Meredith has been busy this past week attending the Citizen Science conference in St Paul, Minnesota. She reports back that it was a fantastically stimulating conference that confirms the high esteem that citizen science has grown within the science community.
The yearly conference sees a diverse group of people from researchers, educators and universities to the likes of NGO’s and museums get together to discuss the use and promotion of citizen science. Although we at Snapshot Serengeti have been aware of its great impact for some time citizen science is now emerging and is recognised as a powerful tool in the advancement of research by many.
Those attending the four day event collaborated by sharing their varied experience and ideas on a variety of topics. The collection and sharing of data and how to impact policy was discussed. There was focus on how to use citizen science as an engaging teaching tool, how to bring citizen science to a wider audience and how to involve citizens more in research. Those attending brought their joint experience and expertise together to discuss how citizen science impact on science could be measured and evaluated. If you want to find out more about the conference then visit this link.
We sometimes forget when working away at classifying our stunning images on Snapshot Serengeti that there is a lot of tech going on that enables us citizen scientists to be of use to the scientists. Meredith gave what’s known as a ‘project slam’ essentially a 5 minute presentation about our work on Snapshot Serengeti and how it has paved the way for helping other cameratrap citizen science projects. A quick look around Zooniverse will show just how many there are now.
The massive amount of data produced over several seasons through Snapshot Serengeti have allowed the development of a robust, tried and tested methodology that smaller projects would have taken years longer to develop. Just contemplate the work that went into developing interfaces, protocols, pipelines and algorithms for taking millions of classifications of untrained volunteers and turning them into a dataset which has been verified to be >97% accurate.
It is awesome to see that something we all find so truly engaging can translate into such serious stuff in the field of science. I think we, the citizen scientists, and the Snapshot team can be rightly proud of our work on this brand new branch of science
Today’s blog is by Sarah Huebner, a first year PhD student at University of Minnesota’s Lionlab studying under Dr Craig Packer. She writes about Save the Rhino day that was celebrated this week.
May 1st, 2017 is Save the Rhino Day, a day on which we must ponder what can be done to pull this beautiful animal back from the brink of total destruction. With fewer than 25,000 rhinos remaining in Africa, there is a strong possibility that they could go extinct within our lifetimes if poaching continues at its current pace. In addition to the problems of habitat fragmentation and human-wildlife conflict that all African animals face, rhinos have a target on their backs from poachers and criminal elements seeking to profit from selling their horns.
There are two species of rhinoceros in Africa–black rhinos and white rhinos. Both black and white rhinos have two horns on their heads, a larger one in front and a shorter one behind it. It is estimated that there are only 5,000 black rhinos remaining, down from 850,000 in the mid-20th century. The reason for this dramatic population collapse is poaching and sale of their horns through a criminal network from Africa to Asia. Though the rhino was added to the CITES list of animals banned from trade in 1977, their numbers have continued to crash since then. This is primarily due to the demand in China, Vietnam, and North Korea for use of the horns in jewelry, carvings, as a status symbol, and even in medicine. Some people believe that rhino horn can cure cancer. Scientific evidence clearly shows that rhino horn, made from the same material as our fingernails, is not at all useful in medicine.
Perhaps most distressing is the news that the ban on rhino horn trade in South Africa, home to the largest extant population of rhinos, has been lifted by their court system, clearing the way for the legal export of rhino horns. This does not mean that illegal trade will cease. Indeed, this move gives even more cover to the criminals trafficking rhinos. Though rhinos have the ability to regrow their horns, most are killed before having their horns sawed off, as we saw in the horrifying incident at a French zoo recently. If the rhinos are still alive when the horns are removed, they suffer terrible pain and are left to die, which many do because of blood loss. Impoverished poachers in Africa make very little for their efforts, while importers and sellers in Asia can make as much as US$30,000 for one kilogram of horn. Some estimate that the sale of both the front and back horns together is worth US$250,000. This makes rhino horn more valuable than gold or platinum. Little wonder that private reserves in South Africa wish to profit from the sale of these animals’ parts.
How then do we stop this? Organizations such as the Wildlife Justice Commission and Outraged South Africa Citizens Against Poaching are working to expose the criminal networks responsible for the poaching, smuggling, and selling of these horns in Asia. We can aid these and other conservation groups by helping to finance their initiatives designed to curb poaching. Perhaps the best way we can take action is to pressure our own governments to enact diplomatic sanctions on the countries that continue to look the other way while rhino horns are smuggled across their borders–primarily China, Vietnam, and North Korea. Diplomatic acts such as sanctions, travel bans, and blacklisting by other countries could convince these governments to enforce the national and global laws already on the books concerning rhino horn. On Save the Rhino Day 2017, contact your representatives and tell them that you want them to use diplomatic methods to pressure these countries to stop the import of rhino horn. Or the only way our children and grandchildren will see rhinoceros is in pictures, as we tell them about the magnificent creatures that once walked the earth.
Wildlife Justice Commission: https://wildlifejustice.org/
Outraged South African Citizens Against Poaching: http://vyhub.com/css/css/
Investigative journalism by Al Jazeera: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JMguWY99q6s
NYTimes–South African Court Ends Ban on Sale of Rhinoceros Horns: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/05/world/africa/south-africa-rhinoceros-horns-rhinos.html?_r=0
Here is another pair of antelope that are often muddled up on Snapshot Serengeti; topi and hartebeest. These two share a similar size and body shape and for those of you not familiar with them they can prove a bit tricky.
Topi and hartebeest belong to the same tribe, Alcelaphini, which also includes wildebeest. These antelope typically have an elongated face, long legs, short necks and stocky bodies. Although these antelope have reasonably large bodies their long legs mean they have retained the ability to run fast, a good adaptation for life on the open plains. It is believed that the long face developed in place of a long neck in order to reach the grasses they consume.
There are several species of both topi and hartebeest in Africa, two are found in the Serengeti. Coke’s hartebeest or kongoni (Alcelaphus cokii) are selective grazers with browse making up less than 4% of their diet. Serengeti topi (Damaliscus jimela) are 100% grazers
In both species males are territorial but topi also form leks from which to display to passing females. Males holding territory close to the lek are more desirable to females. Dominant females will actively prevent subordinate females from mating with these males.
So side by side we can see that the topi is much darker coloured than the hartebeest with distinct sandy socks up to its knees and conspicuous black patches on the thighs and shoulders. In contrast the hartebeest has pale legs and underbelly with a darker upper body. The paleness forms a patch on the top of the thigh.
From behind the contrast between leg colour and backside is very obvious with topi sporting dark legs with pale rump and back and hartebeest pale legs and rump with dark back.
Horn shape is also different. A topi’s horns sweep up and back whereas a heartebeest’s sweep out to the side before kinking back. They also sit on a prominent bony ridge on the top of the head.
Hopefully this will help you tackle all the images waiting on season 10.
The Zooniverse team are super busy at the moment but hopefully very soon season 10 will be loaded and we can all get cracking with what promises to be a fantastic season full of amazing images.
In the meantime I thought I would post a few notes on those tricky animal pairings that seem to have more than a few people stumped when trying to id them.
To kick it off we will look at Grant’s gazelle and Thomson’s gazelle. If you were treated to perfect photos every time I think you would get the hang of these two pretty quick but with the often blurry or distant images we get on snapshot they can be tricky.
Grant’s gazelle A Thomson’s gazelle A
A; First off there is the overall colouration. Thomson’s has a thick dark stripe across its side, Grant’s usually lacks this but be aware as some Grant’s have a dark stripe too. Not the best distinguishing feature as there can be quite a bit of colour variation.
Grant’s gazelle B Thomson’s gazelle B
B; A better distinction is the facial markings. Grant’s gazelle has a thick black stripe running along the side of the face from the nose passing through the eye to the base of the horns giving a masked look. Thomson’s has the same stripe but it ends at the eye, not passing through. The white band on top of the black stripe is more distinct on Grant’s.
Grant’s gazelle C Thomson’s gazelle C
C; If you get a back-side shot then Grant’s displays a much whiter overall appearance with the white area extending past the root of the tail up onto the back. In Thomson’s the white area stops at the root of the tail. Grant’s tail is white at the root and thin with whispy black end, Thomson’s is dark and fluffy looking. The black vertical bands in Grant’s are also more prominent.
Grant’s and Thomson’s Gazelle
Photo NH53, Flickr (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/)
In a mixed group the smaller size of Thomson’s is evident, although with young animals it is not so obvious. Here you can easily see most of the features discussed above with the Grant’s gazelle comprising the 7 animals to the right back and the Thomson’s gazelle to the left forward. Note the Grant’s gazelle side on at the back, it shows a much darker side stripe than the others more a kin to Thomson’s. Males and females of both antelope have horns with the females usually shorter and thinner. In some females horns are absent. In general Grant’s are more graceful looking than the stocky Thomson’s.
In my last blog I mentioned Ingela Jansson and the KopeLion project and promised to tell you more.
Ingela spent three years working for the Serengeti Lion project as a research assistant monitoring lions in the Serengeti National Park as well as the Ngorongoro Crater. Although working in the park was an amazing experience it was the work she did in the crater area that was to prove a more urgent calling. The very real conflict she saw between humans and lions persuaded her that if someone didn’t do something the Ngorongoro lions were headed towards extinction. And so KopeLion project was born in 2011.
The Ngorongoro conservation area was gazetted in 1959 and designated a multi use landscape. The pastoralist population were permitted to continue living there alongside the wildlife. Since this time the population has risen 10 fold and the once harmonious coexistence with lions has collapsed. Lions have disappeared from much of the area and the connection to the Serengeti lions is all but extinguished.
Enter KopeLion. The project aims to foster human – lion coexistence through community engagement, science and mentorship. One of the most successful outcomes so far is the recruitment of former lion hunters as lion protectors, we heard Roimen’s story last week.
But just how do you ‘engage with the community’ to try and change their minds about living with a dangerous predator. Well KopeLion do this in many ways. Firstly most of the employees are local which means they already have the community’s ear. To the Maasai their live stock are sacred so KopeLion spend a lot of time trying to reduce lion conflicts. They follow the model developed by Lion Guardians Ltd ( http://lionguardians.org )by helping local herders to build sturdy bomas, searching for missing livestock, treating injured livestock and warning herders when lion are nearby. The lion guardians or Ilchokutis are assigned an area of between 60 and 200km2 where they monitor lions or signs of lions scientifically. They also try to prevent young warriors or Morani from carrying out lion hunts. Part of their role is as mentors to the younger generation.
The Maasai still hold strong traditional beliefs and have strong community ties, recognising and embracing this is one of the reasons for KopeLion’s success so far on its mission to help humans and lions live in peace. The strong local ties mean KopeLion have won trust amongst the local herders and in 2016 they were able to stop more than 20 lion hunts from going ahead and have seen the evidence that their efforts are working in the fact that two of the monitored lion prides now show complete survival.
Ingela and her team at KopeLion are doing such valuable work that I urge you to head over to their incredibly informative website to read more about it.
For some reason I missed this in 2013 and 2014. Maybe it was because I was finishing up my dissertation the first time and then recovering from a cross-country move the second time. But now I am totally excited about 2015’s
What is Mammal March Madness? I’ll let organizer Katie Hinde explain:
In honor of the NCAA College Basketball March Madness Championship Tournament, Mammals Suck is featuring *simulated* combat competition among mammals. … Battle outcome is a function of the two species’ attributes within the battle environment. Attributes considered in calculating battle outcome include temperament, weaponry, armor, body mass, fight style, and other fun facts that are relevant to the outcome.
As a spectator to Mammal March Madness, you fill out a bracket and then follow along on Twitter or on the Mammals Suck … Milk! blog. The first game is on Monday, March 9, and direct elimination games continue until the championship on March 26.
I’ll note that the 2014 winner was Hyena who defeated Orca in the championship game. This year, we’ve got some Serengeti representation as well. But with Lion, Baboon, and Vervet monkey ranked just 8th, 12th, and 13th in the ‘Sexy Beasts’ division, they’re going to need all the cheering-on they can get.
So head on over, print out a bracket, and tell me who you think will make it all the way to the top this year.
(And just to be clear, I am not involved in Mammal March Madness in any way except as a participant. But it looks fun!)
We’re partnering with National Geographic to put together a photo book of animal selfies from Snapshot Serengeti. We’ve got some selfies already from the first seven seasons, but because no one has looked through Season 8 yet, we don’t know what great selfies might be in there.
You can help! If you find an animal selfie, please tag it as #selfie in Talk. (Click the ‘Discuss’ button after you’ve classified the image and then enter #selfie below the image on the Talk page. You can get back to classifying using the button in the upper right.)
All proceeds from book sales will go to supporting Snapshot Serengeti. We’re planning for a fall 2016 publication date, so it will be a while. But we’re excited to get working on it.
The story of how reintroduced wolves transformed Yellowstone is now well known. According to the story, wolves scared elk away from the riversides, which allowed the willows and aspen to recover, allowing beavers to come back because they had home-building material big enough to use, and the beaver dams restored the health of the watershed.
I remember reading this story in college. I was sitting at a computer in UVA’s Alderman Library, digging up articles for a class presentation, when I stumbled on the now highly controversial article, “Wolves and the Ecology of Fear.” It blew my mind: right then and there, at the beginning of my last year of college, I knew I wanted to study how predators drove ecosystem dynamics.
It’s a beautiful story, and one that changed the trajectory of my career. And it’s one that’s been very hard to let go of, despite mounting evidence over the last decade that this story might not be more than a myth.
I had the good fortune of meeting Arthur at the Ecological Society of America talk last summer. I was a big fan of the work that he’d done, and that of his Ph.D. advisor, Dr. Matt Kaufman. But I didn’t envy either of them as they stepped into the fire of trying to take down what has become a beloved, monumental, epic tale. There’s no doubt that behaviorally-mediated trophic cascades do exist, and that predators can have profound influences on ecosystems, but the long-standing poster child for this simply isn’t real.
If you do one thing on your coffee break today, read his piece. While I could summarize the debate here, I couldn’t begin to do justice to Arthur’s eloquent argument.
Scratch that. If there’s one thing you do today, read Arthur’s piece. Not only will it make you think about wolves and ecology, but it will make you think about what nature we save, why we save it, and why that matters.
You’ve got to check out this game: http://nightjar.exeter.ac.uk/story/nightjar_game
Scientists from the University of Exeter are trying to understand camouflage. Specifically, they want to understand how camouflage helps protect animals from being eaten for dinner, and they’re doing this by studying ground nesting birds in South Africa & Zambia.
Like Snapshot Serengeti, these guys use camera traps too, to figure out whose munching on birds and their nests. Unlike Snapshot Serengeti, however, they aren’t asking for help IDing the photos: instead, they’re asking for help figuring out how predators see, and how different types of camouflage work better or worse against predators with different types of vision.
Humans have trichromatic vision, meaning we have three different types of receptors (light sensitive cells in the eye) that can process color: red (longwave), green (mediumwave), and blue (shortwave). Some animals only have two receptor types and can only see one or two colors, whereas other animals have four, allowing them to see wavelengths such as infrared or ultraviolet that are invisible to people. Thus, what camouflages eggs against one predator might not work so well against another predator.
What these researchers have done is create a game that mimics the vision of other predators. So you get to see the world through the eyes of either a genet cat (with dichromatic vision) or a vervet monkey (with trichromatic vision), and “hunt” for birds or their nests in a series of pictures. This helps scientists understand how perception changes among different animals, and how camouflage works against different perception types.
So go check it out! But don’t forget to come back and then help us classify Season 7! We’ll announce its debut on the blog soon!