES72782D, and Florida State Park Research Permit #05012425. Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

‘Shoot for the moon?’ aim a bit lower, researchers say

University of Wyoming

How ambitious should you be? Folk wisdom offers conflicting advice: “Shoot for the moon,” but also, “Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.”

A new study from researchers at the University of Wyoming, Stanford University and the University of Colorado-Boulder used a mathematical model to show that ambition lies in the middle -- above average but finite.

“Conventional wisdom tells people not to settle, but also not to let the perfect be the enemy of the good,” says lead author Kath Landgren, a postdoctoral scholar at Stanford’s Doerr School of Sustainability. “We wanted to see whether the math actually supports that intuition. It does, with some interesting twists.”

The researchers studied a model of searching for the best available strategy -- where a strategy could represent anything from a job to a business idea, to a romantic partner, to a public policy or political campaign. At each time step, the searcher either settles for what they’ve already found or they keep searching.

The researchers proved that people achieve the best results, on average, when they use a satisfaction threshold that is strictly above average, but also strictly finite. In other words: Aim higher than average, but don’t shoot for the moon. The researchers also found that setting the threshold too high is costlier than setting it too low by the same amount. In other words, being too hard to satisfy is worse than being too easy to satisfy.

The study, “Optimal ambition in business, politics, and life,” appears today in the journal Physical Review E.

The study looked at how the statistical distribution of possible outcomes should change one’s ambition. When outcomes are rugged (less correlated from one attempt to the next) or left-skewed (way-below-average outcomes are more common than way-above-average ones), people should be more ambitious compared to the average. When outcomes are right-skewed (way-above-average outcomes are more common) -- as in entrepreneurship, where a few “unicorns” pull the average up -- people should actually be less ambitious relative to that inflated average.

“This shows a counterintuitive but important difference between ambition and risk-taking,” says co-author Matt Burgess, an assistant professor of economics at UW. “When outcomes are left-skewed, like in economic policymaking, where recessions are larger than booms, you should avoid risks, but you should be more ambitious compared to average. You shouldn’t let the large recessions drag down your growth target for a typical year. It’s the opposite in entrepreneurship: You want to take risks but also not be discouraged if you don’t become the next billionaire.”

The study also found that upward social comparison is costly. When people judged their success only in comparison to peers who were doing better than they were, their performance dropped substantially in the model. They were chronically dissatisfied and missed achievable rewards.

“Upward social comparison sets us up for disappointment,” says co-author Ryan Langendorf, a lecturer at the University of Colorado Boulder. “It’s great to be inspired by others’ accomplishments, but focusing only on our most successful peers distorts our view of what’s achievable. This is especially true with social media, where we mostly see each others’ curated highlight reels.”

The researchers illustrated their results using real-world data from online dating, college applications, U.S. economic growth, billionaire wealth and 2020 swing-state polling. In several cases, people’s actual behavior closely tracks the model’s predictions. For example, online daters concentrate their messaging on partners just slightly more desirable than themselves.

The researchers emphasized that their model is simpler than real-world decision-making, but they argue that its core insights broadly generalize.

“We lack complete information in most everyday decisions,” Landgren says. “Our work offers a precise but accessible way to think about how ambitious you want to be in different contexts.”

Journal

Physical Review E

DOI

10.1103/dfw8-vhjk

Method of Research

Data/statistical analysis

Subject of Research

People

Article Title

Optimal ambition in business, politics, and life

Article Publication Date

29-May-2026

Location matters: Balancing renewable energy and biodiversity in Norway

Energy demands will only increase in the future, and carbon free is the way forward. But planners need to find solutions that have the least impact on the environment.

Norwegian University of Science and Technology

The Zero Emissions Building Laboratory — image:
Mounting solar panels on roofs can be a good solution for solar energy in Norway. The photo shows the Zero Emissions Building Laboratory, run by NTNU and SINTEF, Scandinavia's largest independent research institute.
view more
Credit: Photo: ZEB Lab NTNU/SINTEF

No matter how you look at it, Norway’s future electricity needs will grow. At the same time, the planet is warming at an unprecedented rate. One important way to help halt this trend is electrification, powered by renewable energy.

The energy transition must happen, but where and how we build matters for nature, for biodiversity.

But renewable energy isn’t without its costs. Hydropower plants, wind farms, solar installations and even transmission lines all share one common need: land.

“A central dilemma is that Norway and many countries need more renewable electricity to decarbonize,” said Jan Borgelt, a postdoctoral research fellow at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU’s) Industrial Ecology Programme.

“But building that infrastructure also affects biodiversity and natural habitats. The energy transition must happen, but where and how we build matters for nature, for biodiversity,” he said.

A new study with Borgelt as the first author has now coupled Norway’s projected energy demands up to 2050 with different renewable energy options and the potential impacts on Norway’s natural environments.

The bad news? Expanding Norway's renewable energy could increase the overall impact on habitat loss by as much as 28% by 2050, depending on how aggressively Norway expands its renewable capacity.

However, there are important ways to curb those losses, Borgelt said.

Avoiding construction in species-rich habitats and using previously developed land where possible can help. But the most effective way to substantially reduce biodiversity impacts is to lower electricity demand through energy efficiency measures, he said.

Hydropower dominates, but much of the damage is done

Today, 88 per cent of Norway’s electricity comes from 1821 hydropower plants and 1100 reservoirs, according to the Norwegian Water Resources and Energy Directorate.

Many of these hydropower plants and dams were built in the early 20th century, followed by a second wave of construction in the 1960s and 1970s.

Much of the remaining potential for large-scale hydropower development is in protected areas. That means it’s most likely that additional hydropower would come from upgrading and expanding existing facilities.

While hydropower, particularly reservoirs, accounts for the largest land footprint and has the highest impact on biodiversity, much of that damage has already been done. Hydropower production also affects aquatic ecosystems, like streams, rivers, and lakes. In this case, however, the researchers chose to focus on land-based effects of renewable energy.

Wind power’s uncertain future

That meant when Borgelt and his colleagues looked at the future for renewable energy in Norway, onshore wind had the largest potential to cause habitat loss.

Wind power is Norway’s second most widely used renewable technology after hydropower, with 64 onshore wind farms that currently produce about 15.9 TWh per year.

The impact from turbines and related infrastructure itself may not be that large, and could be as little as 1.6 km2 per TWh (a Terawatt-hour, abbreviated as TWh, is a unit of energy representing one trillion watt hours), according to the Norwegian Water Resources and Energy Directorate.

The researchers estimated that a future wind farm would have an average direct footprint of roughly 0.5 km2 with an annual production of about 0.6 TWh. That doesn’t include the indirect effects, such as bird deaths from turbine blade collisions, or disturbance due to noise, for example.

A recent Norwegian study reported that many Norwegians fear that wind power could result in potential negative effects on biodiversity, recreation, noise, and land use changes.

All told, the future for wind power develop in Norway remains uncertain, according to market analyses by the Norwegian Water Resources and Energy Directorate and Statnett, the system operator for the Norwegian power system.

Solar energy – location matters

Solar energy had the least impacts – but when the researchers compared habitat loss impacts to the amount of electricity produced, ground-mounted solar plants had the largest impact per unit of electricity generated.

“Ground-mounted solar plants use relatively large land areas compared to the amount of electricity they can produce. So in that sense, it's relatively inefficient,” Borgelt said.

Here’s where location and design can make a difference.

“This can become a problem when large solar farms are placed in forests or other natural habitats,” Borgelt said. “But rooftop solar changes that picture dramatically because it does not require additional habitat conversion. That can greatly reduce conflicts between energy production and biodiversity protection, because it uses already developed areas.”

The transmission grid – impacts and benefits

When the researchers looked at the habitat loss caused by the Norwegian electricity system, the transmission grid had the second highest effect after hydropower. This is because many power line corridors cross forests, where trees must be removed to build and protect the infrastructure.

“We often forget the transmission grid when we talk about the energy transition and renewables,” co-author Dafna Gilad, a researcher at the Norwegian Institute for Nature Research (NINA) said. “While it is very essential infrastructure, it also has impacts because it’s so extensive, with many kilometres of overhead power lines.”

However, when the researchers did their analysis, they found that the open landscapes associated with power lines were actually beneficial for plants, amphibians and reptiles. However, that was not true for birds and mammal species.

Can we do more with less?

In the end, the researchers found, the most important big-picture factor in determining how much damage would result from renewable energy expansion was overall demand, not a specific technology.

“Even if you produce most of the additional electricity from onshore wind, hydropower, or solar power, it doesn’t really matter. What matters is how much electricity we will produce overall,” Gilad said.

“It’s easy to focus mainly on cost or on where infrastructure is easiest to build,” she said. “But biodiversity also has to be part of the decision-making process. We need more renewable energy, but we also need to minimize impacts on natural areas.”

Borgelt said the study is a reminder that not all renewable energy projects have the same ecological footprint.

“Once we zoom in, location matters,” he said. “Some projects can produce large amounts of electricity with relatively low biodiversity impacts, while others create much larger conflicts with nature. That means planners can identify lower-conflict projects and make better siting decisions.”

Reference:
Jan Borgelt, Dafna Gilad, Roel May, Francesca Verones, Renewable energy growth amplifies land pressure on Norwegian biodiversity, Cleaner Energy Systems, Vol. 13, 2026. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cles.2026.100238

Journal

Cleaner Energy Systems

DOI

10.1016/j.cles.2026.100238

Method of Research

Computational simulation/modeling

Subject of Research

Not applicable

Article Title

Renewable energy growth amplifies land pressure on Norwegian biodiversity

WAIT, WHAT?!

Cutting methane could slow the recovery of the ozone layer

University of Reading

Reducing methane emissions will slow climate change but could also slow the recovery of the stratospheric ozone layer, new research from the University of Reading shows.

The study found that cutting methane makes two other groups of gases more effective at destroying ozone. When methane levels fall, gases derived from halocarbons and nitrous oxide become more chemically active and break down the ozone layer more quickly. The more aggressive the methane reduction, the slower the ozone layer’s recovery.

Published today (29th May 2026) in Geophysical Research Letters, the research indicates that the recovery of the ozone layer could be set back if action on methane is not matched by continued action on other damaging gases.

Dr James Weber, lead author from the Department of Meteorology, University of Reading, said: “The findings do not suggest that cutting methane is the wrong thing to do. Methane is the second-most important greenhouse gas resulting from human activity, after carbon dioxide, and reducing it remains one of the fastest ways to slow climate change, with benefits for air quality as well.

“The research shows that the ongoing action to reduce emissions of halocarbons and nitrous oxide becomes even more important if countries also cut methane. Without those additional reductions, the gains from methane cuts could come with an unintended cost to the ozone layer.”

Concerns for human health

The ozone layer sits high in the atmosphere and has been recovering since countries agreed to phase out the chemicals that damaged it, mainly halocarbons called CFCs, under the United Nations’ Montreal Protocol in 1987. The study suggests that by 2100, the total amount of ozone in the atmosphere could be 2.4% lower in a scenario with large methane cuts compared to one without.

The area of land exposed to the highest levels of ultraviolet radiation, classed as "extreme" by the World Health Organization, could be 30 to 35% larger by 2070 as a result. High UV exposure is linked to skin cancer and other health problems.

Researchers including Weber and Maisie Wright used the UK Earth System Model (UKESM), a computer model that simulates the atmosphere, ocean and land surface, to test what happens to the ozone layer under different levels of methane emission reduction. The team tested a range of scenarios running over the course of this century, from realistic near-term cuts to more extreme reductions used to probe the robustness of the findings.

Journal

Geophysical Research Letters

DOI

10.1029/2025GL119900

Article Title

Methane emission reductions slow stratospheric ozone recovery by amplifying the potency of ozone depleting substances

Article Publication Date

29-May-2026

US Maternal health knowledge strong, but gaps remain

Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania

Beliefs that Mother's Health Impacts Baby's Health — image:
Annenberg Science and Public Health (ASAPH) surveys Jun. 2023 - Apr. 2026
view more
Credit: Annenberg Public Policy Center

Most Americans know that how well a mother takes care of herself before and during pregnancy affects the health of a baby, but many people remain unclear about some specific maternal health recommendations, including when to start avoiding alcohol, according to a new nationally representative survey from the Annenberg Public Policy Center (APPC) of the University of Pennsylvania.

Among both adults and the subgroup of women of childbearing age (18 to 49 years), the survey finds significant increases in the year from April 2025 to April 2026 in knowing that how well a person takes care of their own health before getting pregnant affects the health of their baby.

In addition, the already high proportion of women of childbearing age who know that drinking beer or wine during pregnancy is not safe increased significantly since 2025 by 8 percentage points, to 90% from 82%. However, nearly 1 in 3 people do not know that if you are trying to become pregnant, you should not drink alcohol.

Many other maternal health measures remain unchanged, according to Wave 29 of the Annenberg Science and Public Health (ASAPH) survey, which was conducted April 14-28, 2026, among 1,639 U.S. adults. See the end of this release or the topline for further details.

“Pregnancy health decisions are shaped not only by patients and clinicians, but also by family members, partners, and social networks,” said Patrick E. Jamieson, director of APPC’s Annenberg Health and Risk Communication Institute, which oversees the survey. “Accurate public understanding of maternal health recommendations – including nutrition and the risks of alcohol use and smoking – is essential to improving outcomes for parents and babies.”

Most Americans understand key pregnancy health basics

The survey finds broad awareness of many behaviors and conditions that affect pregnancy outcomes, with general knowledge that one’s health affects the health of one’s baby – before and during pregnancy – rising to levels previously seen in 2023:

90% know that how well a person takes care of their health before getting pregnant affects their infant’s health, a statistically significant increase from 86% in 2025. Among the subgroup of women of childbearing age, 86% know that taking care of one’s health before pregnancy affects infant health, an 11-point increase from 75% in 2025.
93% of adults and 88% of women of childbearing age know that how well someone takes care of their health during pregnancy also affects the health of their baby, statistically unchanged from 2025.
83% of adults correctly say pregnant people should be tested for diabetes, reflecting a 3-point statistical increase from 80% in 2025. Among women of childbearing age, 86% say one should be tested for diabetes when pregnant, including 65% who say this is definitely true (a statistically significant increase from 54% in 2025) and 21% who say it is probably true.
77% know untreated high blood pressure increases the risk of stroke during pregnancy, statistically unchanged from 2025.
76% know that people who are or may become pregnant should take a daily vitamin containing folic acid, which is a B vitamin, up from 71% in 2025.

The CDC recommends folic acid supplements before and during pregnancy because it helps prevent major birth defects of the brain and spine.

Knowledge gaps remain around iron supplements and healthy weight gain

Despite strong knowledge in some areas, uncertainty persists about other recommendations for maternal health:

Only 40% know that iron supplements are recommended during pregnancy only if a health care provider determines that a patient is anemic. However, nearly 1 in 4 (24%) incorrectly believe that all pregnant people should take iron supplements every day, an increase from 19% in 2025.

The federal Office on Women’s Health, part of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, recommends that pregnant women talk to their doctor or nurse before taking iron pills, as too much iron can be harmful.

About half of all adults (48%) and women of childbearing age (53%) correctly identify that a person of normal weight should gain 25–35 pounds during pregnancy, statistically unchanged from prior years.

The CDC recommends that people with a normal pre-pregnancy weight gain between 25 and 35 pounds during pregnancy.

Most know dangers of alcohol use and smoking, but uncertainty remains

After declines for most of the last 50 years, rates of alcohol consumption during pregnancy have been increasing again over the past decade, according to STAT News. Its analysis of 2024 U.S. data shows that “more than 1 in 8 pregnant adults reported drinking in the past month” – and of those who drank, “a quarter reported having four or more drinks in one sitting – binge drinking – in the prior month.”

Although the Annenberg survey finds that knowledge of the risks of alcohol use during pregnancy is high, knowledge about alcohol use before pregnancy is somewhat less consistent:

90% of women of childbearing age know that the statement, “Drinking wine or beer during pregnancy is safe” is false, up from 82% in 2025; 87% of all adults correctly believe the statement to be false, no change from 2025.
66% of all adults and women of childbearing age know that it is most accurate to say that someone trying to become pregnant should stop drinking alcohol before and during pregnancy. But 20% of women of childbearing age and 23% of all adults incorrectly believe it’s most accurate to say that alcohol use should stop as soon as someone learns they are pregnant.

According to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, “If you are trying to get pregnant, you should not drink alcohol.” The CDC says there is “no known safe amount of alcohol use during pregnancy.”

The survey also shows widespread recognition of the risks associated with smoking during pregnancy, statistically unchanged from 2025:

84% know smoking during pregnancy increases the risk of birth defects.
81% know smoking increases the chances of early delivery.
80% know smoking during pregnancy increases the likelihood that a baby will be underweight at birth.
58% of adults know smoking around a baby increases the risk of sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS); 67% of women 18 to 49 know this is true, significantly higher than the general U.S. adult population.

CDC guidance states that smoking during and after pregnancy increases the risk of premature birth, birth defects, low birth weight, and SIDS.

Other maternal health knowledge: Breastfeeding and reducing risk of SIDS

Other areas covered by the survey include the benefits of breastfeeding and reducing the risk of sleep-related infant deaths, such as SIDS and accidental suffocation. The survey shows that:

76% of all adults and 77% of women of childbearing age know that breastfeeding benefits both the baby and the breastfeeding parent.

Breastfeeding provides the baby with nutrition, protection against some short- and long-term illnesses and diseases, and a mother’s antibodies to help the baby develop a strong immune system, according to the CDC, and also can benefit the mother by reducing her risk of breast cancer, type 2 diabetes, and high blood pressure.

Women of childbearing age (77%) are significantly more likely than all adults (66%) to know that the correct way to put a new baby down to sleep is on the infant’s back.

The CDC supports the 2022 recommendations issued by the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) to place infants on their back at all sleep times – for naps and at nighttime – to reduce the risk of sleep-related infant death.

APPC’s ASAPH survey

The findings come from Wave 29 of the Annenberg Science and Public Health survey (ASAPH), conducted April 14-28, 2026, among 1,639 U.S. adults. It was conducted for the policy center by SSRS, an independent research company. The nationally representative probability-based panel, first empaneled in April 2021, has a margin of sampling error of ± 3.5 percentage points at the 95% confidence level. All figures are rounded to the nearest whole number and may not add to 100%. Combined subcategories may not add to totals in the topline and text due to rounding.

Download the topline and methodology report.

The policy center has been tracking the American public’s knowledge, beliefs, and behaviors regarding vaccination, Covid-19, flu, RSV, and other consequential health issues through the Annenberg Science and Public Health (ASAPH) survey and separate national samples since April 2021. The ASAPH survey is conducted under the auspices of APPC’s Annenberg Health and Risk Communication Institute (AHRCI) by a team that includes Ken Winneg, managing director of survey research; research analysts Laura A. Gibson and Shawn Patterson Jr.; and Patrick E. Jamieson, director of the Annenberg Health and Risk Communication Institute.

See other recent Annenberg health survey news releases:

Uncertainty on STI vaccines: Survey highlights persistent uncertainty on STI vaccines (May 21, 2026)
How the public views scientists: Scientists esteemed by public, with vaccine scientists seen as similar to scientists in general (April 27, 2026)
Alcohol and cancer: Awareness of alcohol-cancer link holds steady despite omission in new U.S. dietary guidelines (March 19, 2026)
Trust in health leaders: Stark divide: Americans more confident in career scientists at U.S. health agencies than leaders (March 5, 2026)
RSV: Most would recommend RSV immunizations for infants, older adults, and during pregnancy (Jan. 21, 2026)

The Annenberg Public Policy Center was established in 1993 to educate the public and policy makers about communication’s role in advancing public understanding of political, science, and health issues at the local, state, and federal levels.

Method of Research

Survey

Subject of Research

People