It’s possible that I shall make an ass of myself. But in that case one can always get out of it with a little dialectic. I have, of course, so worded my proposition as to be right either way (K.Marx, Letter to F.Engels on the Indian Mutiny)
Friday, July 17, 2026
Biochar helps earthworms cope with combined copper and glyphosate contamination
Earthworm behavior reveals that copper and a commercial glyphosate formulation can become more harmful when they occur together, while a modest biochar amendment partially restores soil habitability
Shenyang Agricultural University Collaborative Journals
Credit: João Ricardo Sousa, Carolina Matos, Tiago Azevedo, Elisabete Nascimento Gonçalves, Vishnu D. Rajput, Abhishek Singh, Karen Ghazaryan, Francisco Saraiva, Tao Zhang & Rupesh Kumar Singh
Agricultural soils are often exposed to more than one chemical at a time, yet environmental risk assessments commonly examine pollutants individually. A new study shows that combined exposure to copper and a commercial glyphosate formulation caused substantially stronger stress responses in earthworms than either contaminant alone. Adding biochar to the soil significantly reduced these behavioral effects, highlighting a potentially practical strategy for managing mixed agricultural pollution.
“Our findings show that contaminant mixtures can create ecological risks that may be underestimated when copper and glyphosate are assessed separately,” said senior author Rupesh Kumar Singh of the Universidade de Trás-os-Montes e Alto Douro in Portugal. “Biochar did not completely eliminate the effects, but it clearly improved soil habitability and reduced the earthworms’ response to contamination.”
Copper is widely used in fungicides, particularly in vineyards, orchards, and horticultural systems. Although it is an essential micronutrient, repeated applications can cause copper to accumulate to toxic concentrations in soil. Glyphosate-based herbicides are also applied extensively in agricultural and nonagricultural environments. Because the two products may be used in the same locations and during overlapping periods, soil organisms can be exposed to both simultaneously.
To investigate this combined risk, the researchers used the earthworm Eisenia fetida, a widely recognized indicator of soil health. Earthworms contribute to decomposition, nutrient cycling, soil aggregation, and aeration, making their behavior an ecologically meaningful measure of whether soil remains suitable for life.
The team conducted a standardized 48-hour avoidance test in which earthworms could move between uncontaminated soil and soil containing different concentrations of copper, glyphosate formulation, or both. Avoidance behavior provides an early warning of chemical stress because earthworms may leave unsuitable soil before exposure causes mortality or reproductive damage.
When tested individually, both contaminants produced clear concentration-dependent responses. Glyphosate treatments caused avoidance rates of approximately 40% to 60%, while copper treatments produced avoidance ranging from 40% to 87%.
The effects became stronger when the contaminants were combined. Earthworm avoidance increased from 60% at the lowest mixture concentration to 100% at the highest concentration, indicating that the contaminated soil had become severely unsuitable as a habitat. Even moderate combined exposure produced a stronger response than the corresponding individual treatments.
The researchers suggest that interactions between copper and glyphosate may alter their mobility, persistence, or biological availability. Glyphosate can bind metal ions such as copper, while elevated copper concentrations may inhibit microorganisms involved in glyphosate degradation. Additives in commercial herbicide formulations may also contribute to toxicity.
To test a possible mitigation strategy, the team added 1% biochar by soil weight, equivalent to an agronomically realistic application rate of approximately 20 metric tons per hectare. The biochar was produced from forestry residues through pyrolysis.
Biochar reduced earthworm avoidance by 29% in one combined treatment and by 27% in the most highly contaminated treatment. Its porous structure and reactive surface groups may immobilize copper and glyphosate, reducing the fraction available to soil organisms.
The researchers emphasize that the experiments used standardized artificial soil to ensure controlled and reproducible conditions. Natural soils contain more complex mineral, organic, and microbial components that may influence contaminant behavior. Field studies, longer exposure periods, and additional measures such as reproduction and biochemical responses will therefore be needed.
Nevertheless, the results demonstrate that earthworm avoidance tests can rapidly detect risks from contaminant mixtures and that biochar may help protect the biological quality of polluted agricultural soils.
===
Journal reference: Sousa JR, Matos C, Azevedo T, Gonçalves EN, Rajput VD, et al. 2026. Mitigating the effects of copper and commercial glyphosate formulations with biochar: insights from Eisenia fetida avoidance assays. Biochar X 2: e015 doi: 10.48130/bchax-0026-0013
Biochar X(e-ISSN: 3070-1686)is an open access, online-only journal aims to transcend traditional disciplinary boundaries by providing a multidisciplinary platform for the exchange of cutting-edge research in both fundamental and applied aspects of biochar. The journal is dedicated to supporting the global biochar research community by offering an innovative, efficient, and professional outlet for sharing new findings and perspectives. Its core focus lies in the discovery of novel insights and the development of emerging applications in the rapidly growing field of biochar science.
In a global collaborativestudy, researchers compared three districts in Sulawesi using interviews and document analysis to identify why some indigenous adat communities secured formal recognition while others did not. The approach highlights how local politics, legal procedures, and advocacy organizations influence recognition and offers practical recommendations for improving the process.
Credit: Andi Rahmat Hidayat from Hasanuddin University, Indonesia Image source link: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264837726001456
Across Indonesia, many indigenous communities, known locally as adat, have long sought recognition of their customary rights to forests and ancestral lands. Under President Suharto's authoritarian regime, large areas of customary land were taken away from indigenous communities and brought under state control. Although Indonesia's transition to democracy and decentralization after 1998 created new opportunities for adat communities to reclaim their ancestral lands, progress has remained slow.
In 2013, a landmark constitutional court ruling recognized that forests within customary territories were no longer state forests. However, by 2024, only 240 of the country's 1,425 adat communities (13.8%) had received formal recognition, covering just 244,195 hectares of the estimated 22.8 million hectares of potential customary forest land.
An important question still remains – why has the recognition of land rights succeeded in some communities but not in others? Now, a global study involving Andi Rahmat Hidayat, Lecturer at Hasanuddin University, Indonesia, has sought answers to this question, which remained less explored in existing literature. The findings reveal how local political conditions and legal procedures shape the recognition of customary land rights across Indonesia.
This study was made available online on April 14, 2026, and will be published in Volume 167 of Land Use Policy on August 1, 2026.
Explaining the rationale behind this study, Hidayat says, " Understanding this variation offers nuanced insights into the effects of decentralization and democratization on the ground, particularly with regard to local customary land rights struggle."
To examine this complex landscape, the study compared the experiences of “adat” communities in three districts on the island of Sulawesi—Enrekang, Sinjai, and Pasangkayu. They conducted 58 semi-structured interviews with community leaders, local activists, journalists, academics, and government officials, and reviewed government regulations, academic papers, meeting records, and online sources related to customary land rights.
Together, the interviews and document review revealed that although Indonesia's national legal framework recognizes customary land rights, obtaining formal recognition largely depends on local governments. The researchers describe this as "legal fragmentation," where communities must first prove their status as adat communities and document their customary territories before local governments will formally recognize their land rights.
The study found that communities that developed strong political connections with influential local leaders were more successful in securing formal recognition of their customary land rights. In Enrekang, adat representatives formed close ties with district leaders, helping make the recognition of adat communities a legislative priority. In contrast, communities in Sinjai and Pasangkayu struggled to achieve similar progress. Despite meeting many of the legal requirements, they lacked strong political representation and encountered less responsive local governments.
A crucial support system for these communities has been the Indigenous Peoples Alliance of the Archipelago (AMAN), Indonesia's largest indigenous advocacy organization. AMAN helped communities strengthen their land claims by documenting ancestral histories, mapping customary territories, building relationships with local officials, and navigating the legal process required for recognition.
To improve recognition of customary land rights, the researchers propose several measures which can facilitate the prospects of recognition. Elaborating further, Hidayat says, “We propose simplifying bureaucratic procedures, strengthening the capacities of local NGOs, emphasizing the importance of developing close informal ties with local leaders, and reforming the electoral system to reduce politicians' vulnerability to co-optation by extractive interests.”
By advancing the understanding of uneven land recognition patterns and offering solutions to even out these differences, the study aligns with the findings of the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) report Land and Human Rights: Standards and Applications (2015), which states that "Land is not a mere commodity, but an essential element for the realization of many human rights." It also advances several United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly, SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions) and SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities) by emphasizing the importance of recognizing land rights, ensuring equitable access to resources, and strengthening inclusive governance systems that protect the rights of marginalized communities.
Ensuring equal access to land rights for Indonesia's adat communities is a must if these populations are to be safeguarded. The findings of this study suggest that national legal reforms alone are not enough; they must be supported by effective implementation, responsive local leadership, and stronger institutional support for adat communities.
About Hasanuddin University, Indonesia Hasanuddin University (Universitas Hasanuddin or Unhas) is one of Indonesia’s largest autonomous universities, located in Makassar. Established on September 10, 1956, and named after Sultan Hasanuddin of the Gowa Kingdom, the university has grown into a major center for higher education with 17 faculties, including medicine, engineering, law, agriculture, and natural sciences. Its origins date back to 1947 with an economics faculty linked to the University of Indonesia. Today, Unhas focuses on advancing science, technology, arts, and culture, with a strong emphasis on the Indonesian Maritime Continent, aiming to develop innovative and globally competitive graduates.
About Andi Rahmat Hidayat from Hasanuddin University, Indonesia Andi Rahmat Hidayat is a lecturer in the Department of Public Administration at Hasanuddin University, Indonesia, and a researcher specializing in public policy and governance. His research focuses on public policy, collaborative governance, local governance, citizenship, social activism, and public sector reform. He is particularly interested in how Indonesia's democratic transition and decentralization have shaped the recognition of customary land rights for adat (indigenous) communities. Through his work, he examines the interactions between local governments and adat communities, exploring the political and institutional factors that enable or hinder the formal recognition of indigenous land rights in Indonesia.
Wildlife protection frameworks in both the EU and the UK need stronger and more consistent implementation – and must recognise animals as “individuals capable of experiencing suffering”, rather than mere ecological assets.
This is the argument from authors of a new peer-reviewed study, which, in providing the first comprehensive comparative examination of EU and UK wildlife legislation in the post-Brexit era, exposes a disconnect between ambitious policy goals and practical implementation.
The research team, environmental lawyers Dr Caroline Cox and Dr Meganne Natali of the University of Portsmouth, reveal significant shortcomings in wildlife protection frameworks across Europe and the United Kingdom, despite decades of legislative development and billions in conservation investment.
“Our study finds that while both the EU and the UK have developed complex legal structures for wildlife protection, neither system delivers a coherent or fully effective framework,” Drs Cox and Natali explain.
“In the EU, wildlife protection remains fragmented, selective, and exception-based, with species safeguarded only when expressly listed and protection frequently weakened through exception that allows a national, local or regional administration in an EU member state to deviate from a given regulation (derogations) and political compromise.
“In the UK, outdated legislation and weak enforcement further undermine conservation outcomes.”
Key findings
European Union framework under scrutiny
The research identifies fundamental contradictions within the EU's wildlife protection system, despite its reputation as one of the world's most comprehensive:
Only 16% of habitats listed under the Habitats Directive (an EU environmental legislation designed to protect endangered species and habitats) are currently in “favourable condition”
53% of bird species assessed between 2013-2018 showed “unfavourable conservation status” (when a species or habitat is not considered to be in a healthy, secure, and sustainable condition for the long term).
The EU's protection system operates through "exceptions rather than universality," (the way in which EU wildlife laws protects only selected species and habitats, rather than providing protection to wildlife generally) leaving countless species without legal recognition.
UK post-Brexit challenges
The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, Britain's cornerstone wildlife legislation, faces mounting criticism:
Nearly one in six of the UK's 10,000+ surveyed species risk extinction
Only 14% of important wildlife habitats are in good condition
Wildlife crime conviction rates remain significantly below average for all crimes
The Act's five-yearly review system leaves species vulnerable to political shifts and ministerial priorities
An anthropocentric logic
A key problem baked into both of the frameworks is a certain anthropocentric logic, the paper claims. Under this, wildlife is protected because of its value to humans—for example, via ecological services, agricultural balance or landscape aesthetics—rather than for the wildlife themselves.
“Even where animal sentience is recognised at treaty level,” the authors note, such as in EU primary law and the UK’s Animal Welfare (Sentience) Act 2022, “this recognition has not been operationalised within biodiversity law.”
According to the lawyers, the benefit of environmental protections regarding wild animals specifically as sentient beings is that it introduces ‘ethical continuity’ into the legal framework; at present, protection is all too conditional and reversible.
“Species are protected when they serve ecosystem functions of policy objectives—and downgraded when they become politically inconvenient," the authors add.
The European Wolf controversy highlights a “fragile” protection system
This impermanence is exemplified by the EU’s 2024 decision to downgrade the protection status of wolves from ‘strictly protected’ to ‘protected’, granting greater flexibility in the management of wolf populations, including via culling.
This move has been framed as a response to increasing wolf populations across Europe, and a corresponding increase in conflicts with farmers and hunters.
Although the wolf has been a significant conservation achievement for the EU—with numbers having increased by nearly 60% in a decade—studies have cautioned that wolves have not yet achieved the benchmark of a genuinely favourable conservation status.
Furthermore, Cox and Natali note, the European Commission’s prior analysis in 2023 did not support a reduction in the protection level; it also acknowledged that coexistence measures are more effective at protecting livestock from wolves than culling.
The decision to downgrade the protection of wolves, the authors note, was also “marred by procedural shortcomings”, including a restricted public consultation and a lack of transparency around data on livestock losses and wolf behavior; accompanied by pressure from agricultural and hunting lobbying groups; and surrounded by controversy as to whether the predation of European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen’s pony by wolves influenced the policy shift.
“The wolf downgrade demonstrates how fragile protection can become under pressure,” the researchers note.
Another issue in the EU is that wildlife law only protects those species that are explicitly listed in the annexes of the Habitats and Birds Directive – based on scientific assessments of rarity, conservation status and ecological value at the time of drafting.
“Species outside the annexes receive little to no protection,” Dr Natali says.
“Member States can technically comply while limiting the practical scope of conservation. The result is a framework that appears harmonised, but in reality remains fragile and uneven in application.”
Tightening regimes for greater protection
As for how they would like to see protection frameworks improved in both the EU and the UK, Cox and Natali highlight three areas for improvement.
“First, derogation regimes must be tightened,” they say. “Protection cannot remain structurally dependent on broad ‘overriding public interest’ clauses.”
Secondly, the enforcement of protective measures must be strengthened. As the researchers note: “Legal ambition without monitoring and prosecutorial follow-through produces symbolic protection.”
The third would include enhanced cooperation and coexistence-based approaches. “We advocate stronger cross-border cooperation, better integration of wildlife conservation across policy sectors, and the promotion of human–wildlife coexistence strategies rather than conflict-based management,” Dr Natali adds.
Implications for global conservation
The study's findings extend beyond Europe, offering lessons for wildlife governance worldwide. As biodiversity loss accelerates globally, the research underscores the urgent need for legal frameworks that balance human interests with ecological integrity and ethical responsibility.
The research team argue that wildlife law must place animal sentience at the heart of conservation frameworks.
“Without that integration, biodiversity law remains ethically incomplete and politically unstable.
“The true measure of environmental law lies not only in its capacity to preserve species, but in its willingness to govern our shared landscapes with justice, empathy, and foresight,” the authors conclude.
With their initial study complete, the researchers are now moving to develop practical recommendations for implementing improvements to existing wildlife protections – examining how these laws could integrate sentience recognition without collapsing into pure welfare regulation – aiming for a coexistence-based framework that bridges biodiversity governance and animal law.
Summary of the main findings from 75 global biodiversity experiments. Biodiversity effects on productivity were strongest under extreme drought in more-arid grasslands, driven by increased complementarity, whereas comparable context dependence was not detected in forests or under heat extremes.
Biodiversity does not enhance ecosystem productivity equally across all ecosystems under climate extremes. During years of extreme drought, drier grasslands showed the strongest positive effects of biodiversity on productivity.
When extreme drought strikes, drier grasslands receive the greatest productivity benefit from biodiversity. By contrast, forests did not show the same context-dependent pattern under drought, according to a new global synthesis of 75 biodiversity experiments. Researchers from YOKOHAMA National University published their results in Nature Ecology & Evolutionon July 15.
Biodiversity has been studied long before it got its catchy name, though fully exploring all it entails is a never-ending process. Through other studies, it has already been established that biodiversity plays a significant role in an ecosystem’s productivity. What is lesser known is where this biodiversity matters most when climate extremes are taking their toll.
“Our ultimate goal is to move away from a broad ecological insight to a practical basis for climate adaptation,” said Takehiro Sasaki, professor of the Faculty of Environment and Information Sciences at YOKOHAMA National University and first author of the study.
With intense heat waves and droughts becoming more commonplace, this question becomes a crucial one in the space of climate science. A global synthesis of 75 biodiversity experiments sought to answer this question, along with whether these benefits persist, weaken or intensify under times of drought or extreme heat, and if the benefits of biodiversity apply equally to different ecosystems.
In more-arid grasslands, plant diversity had its strongest positive effect on productivity during years of extreme drought. This effect was driven mainly by stronger complementarity among species, consistent with species contributing in more functionally distinct and/or mutually supportive ways under water limitation. In less-arid grasslands, by contrast, drought was associated with stronger selection effects, indicating a greater contribution from a few highly productive species.
Forests did not show comparable context dependence under extreme drought, although this does not mean that biodiversity is unimportant in forests. Heat extremes likewise did not produce clear context-dependent changes in biodiversity effects across ecosystem types or aridity gradients. Across both grasslands and forests, soil nutrient conditions did not detectably modify biodiversity effects under either drought or heat extremes, suggesting that water limitation may become a more important constraint on productivity than soil nutrient supply as climatic stress intensifies.
The study synthesized data from 75 biodiversity experiments in grasslands and forests spanning broad climatic gradients, with experiment durations ranging from 2 to 23 years. These data were linked to long-term daily precipitation and maximum-temperature records, as well as site-level aridity and soil data. The analysis assessed whether aridity and soil nutrient conditions modified biodiversity effects under drought and heat extremes
Results show that biodiversity effects on productivity were strongest under extreme drought in drier grasslands, whereas forests show no comparable context dependence under the same conditions.
Further exploration to fully unpack the question of where biodiversity is going to make the biggest difference when climate extremes hit is necessary. Researchers hope to improve their forest evidence by increasing the duration of studies, improving more sensitive indicators of drought for forest ecosystems, in addition to testing whether the effects of biodiversity are slower to emerge in forests than in grasslands. Looking into the tree health indicators and the crown condition of forests years after extreme climatic anomalies might be better indicators of the ecosystem’s health and the weight the biodiversity of the forest carries.
Another goal of this research is to make the science more predictive for use in geographical blind spots in biodiversity experiments. This type of insight would help prepare ecosystems to better adapt to a warming climate, and ideally make conservation efforts a top priority when it comes to preserving the varied environments present on this planet.
Takehiro Sasaki, affiliated with both the Graduate School of Environment and Information Science and the Institute for Multidisciplinary Sciences at YOKOHAMA National University, together with Yuki Iwachido of the Graduate School of Environment and Information Science and Nico Eisenhauer of the Institute for Multidisciplinary Sciences at YOKOHAMA National University, contributed to this research.
The Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology of Japan, Tottori University, Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, NSF Biodiversity on a Changing Planet Program and NSF Long-Term Ecological Research Prgroam, Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnologia, Swiss National Science Foundation, Margarete-von-Wrangell Fellowship of the Ministry of Science, Research and Arts Baden-Wurttemberg and the European Social Fund, NSF Awards, NSERC DG grant, EXCELLENTIA project, the German Research Foundation, Swedish Research Council Formas and the Agence Nationale de la Recherche made this research possible.
###
YOKOHAMA National University (YNU) is a leading research university dedicated to academic excellence and global collaboration. Its faculties and research institutes lead efforts in pioneering new academic fields, advancing research in artificial intelligence, robotics, quantum information, semiconductor innovation, energy, biotechnology, ecosystems, and smart city development. Through interdisciplinary research and international partnerships, YNU drives innovation and contributes to global societal advancement.
Biodiversity effects under climate extremes intensify with aridity in grasslands but not forests
Article Publication Date
15-Jul-2026
Scientists discover alternative B-cell development pathway in birds
The discovery overturns a long-standing belief that these immune system-related cells developed exclusively in one organ, painting a better picture of how birds' immune systems develop
Birds possess a specialized organ called the bursa of Fabricius which mammals do not have. It has long been thought that B cells, part of the immune system, are developed exclusively in this organ. However, researchers from Tohoku University have discovered a previously unknown pathway for B-cell development in chickens, overturning the long-standing belief
Details were published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Science of the United States of America on July 15, 2026.
"For more than half a century, this unique organ was considered the sole site of B-cell development in birds," stress Ryota Hirakawa, an assistant professor, and Tomonori Nochi, a professor, at Tohoku University's Graduate School of Agricultural Studies. "We discovered that a distinct population of B cells originates in the bone marrow of chickens and migrates directly to the cecal tonsils, bypassing the bursa of Fabricius entirely."
Hirakawa and his colleagues revealed that after the B cells become established in the cecal tonsils - tissues in a bird's gut that protect the intestinal tract against viral and bacterial pathogens - the B cells transform into IgA-producing plasma cells that populate the intestinal mucosa. The antibody IgA is responsible for maintaining intestinal immune homeostasis by coating beneficial bacteria and preventing harmful microorganisms from crossing the intestinal barrier.
To determine the biological significance of their landmark discovery, the team developed a modern where both the conventional bursa-dependent pathway and the newly discovered bursa-independent pathway were inhibited. Inhibition caused IgA production to cease, which in turn led to major alterations in the gut microbiota. Harmful bacteria proliferated, including Streptococcus alactolyticus, translocating from the intestine to the liver.
The bacterial invasion triggered liver inflammation and disrupted normal metabolic function, demonstrating that the two B-cell populations cooperate to establish an effective intestinal barrier and maintain gut-liver homeostasis.
Tomonori Nochi says that the study comes at a time when antimicrobial resistance has become one of the greatest challenges facing livestock and poultry production worldwide. "Alternative, non-antibiotic strategies are needed for avian disease prevention. But to develop them, we need a more complete understanding of the immune system of birds. The findings in our study not only challenge our fundamental understanding of avian immunology, but also elucidate how intestinal immunity develops and protects the host."
Looking ahead, the researchers seek to identify the molecular and environmental factors that stimulate both the conventional bursa-dependent and the newly discovered bursa-independent B-cell developmental pathways. Targeting these two complementary pathways could lead to ways to enhance intestinal IgA production and establish immune- and microbiota-based strategies that promote healthy poultry development.
The study was conducted in collaboration with Kyoritsu Seiyaku Corporation, which hosts the Joint Research Laboratory of Animal Mucosal Immunology at Tohoku University, and GENODAS Inc.
Cooperation between two B-cell pathways establishes an intestinal IgA barrier that safeguards gut-liver homeostasis.
