Category: The Conversation – USA

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Andrea De Stefano, Assistant Professor of Forestry, Mississippi State University

For thousands of years, one tree species defined the cultural and ecological identity of what is now the American South: the longleaf pine. The forest once stretched across 92 million acres from Virginia to Texas, but about 5% of that original forest remains. It was one of North America’s richest ecosystems, and it nearly disappeared.

As part of my job with the Mississippi State University forestry extension, I help private landowners, public agencies and nonprofit conservation groups restore these ecosystems. The forests’ story begins before European settlement, when Native peoples shaped and sustained this vast landscape using one of nature’s oldest tools: fire.

Longleaf pine trees depend on fire for survival and regeneration. Fire reduces competition from other plants, recycles nutrients into the soil and maintains the open structure of the landscape where longleaf pines grow best. In its open, grassy woodlands, red-cockaded woodpeckers, gopher tortoises, orchids, pitcher plants and hundreds of other species find homes.

Native stewardship

Longleaf pine seedlings spend about three to 10 years in a low, grasslike stage, building deep roots and resisting flames that sweep across the forest floor. Regular, low-intensity fires keep the ground open and sunny, and allow an incredibly diverse understory to flourish: pine lilies, meadow beauties, white bog orchids, carnivorous pitcher plants and dozens of native grasses.

For millennia, Native American tribes intentionally set fires to keep these areas open for hunting, travel and agriculture. This practice is evident from Indigenous oral histories, early European accounts and archaeological findings. Fire was part of daily life – a tool, not a danger.

European settlers arrive

When the first Europeans made it to that part of North America, they encountered a landscape that seemed almost limitless: tall, straight pines ideal for shipbuilding; deep soils in the uplands suited for farming; and understory, the plants that grow in the shade of the forest, perfect for open-range grazing.

Longleaf pine trees became the backbone of early industries. They provided lumber, fuel and naval supplies, such as tar, pitch and turpentine, which are essential for waterproofing wooden ships. By the mid-1800s, the naval industry alone consumed millions of longleaf pines each year, especially in the Carolinas, Georgia and Florida.

At the same time, livestock, especially hogs, roamed freely and caused unexpected ecological damage. Hogs rooted up the starchy, above-ground stems of young longleaf seedlings, often wiping out an area’s entire year of seedlings before they could grow beyond the grass stage.

Still, even into the mid-1800s, millions of acres of longleaf forest remained intact. That would soon change.

Industrial logging and the collapse of a forest

By the late 19th century, the industrial South entered a new era of logging. Railroads could reach deep into forests that were previously inaccessible. Steam-powered skidders dragged huge logs to mobile mills that could turn thousands of acres of trees into lumber in a single season. Lumber towns appeared overnight, then disappeared once the last trees were cut.

Most longleaf forests were felled between 1880 and 1930, with little thought given to regrowth. Land was cheap, timber was valuable, and scientific forestry was in its infancy. After logging, what was left on the ground at many sites burned in wildfires too hot for young longleaf pines to survive. Some of the fires were ignited accidentally by sparks from railroads or logging operations, others by lightning, and some by people attempting to clear land.

Other parcels of land were overrun by hogs or were converted to farms. Other forestland simply failed to regenerate because longleaf requires both good seed years and carefully timed burning to establish new generations of seedlings. By 1930, the once-vast longleaf forest was effectively gone.

A turning point

The early 20th century brought public debates about fire. National forestry leaders, trained in northern ecosystems where wildfire was destructive, insisted that all fire was harmful and should be quickly extinguished. Southern landowners disagreed. They had long understood that fire kept the woods open, reduced pests and improved forage.

A series of pioneering researchers, including Herbert Stoddard, Austin Cary and others, proved scientifically what Native peoples had practiced for centuries: Prescribed fire is essential for longleaf pine forests.

By the 1930s, prescribed fire began to gain acceptance among Southern landowners and wildlife biologists, and by the 1940s it was recognized by state forestry agencies and the U.S. Forest Service as a legitimate management tool. This shift marked the beginning of a slow recovery of the forest.

Yet, after the logging of old-growth longleaf pine forests ended, foresters faced challenges regenerating the trees. Early planting attempts often failed. The longleaf species grows more slowly than loblolly or slash pine, making it less attractive to industry.

Millions of acres that once supported longleaf pines were converted to fast-growing plantation pines through the mid-20th century. By 1990, only 2.9 million acres of longleaf pine forest remained.

A new era of restoration

But beginning in the 1980s, research breakthroughs had begun to offer the prospect of change. Studies across the Southeast demonstrated that longleaf pine trees could be reliably planted if seedling quality, site preparation and fire timing were carefully managed.

Improved genetics – for instance, choosing those seedlings more likely to grow straight and tall and those more resistant to disease and drought – and starting seedlings in containers increased survival dramatically.

At the same time, landowners and agencies began to appreciate the benefits of longleaf pines. They are strong enough to withstand hurricanes, resistant to pests and disease, and provide high-quality timber and exceptional wildlife habitat. And they are compatible with grazing, need little to no fertilizer or other support to grow, and are ready to adapt to a warming, more fire-prone climate.

Today, many organizations are restoring longleaf pine trees across national forests, private lands and working farms.

Landowners are choosing the species not only for conservation but for recreation, hunting and cultural reasons.

In many parts of the South, longleaf pines have become a symbol of both heritage and resilience to hurricanes, drought, wildfire and climate change.

The longleaf pine ecosystem is more than a forest: It is the story about how people shape landscapes over centuries. It thrived under Native fire stewardship, declined under industrial exploitation, and is now returning – thanks to science, collaboration and cultural rediscovery.

The future of the longleaf pine forest will depend on continued use of prescribed fire, support for and from private landowners and recognition that restoring a complex ecosystem takes time. But across the South, the open, grassy longleaf pine ecosystems are coming back. A forest once given up for lost is becoming, again, a living emblem of the southern landscape.

Andrea De Stefano does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. How fire, people and history shaped the South’s iconic longleaf pine forests – https://theconversation.com/how-fire-people-and-history-shaped-the-souths-iconic-longleaf-pine-forests-272003

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Steven Goldsmith, Associate Professor of Environmental Science, Villanova University

Snow has returned to the Philadelphia region, and along with it the white residues on streets and sidewalks that result from the over-application of deicers such as sodium chloride, or rock salt, as well as more modern salt alternatives.

As an environmental scientist who studies water pollution, I know that much of the excess salt flows into storm drains and ultimately into area streams and rivers.

For example, a citizen science stream monitoring campaign led by the Stroud Water Research Center in Chester County – about 40 miles west of Philadelphia – found that chloride concentrations in southeastern Pennsylvania streams remained higher than EPA-recommended levels not only after winter snowfalls, but also in many cases during some summer months – showing salt persists in watersheds year-round.

Once there, it can have a profound impact on fish and other aquatic life. This includes a decrease in the abundance of macroinvertebrates, which are small organisms that form the base of many freshwater food webs, and reductions in growth and reproduction in fish.

Increased salt concentrations can also degrade and pollute the local water supply. Working with other researchers at Villanova University, I have measured spikes in sodium levels in Philadelphia region tap water during and immediately after snow melts. These spikes can pose a health risk to people on low-sodium diets.

What local governments can do

In recent years, many state and local governments nationwide have adopted best management practices – such as roadway brining, more efficient salt spreaders and improved storm forecasting – to limit damage from salt to infrastructure, including roads and bridges.

Roadway brining works by applying a salt solution, or brine, that contains about 23% sodium chloride by weight prior to a storm. Unlike road salt, brines adhere to all pavement and can prevent ice from sticking to the roadway during the storm. This potentially reduces the need for subsequent road salt applications.

The environmental benefits of these best practices, when properly administered, are promising. The Maryland State Highway Administration reduced its total salt usage on roadways by almost 50% by using multiple best practices.

The extent to which these strategies will continue to reduce the road salt burden on roads and, by extension, improve the water quality of streams elsewhere will largely depend on political will and corresponding economic investments.

Yet, roads are not the only source of salt to our streams. Recent studies have suggested that the cumulative amount of salt applied to other impervious surfaces in a watershed, such as parking lots, driveways and sidewalks, can exceed that applied to roads.

For example, one survey of private contractors suggests their application rate can be up to 10 times higher than that of transportation departments.

I do not know of any studies that have been able to determine a household application rate.

How to salt at home

To better understand how individuals or households deice their properties, and what they know about the environmental impacts of deicing, I collaborated with a team of environmental scientists and psychologists at Villanova University and the local conservation-focused nonprofit Lower Merion Conservancy.

In winter 2024-2025, the Lower Merion Conservancy disseminated a survey in a social media campaign that received over 300 responses from residents in southeastern Pennsylvania. We are completing the analysis to determine a household application rate, but some of our initial findings provide a starting point for engaging households on how to limit the environmental impact of deicers.

One key finding is that only 7% of respondents reported being aware of municipal ordinances regarding deicer use on residential sidewalks.

Of those who applied deicers to their property, 55% indicated they were unsure whether they used them in a way that would reduce environmental harm.

About 80% of all respondents indicated interest in learning more about the environmental impacts of road salt.

Based on these survey results, here are several actionable steps that homeowners can take to reduce their deicer use.

1. Check your local municipal ordinance

Most municipalities in the greater Philadelphia area do not require deicer use but instead require clearing a walkable path – in most cases, 3 feet wide – free of snow and ice within a certain time frame after a storm event ends.

For example, the city of Philadelphia requires this be done within six hours, the borough of Narberth within 12 hours and Lower Merion and Haverford townships within 24 hours.

Narberth and Lower Merion specify which abrasives – such as sand, ashes and sawdust – or deicers, like rock salt, can be used if ice persists.

2. Use rock salt and other deicers judiciously

The recommended amount from conservation organizations is one 12-ounce coffee mug of deicer for every 10 sidewalk squares. Keep in mind that “pet-friendly” deicers are not necessarily environmentally friendly. Many of these deicers contain magnesium chloride, which is harmful to plants and aquatic life.

Deicers coupled with dyes might be a good choice to visually prevent over-application. They can also temporarily reduce concrete’s surface reflectivity, thereby increasing its warming effect and enabling melting.

Finally, it’s important to know that many deicers become ineffective at or below certain temperatures. Rock salt/sodium chloride loses its effectiveness at 15 degrees Fahrenheit (minus 9 Celsius), magnesium chloride at 5 F (minus 15 C) and calcium chloride at minus 20 degrees F (minus 29 C). If temperatures are expected to fall below those numbers, it might make sense to skip the salt.

3. Sweep up after

We have all seen rock salt on sidewalks for days on end, especially when a storm never materializes. If the next storm brings rain, this leftover salt will form a concentrated brine solution that will wash down the nearest storm drain and into a local waterway.

Leftover salt can be swept up and reapplied after the next storm event, saving money and supplies.

Read more of our stories about Philadelphia and Pennsylvania, or sign up for our Philadelphia newsletter on Substack.

Steven Goldsmith receives funding from the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation. He is affiliated with Villanova University.

– ref. Oversalting your sidewalk or driveway harms local streams and potentially even your drinking water – 3 tips to deice responsibly – https://theconversation.com/oversalting-your-sidewalk-or-driveway-harms-local-streams-and-potentially-even-your-drinking-water-3-tips-to-deice-responsibly-274353

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Richie Zweigenhaft, Emeritus Professor of Psychology, Guilford College

Historically, corporate board rooms have been mostly white and mostly male. Yet the trend started shifting in the 1970s, in part due to gains from the civil rights era and pro-diversity efforts by activists and business groups.

I have been monitoring the degree of diversity in the corporate and political worlds for decades. One useful diversity metric is the percentage of boardroom members who are not white men.

And for the third year in a row, white men did not hold the majority of seats on the boards of America’s 50 largest corporations, according to my analysis of the most recent Fortune 500 list. However, the share of white men nonetheless ticked up after a two-year decline.

But knowing the white man/nonwhite man board split in itself is a blunt tool. It doesn’t tell us the nature of the current diversity, how it is related to the broader political climate, and what can be learned about diversity by looking at who the 2025 corporate directors were.

Patterns in the data

Whereas about a decade ago, white men held two-thirds of the seats on the top 50 Fortune boards, in 2023, for the first time, they held fewer than 50%. In 2024, that number dropped to 48.4%, but this year it climbed back to 49.7%.

Since white men make up about 31% of the U.S. population, they still have been very much overrepresented in all three years.

As the percentage of seats held by white men rose from 2024 to 2025, however, the percentage held by white women dropped, from 25% to 24.5%. Other researchers found this same pattern for the entire Fortune 500.

The percentage of seats held by Black people also dropped, from 15% to 14.2%, and likewise those held by Hispanic people, from 6.1% to 5.9%. Meanwhile, the percentage of seats held by Asian people rose slightly, from 5.6% to 5.7%.

The education factor

The large majority of the men and women with Asian backgrounds who held 33 seats on the top 50 Fortune boards in 2025 were born outside the United States, did undergraduate work in their home countries, and then came to the U.S. to attend graduate school.

Most of the Hispanic directors were similarly born outside the country, and many of them did undergraduate or graduate work – or both – in the U.S.

Education matters for future diversity monitoring in part because of the Trump administration’s efforts to make it much harder for noncitizens to come to the U.S. for higher education.

Indeed, denying access to Asian and Hispanic people who wish to study in the U.S. could well, over time, diminish the pipeline to the corporate suite, and it could decrease the number of Asian and Hispanic corporate directors as well.

The politics beyond some notable board changes

It is revealing to look at some of the people who left boards and the appointments of others – changes that resulted in this year’s drop in diversity.

For example, Meta added five people to its board: four white men and an Egyptian American woman. One of the white men was Dana White, the CEO of the Ultimate Fighting Championship and a longtime and currently active Trump supporter.

The woman that Meta added to its board is Dina Powell McCormick. She was deputy national security adviser in Trump’s first term and is married to Dave McCormick, a Republican financier who is currently a U.S. senator from Pennsylvania.

With the addition of White, Powell McCormick and three other white men, the Meta board went from 50% white males in 2024 to 60% in 2025, and it added two Trump supporters with close connections to the president. In late December 2025, Powell McCormick resigned from her position to become Meta’s president and vice chair.

Some other notable changes in diversity from 2024 to 2025 took place on the boards of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Because the Federal Housing Finance Agency regulates these two companies, in 2025 the Trump administration’s hostility toward diversity, equity and inclusion, or DEI, appeared to have a direct effect on the level of diversity on these two boards. In January 2025, Trump nominated William Pulte, a Trump donor, to become the director of the FHFA.

Pulte swiftly got rid of some women directors, Black directors and an Asian director. As a result, the percentage of white male directors on those two boards increased from 40% in 2024 to 65% in 2025. Notably, however, among the new appointees to the board were a Black man, another man whose mother is Iranian and whose father is Pakistani, and a man of Spanish ancestry whose parents were Turkish immigrants.

Trump’s second-term cabinet – which includes five white women, a Black man, and a Hispanic woman – included far less diversity than the cabinets of Presidents Barack Obama and Joe Biden, but twice as much diversity as Trump’s first cabinet. Trump has shown himself to be open to some diversity as long as the diverse appointments – in line with his general policy on recruitment – are sufficiently willing to support him. Similarly, Pulte’s changes decreased diversity while at the same time including some people from diverse backgrounds who were loyal to Trump.

The ironies of elite diversity

All of that ties into a subject I have explored in three editions of a book I co-authored with Bill Domhoff, “Diversity in the Power Elite.” In it, we have looked at what we have called “the ironies of diversity.”

One central irony of diversity is that as a small number of people from previously excluded groups are granted entry into the power elite, the processes by which they are chosen and their very presence provide justification for the continuation of the status quo when it comes to power and the distribution of wealth.

The continued selections of some directors who provide diversity on the boards of the top 50 Fortune companies are part of this process, as is Trump’s surprisingly diverse Cabinet.

The fear among those pushing for greater diversity among corporate leadership is that the data for 2025 might be the beginning of a longer declining trend.

Richie Zweigenhaft does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. White men held less than half the board seats on the top 50 Fortune list for the third straight year — but their numbers are rising – https://theconversation.com/white-men-held-less-than-half-the-board-seats-on-the-top-50-fortune-list-for-the-third-straight-year-but-their-numbers-are-rising-272996

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Linnéa Chapman, Assistant Professor of Marketing, Florida International University

How would you feel if someone gave you a gym membership as a holiday or Valentine’s Day gift?

What about Botox?

Laser hair removal?

Services like those are part of the estimated US$48 billion self-improvement industry. Does this suggest that many people would appreciate self-improvement gifts?

Retailers seem to think so.

The Planet Fitness chain of gyms encourages buying workout equipment for Mother’s Day. The Republic of Tea offers beauty tea, which the company says can improve your complexion, as part of their gift sets. Instagram posts call paying for other people’s Botox treatments “the new flowers,” and tell men that it is what women want for Valentine’s Day.

As an academic who studies consumer behavior, I am particularly interested in social aspects of consumption. Seeing these promotions, I wondered whether consumers take the bait. In other words, do people really give self-improvement products as presents?

Different responses to different gifts

To study what happens when people get self-improvement goods or services as presents, I teamed up with Farnoush Reshadi, a fellow marketing scholar with expertise in both self-improvement and gift-giving.

First we asked 97 adults living in the United States whether they had ever gotten a self-improvement product as a gift. About 60% of these consumers, whom we recruited through an online platform, were women and they were 38.6 years old on average. Two-thirds of them indicated that they had received a self-improvement gift at some point.

Next, we created an experiment to find out how consumers might feel when they receive these gifts.

In it, 209 people imagined that they had received either a self-improvement calendar geared toward sharpening their communication skills or a “did you know” calendar with fun facts, such as bananas are berries.

Participants viewed the calendars, then answered some questions about how they would feel if someone gave them one.

Specifically, we asked to what extent they would feel hurt, wounded and crushed. On average, the people who saw the self-improvement calendar expressed stronger hurt feelings than those who saw the fun facts one.

What can happen to retailers

We also wanted to know how the people who receive self-improvement gifts might cope with their hurt feelings.

Explaining how they felt to the gift-giver seems unlikely, since social norms dictate that you should feel grateful for presents. Expressing other kinds of feelings about gifts, including hurt feelings, is relatively taboo.

Another possibility is that people in this situation cope by venting – either to someone else or by giving the gift a bad review.

This is exactly what we found.

Compared to those who imagined receiving gifts not geared toward self-improvement, people who imagined receiving self-improvement items as gifts consistently said they would give them lower ratings. They also said they were more likely to criticize them.

To be clear, this had nothing to do with the quality of those items.

To verify that, we asked 205 people to imagine either buying the self-improvement calendar or the “did you know?” calendar for themselves. Then, we asked them to rate the calendar. On average, participants gave both the self-improvement calendar and the other calendar about 3.7 out of 5 stars.

This helped us rule out the possibility that people generally disliked the self-improvement calendar or thought it was a bad product.

Bad reviews are bad for business

Spreading negative word of mouth about self-improvement gifts might help people deal with their hurt feelings. But, to state the obvious, it doesn’t help retailers.

Negative product reviews can affect retailers’ revenue and reputations. That means self-improvement gifts don’t just hurt the people receiving them. By stimulating negative word of mouth, they hurt the retailers selling them, too.

To discourage bad reviews from people who get unwelcome gifts, we would suggest that companies not promote self-improvement products as gifts.

Instead, retailers could encourage consumers to buy those goods and services for themselves. This might be especially effective in January, when many people challenge themselves to meet self-improvement goals with New Year’s resolutions. This strategy might work throughout the year, as well.

To deter people from buying these gifts, retailers could refrain from marketing such goods and services that way or putting them on sale before Valentine’s Day and other gift-giving occasions.

Even if retailers were to follow this advice, some of their customers might buy these gifts. What can retailers do then?

2 work-arounds

Our research identified two potential solutions.

First, retailers can offer financial incentives for leaving product reviews.

We conducted a study in which 311 people imagined receiving either a weight-loss tea or a regular tea as a birthday present. Some of the participants also imagined that they would be given a Visa gift card in exchange for leaving a review of the product.

On average, people gave the weight-loss tea a lower rating than the regular tea – unless they had been offered a Visa gift card in exchange for their review. Participants who imagined receiving a weight-loss tea along with a Visa gift card provided ratings that were comparable to those who received a regular tea.

Second, retailers can take care with how they send review requests.

Sometimes these requests aren’t framed as being from anyone in particular. Other times, they’re framed as though a real person sent them, along these lines: “Please review this product. Thanks, Alex.”

We had 306 people imagine receiving a weight-loss tea or a regular tea, accompanied by a review request. Participants then rated the imagined product. On average, the weight-loss tea got lower ratings than the regular tea – unless they received a review request that apparently came from a human.

This suggests that sending review requests that appear to be from a specific person might help retailers avoid negative product reviews from people who get self-improvement products as presents.

This is a good thing, because self-improvement gifts aren’t necessarily bad goods or services. They’re just bad gifts.

So, the next time you shop for presents, my advice is that you skip the self-improvement aisle. Your friend or loved one – and the business you might have bought it from – will be glad you did.

Linnéa Chapman does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Gifts of gym memberships and Botox treatments can lead to hurt feelings – and bad reviews for the businesses – https://theconversation.com/gifts-of-gym-memberships-and-botox-treatments-can-lead-to-hurt-feelings-and-bad-reviews-for-the-businesses-272986

Source: The Conversation – USA (3) – By Charlotte Carlson, Director of the Kendall Reagan Nutrition Center, Colorado State University

Eat this, not that. This one food will cure everything. That food is poison. Cut this food out. Try this diet. Don’t eat at these times. Eat this food and you’ll lose weight. With society’s obsession with food, health and weight, statements like these are all over social media, gyms and even health care offices.

But do you need to follow rules like these to be healthy? Most often the answer is no, because health and nutrition is much more complex and nuanced than a simple list of what to eat and what to avoid. Despite this, rules about health and nutrition are so common because of diet culture – a morality imposed by society that sees falling outside the arbitrary ideal of thinness as a personal failure. Diet culture and the people promoting it expect you to pursue or maintain thinness at all times.

Diet culture norms have led to a multibillion-dollar industry promoting diets that each come with their own set of rules, with each claiming it’s the only way to be healthy or lose weight. When access to nutrition information is at an all-time high online, people are often left digging through conflicting information when trying to figure out what to eat or what a healthy diet look likes.

As a registered dietitian specializing in eating disorders, the majority of my clients have been, and continue to be, harmed by diet culture. They wrestle with guilt and shame around food, and their health is often negatively affected by rigid rules about nutrition. Rather than improving health, research has shown that diet culture increases your risk of unhealthy behaviors, including yo-yo dieting, weight cycling and eating disorders.

If the solution to health isn’t following the rules of diet culture, what is the answer? I believe an all-foods-fit approach to nutrition can offer an antidote.

What is all foods fit?

All foods fit may sound like “eat whatever you want, whenever you want,” but that is an oversimplification of this approach to nutrition. Rather, this model is based on the idea that all foods can fit into a healthy diet by balancing food and nutrition in a way that promotes health. It does this by enabling flexibility in your diet through listening to internal body cues to decide what and when to eat instead of following external rules.

All foods fit allows for nuance to exist in health and nutrition. Diet culture is black and white – foods are either “good” or “bad.” But nutrition and health are much more complex. For starters, many factors beyond diet affect health: exercise, sleep, stress, mental health, socioeconomic status, access to food, and health care, to name a few.

Similarly, while general guidelines around nutrition are available, everyone has individual needs based on their preferences, health status, access to food, daily schedule, cooking skills and more. The flexibility of all foods fit can help you make empowered food choices based on your health goals, tastes, exercise habits and life circumstances.

All foods fit in action

A common pushback to the all-foods-fit approach is that you can’t be healthy if you are eating “unhealthy” foods, and giving yourself permission to eat all foods means you’ll primarily eat the “bad” ones. However, research shows that removing the morality around food can actually lead to healthier food choices by decreasing stress related to food decisions. This reduces the risk of disordered eating, resulting in improved physical health.

To see what an all-foods-fit approach might look like, imagine you’re attending a social event where the food options are pizza, a veggie and dip tray and cookies. According to the diet you’re following, pizza, cookies and dips are all “bad” foods to avoid. You grab some of the veggies to eat but are still hungry.

You’re starving toward the end of the event, but the only food left is cookies. You plan on eating only one but feel so hungry and guilty that you end up eating a lot of cookies and feel out of control. You feel sick when you go home and promise yourself to do better tomorrow. But this binge-restrict cycle will continue.

Now imagine attending the same social event, but you don’t label foods as good or bad. From experience, you know you often feel hungry and unwell after eating pizza by itself. You also know that fiber, which can be found in vegetables, is helpful for gut health and can make you feel more satisfied after meals. So you balance your plate with a couple slices of pizza and a handful of veggies and dip.

You feel pretty satisfied after that meal and don’t feel the need to eat a cookie. Toward the end of the event, you grab a cookie because you enjoy the taste and eat most of it before feeling satisfied. You save the rest of the cookie for later.

Rather than following strict rules and restrictions that can lead to cycles of guilt and shame, an all-food-fits approach can lead to more sustainable healthy habits where stress and disruptions to routine don’t wreak havoc on your overall diet.

How to get started with an all-foods-fit approach

It can be incredibly hard to divest from diet culture and adopt an all-foods-fit approach to nutrition and health. Here are some tips to help you get started:

1. Remove any moral labels on food. Instead of good or bad, or healthy or unhealthy, think about the name of the food or the nutritional components it has. For example, chicken is high in protein, broccoli is a source of fiber, and ice cream is a dessert. Neutral labels can help determine what food choices make sense for you in the moment and reduce any guilt or shame around food.

2. Focus on your internal cues – hunger, fullness, satisfaction and how food makes you physically feel. Becoming attuned to your body can help you regulate food choices and determine what eating pattern makes you feel your best.

3. Eat consistently. When you aren’t eating regularly, it can be hard to feel in control around food. Your hunger can become more intense and your body less sensitive to fullness hormones. Implement an eating schedule that spaces food regularly throughout the day, filling any prolonged gaps between meals with a snack.

4. Reintroduce foods you previously restricted. Start small with foods that feel less scary or with a small amount of a food you’re anxious about. This could look like adding a piece of chocolate to lunch most days, or trying out a bagel for one breakfast. By intentionally adding these foods back into your diet, you can build trust with yourself that you won’t feel out of control around these foods.

5. Check in with yourself before eating. Ask yourself, how hungry am I? What sounds good right now? How long until I can eat again?

6. And sometimes, more support is needed. This can be especially true if you’re experiencing disordered eating habits or have an eating disorder. Consider working with a dietitian to help challenge nutrition misinformation and heal your relationship to food.

Charlotte Carlson does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. All foods can fit in a balanced diet – a dietitian explains how flexibility can be healthier than dieting – https://theconversation.com/all-foods-can-fit-in-a-balanced-diet-a-dietitian-explains-how-flexibility-can-be-healthier-than-dieting-270049

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Andrea Katz, Associate Professor of Law, Washington University in St. Louis

A federal judge heard arguments on Jan. 26, 2026, as the state of Minnesota sought a temporary restraining order to stop the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement operation in the state. The administration has sent some 3,000 immigration agents to Minnesota, and attorneys for the state have argued, in part, that it amounts to an unconstitutional occupation, on 10th Amendment grounds. Alfonso Serrano, a politics editor at The Conversation U.S., spoke with Andrea Katz, a law scholar at Washington University in St. Louis, about the Minnesota lawsuit and its possible legal implications.

What’s the legal issue at stake in this court case?

In Minnesota v. Noem, attorneys for the state are arguing that the federal government is acting illegally by intruding on a sphere of state power (the police power). They’re claiming violations of the 10th Amendment, which is this idea that under the U.S. Constitution, states are reserved powers that existed before the Constitution was drafted, powers that are not delegated to the federal government.

They’re also making this rather new claim under what’s called the equal sovereignty principle, which is that states all have to be treated equally by the federal government. There’s also a First Amendment claim, and an Administrative Procedure Act claim, which is that the government is acting illegally in an arbitrary and capricious way. I think the 10th Amendment arguments are ones that I would say are kind of unprecedented, rather untested waters.

On that note, when does a federal law enforcement response cross the line and violate the 10th Amendment? Is there precedent for this?

The question you just posed is one that the district judge, Kate M. Menendez, seems to be nervous about having to hear. This is essentially asking a federal judge to sift into different buckets that which is federal power and that which is state power. And I can say there’s not a lot of case law on this issue.

The most filled-out doctrine under the 10th Amendment is the anti-commandeering doctrine. It holds that the federal government cannot use the state government as a sort of puppet. The federal government can’t use state officers forcibly against the state’s will to enforce the law. Now that is not, strictly speaking, what’s going on here, because Minnesota is complaining about the presence of federal agents enforcing the laws in ways that it thinks are illegal.

And so it seems to me that the 10th Amendment has been most developed in this area that Minnesota is not touching on, and so for that reason, I think their invocation of it is pretty unusual. They’re essentially claiming that the 10th Amendment protects their police powers and that the federal government is intruding on that. I think that’s a novel argument in court, and my suspicion is that it is not likely to be a winning argument in court.

The Trump administration has dismissed the state’s legal theory, saying the president is acting within his authority, correct?

Yeah, I think that’s correct. Again, I want to make clear that Minnesota has made many arguments against the Trump administration, and I’m just focusing on the merits of this 10th Amendment argument.

There was a sort of undeveloped strand of cases in the mid-20th century where the Supreme Court tried to develop this idea of core state powers. And so it said the federal government couldn’t act in a way that violated a state’s core powers, like where to put your state capital, or control over natural resources, or defining salaries for state government employees. The court said these are core state powers.

But then in a famous case called Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority, in 1985, the court overruled itself and said – and this is still where we are – federal courts cannot be in the business of defining what constitutes a core state power. It’s too open-ended, undefined. It’s a political inquiry. It’s not something that’s appropriate for a judge.

And so I think on this 10th Amendment argument, Minnesota is essentially asking the courts to revive this core state powers doctrine, which I think the court is unlikely to do.

What repercussions could the judge’s ruling have?

Minnesota has already filed, in a case called Tincher v. Noem, a more conventional set of claims, which is that ICE agents broke the law, are violating rights, acting in excess of their authority. They have already gotten preliminary relief on this first set of claims, although Judge Menendez’s order is now on hold, pending appeal before the 8th Circuit court.

That is different from this 10th Amendment claim. In the 10th Amendment argument, one of the arguments that Minnesota has made is the equal sovereignty principle. The equal sovereignty principle was articulated in the 2013 case, Shelby County v. Holder. This is the famous case where the Supreme Court struck down an important part of the Voting Rights Act that prevented Southern states from restricting the vote, apparently on the basis of race. In Shelby County, the court said that the Voting Rights Act, which subjected certain states with a pattern of racial discrimination on the vote to a preclearance process where the federal government had to approve their laws before they passed them, treated different states differently.

Of course, in that case, the federal government said those are states that have a history of discrimination, so the federal government was justified in treating them differently.

But Chief Justice John Roberts, who wrote the Shelby County opinion, said the 10th Amendment means that the government can’t treat different states differently.

Now it’s not a well-regarded doctrine, so it’s kind of shocking that Minnesota is invoking it here. For one reason, the equal sovereignty principle has not been well developed since Shelby County. The second reason it would be a big deal – quite shocking to me, if the judge enforced it – is that Shelby County was talking about legislation that treated different states differently.

If we pass a rule where the executive branch can’t treat different states differently, you’re essentially denying the existence of discretion in enforcement, which is very quintessentially an executive power, right?

It could, for example, lead to states saying that federal agents can’t come in to help people in a natural disaster. So again, I think this argument, like the rest of the 10th Amendment arguments, suffers from being undeveloped in the case law and potentially carrying a risk of kneecapping the federal government’s ability to enforce the law, which sometimes does, for totally good-faith reasons, require treating different states differently.

Any final thoughts?

The first Trump administration was highly disorganized and didn’t take concerted action for a while. The second Trump administration was the precise opposite of that. They acted quickly and in a very organized fashion, pushing power as far as it can go in a number of agencies.

And I think the question this gets back to is how the federal courts have reacted to this barrage of executive orders, of new applications of old laws, of new forms of government power exercised in a way that threatens federalism.

The federal courts usually grant deference to the president when the government issues statements in the context of litigation. Court doctrine is to defer to those statements as being entitled. It’s a presumption of regularity, of accuracy. And I think we’re already seeing in the district courts some suspicion by the judges of the government’s version of things.

To me, this is sort of a brave new world, whether we’re going to see courts relax their deference toward the executive branch. And I mean, we are in kind of a brave new world. We have videos all over the internet showing the facts of the Alex Pretti shooting. But I just want to note that, from a separation of powers point of view, it’s very interesting to see federal judges seeming to distrust official accounts of events from the executive branch. I think this is an area in which the doctrine seems to be moving, and we’re watching it in real time.

Andrea Katz does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Minnesota raises unprecedented constitutional issues in its lawsuit against Trump administration anti-immigrant deployment – https://theconversation.com/minnesota-raises-unprecedented-constitutional-issues-in-its-lawsuit-against-trump-administration-anti-immigrant-deployment-274388

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Steven Sullivan, Director of the Hefner Museum of Natural History, Miami University

Whether you call him groundhog, woodchuck, whistle-pig or use the full genus and species name, Marmota monax, the nation’s premiere animal weather forecaster has been making headlines as Punxsutawney Phil for decades.

The largest ground squirrel in its range, groundhogs like Phil are found throughout the midwestern United States, most of Canada and into southern Alaska. M. monax is the most widespread marmot, while the Vancouver Island marmot (M. vancouverensis) is found only on one island in British Columbia.

In total, there are 15 species in the genus Marmota, found around the world from as far south as the Jemez Mountains of New Mexico and the Pyrenees Mountains of Spain, north to regions of Siberia and Alaska so dark and cold that the marmots must hibernate for up to nine months of the year.

Hibernating to escape tough times

Marmots, including all the actors who have played Phil over the years, are the largest “true” hibernators: animals that enter a torpor that reduces their biological functions to a level closer to dead than alive.

Because this phenomenon is so interesting, scientists pay attention to all aspects of marmot anatomy and physiology. Basic observational science like this is important to advance our understanding of the world, and it sometimes leads to discoveries that improve human lives. Marmot studies are the foundation for experiments to address obesity, cardiovascular disease,
mpox, stress, hepatitis and liver cancer, and they may inform work on osteoporosis and
organ transplantation.

Aging seems to nearly stop during hibernation, as the marmot heart rate drops from nearly 200 beats per minute when active to about nine during hibernation. Similarly, their active body temperature can be 104 degrees Fahrenheit (40 degrees Celsius) – about the same as a dog or cat – but plummet to 41 F (5 C) when hibernating. Humans, in comparison, become hypothermic at a core temperature of 95 F (35 C).

Fueling feast and famine

Marmots’ only source of energy during the hibernation period is stored fat, which they may metabolize as slowly as 1 gram per day. But even that is a large amount when it must suffice for more than half a year.

So, marmots need to double their weight during the summer, even in places where the season is only a few months long. To do so, they double the size of their hibernation-state gastrointestinal tract and liver, and then carefully select the most nutritious plants, including legumes, flowers, grains and grasses. Despite their corpulence, they can also climb trees to eat buds and fruit.

Gardener, architect and menu item

The digging and seed dispersal that accompany foraging create flower-filled meadows. Some marmots, like Mongolia’s Tarbagan marmot (M. siberica), are keystone species whose presence is associated with increased diversity of plants and predators.

Marmot burrows are a key architectural component of many other animals’ habitats. Abandoned marmot excavations can provide temperature- and humidity-controlled housing for dozens of species, from frogs to foxes and snakes to owls.

The same activities can make groundhogs a pest to people. In most of the Midwest, groundhog predators were largely eliminated at the same time that agricultural fields became vast marmot buffets. Today, many groundhog populations are tightly controlled by invasive coyotes, as well as recovering populations of bobcats.

Because they are such a high-quality meal, marmots are an important conduit of energy from plants to carnivores. Everything from hawks to eagles, weasels to wolves may eat them. And, like most native birds and mammals, marmots are on the menu of house cats, too. Humans also have long exploited marmots for meat and fur. As a result, once-common marmot species are rare in many places.

But marmots breed like the proverbial bunnies and so have the potential to come back quickly from population declines. They can be reintroduced to former haunts, benefiting the ecosystem.

Hibernation must end at the right time

Shortly after waking from hibernation, marmots mate, giving birth about 4½ weeks later to half a dozen or more offspring. Ideally, pups are born just as the first plants peak through the snowmelt – maximizing the time available to pack on fat for the coming hibernation season.

Given the food needs of these big ground squirrels, and the fact they may be seen poking their heads above the snow before any food is available, it seems reasonable to assume that they have some power of weather prediction. Indeed, people celebrate scores of individual groundhogs across the U.S. and Canada for their ability to anticipate weather six weeks hence.

This American groundhog tradition apparently started with German immigrants recalling the spring emergence of badgers and hedgehogs in the old country. Brown bears have a similar spring schedule and are still celebrated in Romania and Serbia.

People ascribe weather-predicting abilities to other species, too, including woolly bear caterpillars, sheep, cats and dormice.

One tradition holds that tree squirrel nests, called dreys, can predict the severity of the coming winter. Leafy dreys are well ventilated and private – good choices if you need less protection during a warm winter. More insulated hollow trees are cozy in the cold but communal, and so come with the risk of sharing parasites. As a squirrel researcher, I’ve noted the location, number and size of nests for years but seen no discernible patterns related to weather.

Weather responders, not weather predictors

Despite traditional claims, you’ve probably already guessed that Phil and his friends are about as good at predicting the coming weather as that kid who answers “C” for every multiple choice question. A 2021 study on the subject reported that groundhogs’ “predictions of spring onset (are) no better than chance.” That’s right, groundhogs are correct 50% of the time.

One big problem with relying on any species on a specific calendar day is that seasons follow latitude and altitude. Anyone who has hiked the Appalachian Trail can tell you that trekking from south to north maximizes your time in cool spring weather. Similarly, if you venture to the peaks of the Rockies in August, you’ll find spring wildflowers.

For this reason, groundhogs in Alabama emerge from their dens much earlier than those in Wisconsin. As one Canadian newspaper put it in 1939, “Here in Manitoba, no woodchuck in his senses would voluntarily emerge into the cold on February 2.”

Animals’ senses are tools for survival

Modern technology can accurately predict the average weather – that is, climate – far into the future, and the precise weather five days in advance. But the accuracy of a forecast at a given point on Earth 10 days in the future is only about 50% – as good as a groundhog.

However, many animals are sensitive to phenomena that humans need tools to even notice.

Flocks of warblers, sparrows and other birds sometimes seem to appear out of nowhere before a storm. These species often migrate at night, navigating across land and sea by the stars and Earth’s magnetic fields. To avoid getting lost in fog or blown off course, they’ll “fall out” of the sky at good resting spots when bad weather is building. At such times, take the warbler’s advice and don’t venture out on the water.

Frogs chirping in spring indicate that water temperatures are warm enough for eggs, while air temperatures influence caterpillar hatching and activity. Farmers over the centuries have recorded the blooming dates of flowers over the years as a way to predict when to plant and harvest.

Noticing and tracking timing of annual events

Phenology is the study of these natural phenomena and their annual cycles, from the first springtime peek of a groundhog to the last autumn honk of a goose. When does the first flower bloom in your neighborhood, the first thunder clap rumble, or the last cricket chirp?

No individual observation, even Phil’s, has the power to predict the weather. But in aggregate, these observations can tell us a lot about what the world is doing and predict how it will change. You can be like Phil and look for your shadow, or a nice legume to eat, and then contribute to science by adding your observations to the National Phenology Network.

Traditions don’t need to be factually true to be useful. Groundhog shadows bring people together at a cold time of year to look at the clouds, notice buds on the trees and track down the earliest green sprouts, such as skunk cabbage, which warms the snow around it. This Groundhog Day, get out there and enjoy nature as you celebrate the lengthening days and increased activities of the organisms we share this planet with.

Steven Sullivan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Groundhogs are lousy forecasters but valuable animal engineers – and an important food source – https://theconversation.com/groundhogs-are-lousy-forecasters-but-valuable-animal-engineers-and-an-important-food-source-273421

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Michael D. Caligiuri, Assistant Professor of Organizational Behavior, California State Polytechnic University, Pomona

White and male professors continue to dominate U.S. hospitality and tourism education programs, our new research has found, even as the industry is growing increasingly diverse. This imbalance raises questions about who shapes the future of hospitality and whose voices are left out of the conversation.

Our analysis of 862 faculty members across 57 of the top U.S. college hospitality programs found that nearly three-quarters of these professors were white, and more than half were male. White men alone represented 43.5% of all faculty, showing persistent overrepresentation.

By comparison, only 3.7% of faculty identified as Black, far below the 14.4% share of the U.S. population that identifies as Black. Asian faculty accounted for 22.5% – significantly more than the Asian share of the U.S. population, with slightly more Asian women than men represented.

Because publicly available data did not allow us to reliably identify faculty from Hispanic or Indigenous backgrounds, our analysis focuses on representation among Black and Asian professors.

Our findings are based on a review of online faculty directories for every U.S. hospitality and tourism program included in the Academic Ranking of World Universities for 2020. We coded each faculty member by gender, race and academic rank using publicly available information gathered through university websites, LinkedIn and other professional profiles.

While this approach cannot capture the full complexity of individual identity, it reflects how representation is typically perceived by students and prospective faculty. For example, when a student browses a university’s website or sits in a classroom, they notice who looks like them and who does not.

Our results point to a stark imbalance. The people teaching, researching and preparing the next generation of hospitality leaders do not mirror the demographics of either the workforce or the student population.

Despite growing institutional attention to fairness and belonging across higher education, the tourism and hospitality field has been slow to evolve.

Why it matters

Representation in higher education isn’t just a matter of fairness. It affects student outcomes and the long-term sustainability of the field. Researchers have found that when students see role models who share their racial or ethnic identity, they report stronger connections to their academic community, higher retention rates and greater academic confidence.

For hospitality programs, which emphasize service, empathy and cultural understanding, these effects are especially meaningful. The hospitality workforce is one of the most diverse in the United States, spanning global hotels, restaurants, events and tourism operations. Yet the lack of variety among those teaching hospitality sends a conflicting message. Diversity is valued in the workforce, but it remains underrepresented in the classrooms training future leaders.

Major employers such as Marriott, Hyatt and IHG have invested heavily in programs that promote access and belonging, creating leadership pipelines for underrepresented groups. Meanwhile, academic programs that prepare these future leaders have not made comparable progress.

The absence of representation among hospitality and tourism academia also shapes the kinds of research questions that get asked. When faculty from underrepresented backgrounds are missing, issues such as racialized guest experiences, workplace bias and equitable career advancement may be overlooked.

What still isn’t known

Our study provides a snapshot, rather than a complete picture of faculty representation in U.S. hospitality and tourism programs. Because the sample focused on research-intensive universities, it excluded many historically Black universities and teaching-focused institutions, which may have more professors of color.

The research also relied on publicly available photographs and institutional profiles to identify race and gender. While this method mirrors how students visually perceive representation, it cannot fully capture multiethnic or intersectional identities.

We believe that future studies should track how faculty composition evolves over time and explore the lived experiences of educators from underrepresented backgrounds. Understanding the barriers that prevent these scholars from entering or staying in academia is essential for creating environments where all faculty can thrive.

The Research Brief is a short take on interesting academic work. Abigail Foster, admissions specialist at the University of the District of Columbia’s David A. Clarke School of Law, contributed to this article.

The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. US hospitality and tourism professors don’t mirror the demographics of the industry they serve – https://theconversation.com/us-hospitality-and-tourism-professors-dont-mirror-the-demographics-of-the-industry-they-serve-273345

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Dinesh Phuyal, Postdoctoral Associate in Soil, Water and Ecosystem Sciences, University of Florida

When people think about agricultural pollution, they often picture what is easy to see: fertilizer spreaders crossing fields or muddy runoff after a heavy storm. However, a much more significant threat is quietly and invisibly building in the ground.

Across some of the most productive farmland in the United States, a nutrient called phosphorus has been accumulating in the soil for decades, at levels far beyond what crops actually require. While this element is essential for life-supporting root development and cellular chemistry to grow food, too much of it in the wrong places has become a growing environmental liability.

I’m part of a research effort to figure out how much phosphorus is already in the soil, to then determine how much more, if any, to add to particular fields.

Why farmers add phosphorus in the first place

Phosphorus is one of the three primary nutrients plants require for growth, along with nitrogen and potassium. Without enough phosphorus, crops struggle and production suffers.

For decades, applying phosphorus fertilizer has been a kind of insurance policy in American agriculture. If farmers weren’t sure how much was already in the soil, adding a little extra seemed safer than risking a shortfall. Fertilizer was relatively inexpensive, and the long-term consequences were poorly understood.

Unlike nitrogen, which easily escapes from soil into the air or groundwater, phosphorus sticks to soil particles. Once it’s added, it tends to remain in place. That trait made phosphorus seem environmentally benign.

However, phosphorus can still be carried off fields when rain or irrigation water erodes phosphorus-rich soil, or some of the built-up phosphorus dissolves into runoff.

Years of application have led to something no one initially planned for: accumulation.

How much phosphorus has built up?

Since the mid-20th century, farmers across the United States have applied hundreds of millions of tons of phosphorus fertilizer. From 1960 to 2007, phosphate fertilizer consumption in the U.S. increased from approximately 5.8 million metric tons per year to over 8.5 million metric tons annually.

In more recent decades, fertilizer use has continued to rise. In corn production alone, phosphorus applications increased by nearly 30% between 2000 and 2018. Crops absorb some of that phosphorus as they grow, but not all of it. Over time, the excess has piled up in soils.

In many regions across the United States, soil phosphorus levels are now far higher than what crops actually require. In parts of Florida, for example, some agricultural soils contain phosphorus concentrations more than 10 times above levels considered sufficient for healthy plant growth.

Scientists call this buildup “legacy phosphorus.” It’s a reminder that today’s environmental challenges are often the result of yesterday’s well-intentioned decisions.

When soil phosphorus becomes a water problem

If phosphorus stayed locked in the soil, farmers would have wasted money on fertilizer they didn’t need. And excess phosphorus in soil can hinder the uptake of essential plant micronutrients and alter the soil microbial community, reducing diversity that is important for good soil health.

Unfortunately, phosphorus doesn’t always remain in place. Rainfall, irrigation and drainage can transport phosphorus – either dissolved in water or attached to eroded soil particles – into nearby canals, streams, rivers and lakes. Once there, it becomes food for algae.

The result can be explosive algal growth, known as eutrophication, which turns clear water a cloudy green. When these algae blooms die, their decomposition consumes oxygen, sometimes creating low-oxygen “dead zones” where fish and other aquatic life struggle to survive. This process is primarily driven by phosphorus leaching, as seen in the Florida Everglades.

Another prime example is the largest dead zone in the United States, covering about 6,500 square miles (16,835 square kilometers), which forms each summer in the Gulf of Mexico. Cutting back on nitrogen without lowering phosphorus can worsen eutrophication.

Some algal blooms also produce toxins that threaten drinking water supplies. Communities downstream may be told not to drink or touch the water, and face high treatment costs and lost recreational opportunities. National assessments document toxins associated with algal blooms in many states, particularly where warm temperatures and nutrient pollution overlap.

Rising global temperatures are exacerbating the problem. Warmer waters hold less oxygen than colder waters, increasing the likelihood that phosphorus pollution will trigger eutrophication and dead zones.

Flawed testing hid the problem

Given the risks, a natural question arises: Why don’t farmers simply stop adding phosphorus where it isn’t needed?

Part of the answer lies in how the amount of phosphorus in the soil is measured. Most soil tests used today were developed decades ago and were designed to work reasonably well across many soil types. But soils are incredibly diverse. Some are sandy; others are rich in organic matter formed from centuries of decayed plants.

And those traditional soil tests use acids to extract phosphorus from the soil, delivering inaccurate findings of how much phosphorus plants can actually access. For instance, in soils that have more than 20% organic matter, like those found in parts of Florida and other agricultural regions, the tests’ acids may be partially neutralized by other compounds in the soil. That would mean they don’t collect as much phosphorus as really exists.

In addition, the tests determine a total quantity of phosphorus in the soil, but not all of that is in a form plants can take up through their roots. So soil where tests find high phosphorus levels may have very little available to plants. And low levels can be found in soil that has sufficient phosphorus for plant growth.

When farmers follow the recommendations that result from these inaccurate tests, they may apply fertilizer that provides little benefit to crops while increasing the risk of pollution. This isn’t a failure of farmers. It’s a mismatch between outdated tools and complex soils.

A smarter way forward

The solution isn’t to eliminate phosphorus fertilization. Crops still need it, and many soils genuinely require additional nutrients. The challenge is knowing when enough is truly enough.

Researchers, including me, are developing improved testing methods that better reflect how plants actually interact with soil. Some approaches mimic plants’ root behavior directly, estimating how much phosphorus crops can realistically take up from any given field or type of soil – rather than only measuring how much exists chemically.

Other tests look at the amount of phosphorous a field’s soil can hold before releasing excess nutrients into waterways. These approaches can help identify fields where farmers can use less phosphorus or pause it altogether, allowing crops to draw down the legacy phosphorus already present.

The phosphorus problem is a slow-moving one, built over decades and hidden below ground. However, its effects are increasingly visible in the form of algal blooms, fish kills and contamination of drinking water supplies. Farmers can measure and manage soil nutrients differently and reduce pollution, save money and protect water resources without sacrificing agricultural productivity.

Dinesh Phuyal does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Why too much phosphorus in America’s farmland is polluting the country’s water – https://theconversation.com/why-too-much-phosphorus-in-americas-farmland-is-polluting-the-countrys-water-273326

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Guilherme Maricato, Pós-doutorando no Programa de Pós-Graduação em Ecologia, UFRJ

The ocean is under increasing pressure. Everyday human activities, from shipping to oil and gas exploration to urban pollution, are affecting the marine environment. Extensive research shows how this combination of stressors represents one of the greatest threats to marine wildlife, potentially affecting biodiversity on a global scale.

To protect the ocean, one of the primary tools we have is marine protected areas. But are they truly protecting species in the most critical locations?

In an attempt to answer this question in Brazil, we conducted a comprehensive study focusing on two key species: the Bryde’s whale, a nonmigratory species, and the bottlenose dolphin, found in coastal and oceanic waters around the world. We chose these species because they do not migrate and stay in the same areas all year long, where they are exposed to harmful human activities.

The news is unfortunately not good: Our findings, recently published in Marine Pollution Bulletin, show that the areas critical for these species’ survival are also the most threatened.

Where whales and dolphins eat and play

Through spatial analysis, specifically species distribution models, we uncovered these animals’ preferences. We cross-referenced thousands of occurrence records for Bryde’s whales and bottlenose dolphins with environmental data that can influence their presence. This included factors such as water temperature, depth and even food availability.

From this data, we created a map showing the most suitable habitats for these species. The results strongly indicated that southeastern Brazil is their “preferred area.” On the continental shelf, these areas are located in shallower waters rich in nutrients, often associated with colder waters and steep seabed slopes that bring food to the surface.

The problem with overlap

The preferred areas we identified, however, are not exclusive to whales and dolphins. Southeastern Brazil is also an economically vital marine region for the country, driven by activities in the Santos and Campos basins, where a new oil reserve was recently discovered.

In the second stage of our research, we overlaid our map of the most suitable habitats for these species with a map of human activity. This included the presence of ports, areas of oil and gas exploration, and various shipping routes.

The result is a near-perfect overlap. The areas where Bryde’s whales and bottlenose dolphins are most frequently found coincide exactly with where human activity is most intense.

Why protected areas aren’t helping them

Brazil has expanded its conservation coverage in recent years by creating four large marine protected areas, which we think is excellent news. However, the crux of the matter lies in the quality of that protection.

In 2024, we also participated in a global collaborative effort to evaluate marine protected area effectiveness, the results of which were published in Marine Policy. The findings revealed that the vast majority of Brazil’s designated protected areas actually permit activities that are incompatible with biodiversity conservation.

This quality gap was also evident in our study. Most marine protected areas in southeastern Brazil, even the most effective ones, are coastal. They do not encompass the suitable habitats for Bryde’s whales and bottlenose dolphins, which are more heavily affected by oil and gas exploration.

And what about the oceanic protected areas Brazil created?

For the most part, they are located in areas that are either not the most suitable for these two species or lack significant conflicts with human activity. There is an ongoing debate about whether governments are protecting the right places or leaving the most critical biodiversity hot spots and conflict zones unprotected.

The real impacts of the conflict

The risk of ship strikes is constant. Whales and dolphins must come to the surface to breathe, and in areas of heavy traffic such as southeastern Brazil, the risk of being hit by vessels is high. Meanwhile, constant noise – from both ship engines and oil and gas exploration – interferes with the navigation, communication and foraging of these animals.

Additionally, there is the risk of entanglement in fishing nets, particularly in areas with intense fishing activity, resulting in bycatch, the incidental capture of nontarget species. Finally, pollution from ports along with potential spills can degrade the health of these animals and weaken their immune systems.

A road map for the future

Our findings serve as a critical warning: Simply creating marine protected areas is not enough. They must be placed in the right locations, protecting species where they are most vulnerable. We have shown that there is an urgent need to rethink conservation strategies in Brazil.

In addition to strengthening the network of marine protected areas, our findings suggest the need for specific management actions to reduce conflicts. While reducing ship speeds can protect whales from collisions, establishing fishing exclusion zones and using acoustic deterrents can prevent dolphins from becoming entangled in nets.

Most importantly, however, we believe these actions must be applied in the areas of highest exposure for conservation to be truly effective. Protecting biodiversity while maintaining economic activity is a complex challenge, but we now have a map to begin this conversation.

---

This project was funded by the Foundation for Research Support of the State of Rio de Janeiro (Faperj), Brazilian Federal Agency for Support and Evaluation of Graduate Education (Capes) and the National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq). We also acknowledge the support of the Marine Ecology and Conservation Lab (ECoMAR-UFRJ), Brazilian Humpback Whale Project, Ilhas do Rio Project, Cetacean Monitoring Project, Marine Mammal Monitoring Support System, Marine Conservation Institute and Coral Vivo Project. The publication of this article was also supported by Capes.

Maria Alice S. Alves receives research funding from the National Council for Scientific and Technological Development and the Carlos Chagas Filho Foundation for Research Support of the State of Rio de Janeiro.

Rodrigo Tardin receives funding from the Young Scientist of Our State program of FAPERJ.

Clinton N. Jenkins and Guilherme Maricato do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Marine protected areas aren’t in the right places to safeguard dolphins and whales in the South Atlantic – https://theconversation.com/marine-protected-areas-arent-in-the-right-places-to-safeguard-dolphins-and-whales-in-the-south-atlantic-274256