Dolphin hunts with electric sense

26 July 2011 Last updated at 23:23 GMT By Richard Black Environment correspondent, BBC News The depressions, or crypts, are the site for this newly-discovered sensory ability A South American dolphin is the first "true mammal" to sense prey by their electric fields, scientists suggest.

The researchers first showed that structures on the animal's head were probably sensory organs, then found it could detect electric fields in water.

Electroreception is well known in fish and amphibians, but until now the only mammal example was the platypus.

Writing in the Royal Society's journal Proceedings B, the scientists say other cetaceans may show the same ability.

The Guiana dolphin (Sotalia guianensis) lives around the east coast of South America, and resembles the much more common bottlenose variety.

Like all of the toothed cetaceans, it hunts and locates using sound.

But the researchers have now shown that at close range, it can also sense electrical signals.

They are not as sensitive as sharks and rays, but can detect signals of the same size as those produced in water when fish move their muscles.

"It feeds in the bottom [of the sea] a lot, and it lives in water where there can be a lot of silt and mud suspended," said project leader Wolf Hanke from the University of Rostock, Germany.

"And echolocation doesn't work at very close range, so this is where electrolocation would come in."

Sensible science

Captive Guiana dolphins are rare; but they have been kept at the zoo in Muenster, also in Germany.

The zoo is among those that have been criticised by animal rights campaigners in recent years, who argue against keeping dolphins in captivity.

The researchers became curious about the function of small depressions in the dolphin's rostrum - the forward-projecting part of the head containing the jaws.

When one of the animals died, the rostrum was examined, with tissues being stained to show the structures inside these depressions.

The depressions - known as crypts - carry whiskers when the dolphins are growing in the womb, but the whiskers later drop off.

The dolphin was sometimes fitted with a plastic "shield" to block any electrical signals

But the crypts looked as though they were still involved in sensing something.

To see whether they were in fact electroreceptors, the researchers turned to the zoo's single remaining Sotalia.

They trained it to put its head on a "rest station", where electrodes delivered a tiny electrical signal into the water.

When a signal was present, the dolphin received a reward if it swam away; if not, it received a reward for staying put.

Later, a plastic shield was placed above the lines of crypts, blocking any electrical sensing. It remained still every time.

The experiments proved that the Guiana dolphin could sense the electrical signals, and that the crypts were indeed the organs responsible.

The researchers plan next to investigate whether other cetaceans possess the same capacity.

"We believe that they might, as it seems very useful for the dolphins," said Dr Hanke.

"We might in the future make plans to travel to South America to study the dolphins in the wild."

The acid test would be to fit the animals with tags that carry a variety of instruments, and see how they use their novel electric sense to hunt.

The platypus, which also uses electroreception, is a monotreme, a sub-group of mammals that lay eggs.

View the original article here

Monkey research 'can be improved'

27 July 2011 Last updated at 12:02 GMT By Pallab Ghosh Science correspondent, BBC News No clear medical benefits have emerged from nearly 10% of research projects involving monkeys A review of the use of monkeys in UK medical research says the practice should continue and finds the current work to be generally of good quality.

But the independent report voiced concern that no clear scientific, medical or social benefits had emerged from nearly one in 10 projects.

It also said that in a minority of experiments, the justification for using monkeys was "not compelling".

The review was led by Professor Sir Patrick Bateson.

The current president of the Zoological Society of London was commissioned by the main bodies that fund medical research in Britain.

They wanted him to assess whether the studies on non-human primates (NHPs) were necessary, high-quality and yielded significant advances in medical science.

Animal welfare groups opposed to experimentation on monkeys called again for the practice to be banned outright. They described Prof Bateson's review a "chilling insight into primate research".

Brain studies

Although the proportion of monkeys used in research compared with other animals is low, less than 0.1%, there is concern that they suffer more than other species during experimentation, and so should only be used if those studies are expected to yield important medical benefits and if there is no other way of carrying out the research.

The review suggested that this standard might not have been achieved in all cases. "Not everything is rosy in the garden," Prof Bateson told reporters.

He reviewed experiments on monkeys carried out between January 1997 and December 2006. Just under 3,000 animals were used in experiments in that period.

Continue reading the main story

Funders and researchers should avoid overstating and generalising the medical benefit of research on monkeys”

End Quote Prof Patrick Bateson Report Author The bulk of the research focused on neuroscience. Research on great apes is not permitted in the UK and so monkeys provide the next best animal models to study the human brain.

Researchers often cite the widespread prevalence of neurological disorders, such as Alzheimer's and Parkinson's, as a justification for research in this area.

However, Prof Bateson said that the "size of the problem should not be accepted as the sole justification for individual areas of research".

He added: "Funders and researchers should avoid overstating and generalising the medical benefit (of research on monkeys). Instead, statements should be based on the actual scientific basis for funding decisions."

Considerable suffering

Prof Bateson and his team looked at 31 neuroscience studies. Half of the experiments involved considerable animal suffering. These were assessed as having a high scientific value.

Monkeys provide the best animal model for study of brain disorders

But in most cases, according to Prof Bateson, there was "little direct evidence of medical benefit". He did concede, though, that there might not have been sufficient time for the advances gained in scientific understanding to be translated into new drugs or treatments.

The report recommends a body to be set up to assess whether commissioned research will lead to improvements in healthcare.

Prof Bateson's review found a few instances of research that caused a high degree of suffering, but was not judged to be the highest-quality science.

One example was of UK-funded research on reproduction carried out overseas.

It involved performing a hysterectomy in which the mother and its foetus were, in the words of the review, "compromised". The study was undertaken to train students and repeated a study that had been carried out a decade earlier.

According to Prof Bateson, "it is not acceptable knowingly to fund work outside the UK that would not be legally responsible or ethically acceptable in the UK".

Continue reading the main story

Despite the use of peer review to assess whether projects we fund are worth doing, it is inevitable that some of it does not work out”

End Quote Medical Research Council The report also said scientists had a "moral responsibility" to publish all their results on experiments involving monkeys even if they were not positive or not deemed interesting.

Research results are often not published when the experiments do not yield positive results, but Prof Bateson's point is that because some of these details are not put in the public domain, it could lead to other researchers repeating the experiments and so causing unnecessary suffering.

Strengthened procedures

Responding to the report, the Medical Research Council (MRC) said: "Despite the use of peer review to assess whether projects we fund are worth doing, it is inevitable that some of it does not work out."

The MRC added that it would continue to work to ensure all grants using non-human primates made clear the expected scientific, medical or social benefit, and that if these benefits were not realised, the reasons why should be explored to ensure lessons were learnt for the future.

In a joint statement, the main funders of monkey research in the UK - the Medical Research Council, the Wellcome Trust and the Biological and Biotechnology Research Council - said improvements to procedures had already been made.

"We have strengthened our procedures for assessing all grant applications requesting use of [monkeys], cats, dogs and equines," their statement read.

"These applications are now reviewed by the independent National Centre for the Refinement, Reduction and Replacement of Animals in Research (NC3Rs).

"Any concerns are explored with the applicants, and funding is not awarded unless these are properly addressed. We will continue to work with the NC3Rs to ensure that all research we fund using NHPs is assessed appropriately and the research undertaken is of the highest standard in terms of science and animal welfare."

The British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection said primate research was a blind alley that had no merit.

Chief Executive Michelle Thew said: "This report is a chilling insight into primate research in the UK. Regulations to protect primates are failing.

"It is shocking that 25 years after legislation was introduced to give primates special protection, many experiments are being carried out that have a devastating impact on them with little or no human benefit. The only measure that would completely protect primates, and ensure more productive medical research, is an outright ban."

In general, the number of animal experiments carried out in the UK rose by 3% last year, according to government figures.

Just over 3.7 million scientific experiments on animals were started in Great Britain in 2010, an increase of 105,000 on the previous year.

View the original article here

Chernobyl horses poached for meat

27 July 2011 Last updated at 00:28 By Victoria Gill Science reporter, BBC Nature The horses were released to "increase the biodiversity of the exclusion zone" A herd of Critically Endangered wild Przewalski's horses in the Chernobyl exclusion zone is under threat from poachers, say scientists.

Researchers in Ukraine say that the population may be in decline because poachers have been removing the animals faster than they are breeding.

Thirty-one horses were taken from a Przewalski's horse reserve and from a local zoo.

They were released into the zone in 1998 and 1999.

Scientists from the state-run SSSIE Ecocentre in Chernobyl say the horses were introduced to "enrich the biodiversity" of the exclusion zone surrounding Chernobyl nuclear power station's damaged nuclear reactor.

The zone was evacuated in 1986 after reactor number four exploded.

Professor Tim Mousseau, a biologist from the University of South Carolina who visits the zone to work at least twice a year, says that the herd he has spotted has been "getting smaller" in recent years.

Continue reading the main story

A readily available supply of horsemeat is tempting for people”

End Quote Professor Tim Mousseau University of South Carolina "Many people in this part of Ukraine are very poor," he told BBC Nature on a recent trip to the exclusion zone.

"So access to a readily available supply of horsemeat is tempting for people."

But Sergiy Paskevych, a researcher from the National Academy of Science in Ukraine and the author of a website dedicated to ecology and wildlife in the exclusion zone, told BBC Nature that poachers probably travelled long distances to the exclusion zone and took the carcasses away to be sold.

Mr Paskevych explained that the most recent data on the horses suggested that there were 30-40 individuals in the zone. This represents a severe decline in their numbers from a maximum of 65 animals in 2003.

"It is difficult to say what [factors] affect the lives of these animals," he said.

"Maybe it's the wolves - there are a lot of its in the exclusion zone - or maybe it's disease.

"Of course, the anthropogenic factor [of hunting] cannot be excluded."

Igor Chizhevsky, a biologist from Chernobyl's Ecocentre who studies the zone's wildlife, said that poaching could be affecting the wild horse population there.

Mr Chizhevsky confirmed that Ukrainian researchers had found several dead horses that had been shot by poachers. He added that it was difficult to determine how many horses were now left.

"For three years, no one has counted the population," he told BBC Nature.

Biologist Zbyszek Boratynski captured this footage of the wild herd close to an abandoned farm in the Chernobyl exclusion zone

"So we don't know."

Mr Paskevych suggested that the zone should become a reserve "with a research centre for the study of nature and radioecological consequents of nuclear disaster".

"But today, the exclusion zone is not a reserve, and there are almost no scientists [with the] knowledge and ability to explore the area," he said.

"In the current situation... the future of Przewalski's horses is very vague."

View the original article here

Crisis 'will not end nuclear age'

26 July 2011 Last updated at 10:45 GMT IAEA chief Yukiya Amano visits Fukushima nuclear plant

The UN's top nuclear official says the world's reliance on atomic power will continue to grow, despite the crisis at Japan's Fukushima plant.

Yukiya Amano, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), said many countries believed nuclear power was needed to combat global warming.

Mr Amano visited the Fukushima plant on Monday for the first time since it was crippled by the earthquake and tsunami.

He said he supported Tokyo's plan to shut the plant by January.

Since the 11 March disaster caused partial meltdowns at three of Fukushima's reactors, a global debate has raged about the future of nuclear power.

Germany has announced plans to abandon nuclear entirely, and Japanese Prime Minister Naoto Kan has floated the idea of a nuclear-free Japan.

PM under pressure

After meeting Mr Kan on Tuesday, Mr Amano told reporters: "It is certain that the number of nuclear reactors will increase, even if not as quickly as before.

"Some countries, including Germany, have reviewed their nuclear energy policy, but many other countries believe they need nuclear reactors to tackle problems such as global warming. Therefore, securing safety is more important than anything."

Continue reading the main story 11 Mar: Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant struck by huge earthquake and tsunami16 Mar: 20km (11-mile) evacuation zone declared around plant17 Apr: Plant owner Tepco says crisis will be under control by end of the year20 May: Tepco boss Masataka Shimizu resigns as firm posts huge losses 2 Jun: Naoto Kan survives no-confidence vote over his handling of crises6 Jul: Government announces "stress tests", pushing back restarting of reactorsIAEA officials said they expected the world's reliance on nuclear power to grow because China and India were pressing on with their power programmes.

During 2009, 12 nuclear plants began to be constructed, nine of which were in China, the IAEA said.

In Japan, the earthquake and tsunami knocked out the cooling facilities at the Fukushima plant, eventually causing explosions and leaks of radioactive material.

Thousands of people were evacuated from their homes around the plant.

Within the past week, Japanese officials say they have now achieved stable cooling in the reactors and claim to be on course for a "cold shutdown" by January.

No-one has died as a result of the nuclear crisis, but the quake and tsunami flattened towns and villages along Japan's north-eastern coast, killing more than 15,000 people.

Japan is struggling to recover from the disaster, with the prime minister under constant pressure to resign, hampering his attempts to organise recovery efforts.

View the original article here

Feathers fly in first bird debate

27 July 2011 Last updated at 20:58 GMT By Matt McGrath Science reporter, BBC World Service An artist's impression of the new creature from China. How will it change our view of the origin of birds? A chicken-sized dinosaur fossil found in China may have overturned a long-held theory about the origin of birds.

For 150 years, a species called Archaeopteryx has been regarded as the first true bird, representing a major evolutionary step away from dinosaurs.

But the new fossil suggests this creature was just another feathery dinosaur and not the significant link that palaeontologists had believed.

The discovery of Xiaotingia, as it is known, is reported in Nature magazine.

The authors of the report argue that three other species named in the past decade might now be serious contenders for the title of "the oldest bird".

Archaeopteryx has a hallowed place in science, long hailed as not just the first bird but as one of the clearest examples of evolution in action.

Wobbling perch: Archaeopteryx is one of the most famous fossils ever unearthed

Discovered in Bavaria in 1861 just two years after the publication of Darwin's Origin of Species, the fossil seemed to blend attributes of both reptiles and birds and was quickly accepted as the "original bird".

But in recent years, doubts have arisen as older fossils with similar bird-like features such as feathers and wishbones and three fingered hands were discovered.

Now, renowned Chinese palaeontologist Professor Xu Xing believes his new discovery has finally knocked Archaeopteryx off its perch.

His team has detailed the discovery of a similar species, Xiaotingia, which dates back 155 million years to the Jurassic Period.

By carefully analysing and comparing the bony bumps and grooves of this new chicken-sized fossil, Prof Xu now believe that both Archaeopteryx and Xiaotingia are in fact feathery dinosaurs and not birds at all.

"There are many, many features that suggest that Xiaotingia and Archaeopteryx are a type of dinosaur called Deinonychosaurs rather than birds. For example, both have a large hole in front of the eye; this big hole is only seen in these species and is not present in any other birds.

Continue reading the main story

Several species discovered in the past decade could now become contenders for the title of most basal fossil bird.

Epidexipteryx - a very small feathered dinosaur discovered in China and first reported in 2008 (above). It had four long tail feathers but there is little evidence that it could fly.

Jeholornis - this creature lived 120 million years ago in the Cretaceous. It was a relatively large bird, about the size of a turkey. First discovered in China, and reported in 2002.

Sapeornis - lived 110 to 120 million years ago. Another small primitive bird about 33 centimetres in length. It was discovered in China and was first reported in 2002.

"Archaeopteryx and Xiaotingia are very, very similar to other Deinonychosaurs in having a quite interesting feature - the whole group is categorised by a highly specialised second pedo-digit which is highly extensible, and both Archaeopteryx and Xiaotingia show initial development of this feature."

The origins of the new fossil are a little murky having originally been purchased from a dealer. Prof Xu first saw the specimen at the Shandong Tianyu Museum. He knew right away it was special

"When I visited the museum which houses more than 1,000 feathery dinosaur skeletons, I saw this specimen and immediately recognised that it was something new, very interesting; but I did not expect it would have such a big impact on the origin of birds."

Other scientists agree that the discovery could fundamentally change our understanding of birds. Prof Lawrence Witmer from Ohio University has written a commentary on the finding.

"Since Archaeopteryx was found 150 years ago, it has been the most primitive bird and consequently every theory about the beginnings of birds - how they evolved flight, what their diet was like - were viewed through the lens of Archaeopteryx.

"So, if we don't view birds through this we might have a different set of hypotheses."

There is a great deal of confusion in the field says Prof Witmer as scientists try to understand where dinosaurs end and where birds begin.

"It's kind of a nightmare for those of us trying to understand it. When we go back into the late Jurassic, 150-160 million years ago, all the primitive members of these different species are all very similar.

"So, on the one hand, it's really frustrating trying to tease apart the threads of this evolutionary knot, but it's really a very exciting thing to be working on and taking apart this evolutionary origin."

Prof Xu first saw the specimen in a museum. He knew right away it was special

Such are the similarities between these transition species of reptiles and birds that other scientists believe that the new finding certainly will not mean the end of the argument.

Prof Mike Benton from the University of Bristol, UK, agrees that the new fossil is about the closest relative to Archaeopteryx that has yet been found. But he argues that it is far from certain that the new finding dethrones its claim to be the first bird.

"Professor Xu and his colleagues show that the evolutionary pattern varies according to their different analyses.

"Some show Archaeopteryx as the basal bird; others show it hopped sideways into the Deinonychosaurs.

"New fossils like Xiaotingia can make it harder to be 100% sure of the exact pattern of relationships."

According to Prof Witmer, little is certain in trying to determine the earliest bird and new findings can rapidly change perspectives.

"The reality is, that next fossil find could kick Archaeopteryx right back into birds. That's the thing that's really exciting about all of this."

View the original article here

Case against protection

29 July 2011 Last updated at 12:54 GMT This will be the last post for a few weeks as holidays beckon.

So why not leave you with perhaps the biggest question in the environmental book - where is the natural world heading, if nothing much changes?

Simply protecting land and sea won't be enough to stem the loss of nature, according to a study just out in the Marine Ecology Progress series.

Read it one way, and it's one of the most depressing things you'll have seen, if you're concerned about the biosphere's future.

Currently, about 13% of the world's land surface is under some form of protection, about half of which is under what a recent study evaluated as "strict" protection.

At sea, it's a different story, with protection hovering around the 1% level - depending on how you define it.

So if land protection is in one sense a success story, being a rare example of an internationally agreed target that has been met and indeed exceeded, what impact is it having on biodiversity loss?

The various graphs in the paper, some of which I've copied in here, tell the story better than any of its words.

Even as protected areas expand, indices of biodiversity such as the Living Planet index decline

In region after region, the line indicating protection tracks upwards, even as measures of biodiversity point the other way.

So is there any point in protecting habitat?

When I called up one of the authors, Camilo Mora from the University of Hawaii, he was at pains to point out that an end to protection was not on his agenda.

"Protection is necessary - but far from sufficient," seems to be the overall message.

"We're definitely not saying we shouldn't protect areas - the problem is that we're investing all our human capital into those areas," he told me.

"We're putting all our eggs in one basket, which is dangerous; but even more dangerous is that there's a hole in the bottom of the basket."

The force they flag up as driving the world's biological diversity to the edge and perhaps beyond is, simply, that we are consuming too much.

That won't be a revolutionary message to some.

But the authors believe it's something that many more policymakers and ordinary citizens have to put at the centre of their thinking if the sixth great extinction is not to exceed the five previous ones in scale and rate.

Another of the authors, Peter Sale from the Canadian Institute for Water, Health and the Environment, put it like this:

"We are just taking too much - managing forests in such as way as they degrade, same with coastal waters, and we have to stop doing this as a species.

"I don't have a solution - I have struggled for some time trying to think what is the way to get people to realise how important this is - but if we don't find it soon, the future is a very grim one.

"We're talking about losing 50% of species in the next half century - that's faster than any previous mass extinction event - and anybody who thinks we can go through a mass extinction and be perfectly fine is just deluding themselves."

Cutting consumption does not appear on the agenda of most governments

There's some implied criticism for mainstream conservation groups here.

The authors suggest these groups concentrate too much on protected areas, and ignore the issue of over-consumption.

In my own experience, that's not entirely correct.

It's more that conservation, being an element of the political process, is in large part the art of the possible.

And while getting governments to set areas aside for tigers or sharks is doable, there are few ready to lend an ear to the politically suicidal idea of reducing their citizens' consumption.

It's also controversial inside the wide umbrella of civil society.

Organisations such as Oxfam, for example, which campaign on climate change, are there in large part to advance the cause of the global poor - and that doesn't mean reducing their consumption of food or fuel.

Changing the nature of what we consume is seen in some quarters as more feasible - eating locally-produced food, powering society with renewables rather than fossil fuels - but so far, it's making merely a dent in the overall upwards trend of us guzzling more and more stuff.

And this is only augmented by the growth of the world's human population, set to top seven billion before the end of the year.

As with domestic politics, attempts to get sustainable consumption onto the international agenda have thus far been an almost total failure.

The next big set-piece chance to discuss it is the Rio+20 summit next May.

The issue has been mentioned and discussed by governments in the preparatory process, and there are nods to it in some of the outline documents.

For example: "...certain types of consumption and investment must be restricted to avoid excessive resource depletion and waste, whereas environmentally-friendly investment and consumption should expand..."

But you would have to ask how urgent, how quantified, how serious this really sounds...

...especially when you set it alongside one of the papers cited in the new Sale and Mora paper - that by 2050, the human race will be consuming so much of nature's resources than in order for this to come at a sustainable rate, we would need to be drawing on the resources of 27 Earths.

View the original article here

UK launches woodland carbon code

28 July 2011 Last updated at 14:02 GMT By Mark Kinver Environment reporter, BBC News Forests cover almost one half of Europe's land area, but only cover about 12% of the UK The UK Forestry Commission has published guidelines for schemes that plant trees in order to absorb carbon.

The Woodland Carbon Code is designed to address some of the criticisms levelled at carbon offsetting projects.

Organisation such as the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) argue that woodlands are about more than just being carbon sinks.

MPs have said it was hard to verify claims of carbon uptake due to a lack of meaningful regulations.

The Forestry Commission says the new code is designed to provide a "consistent national approach, as well as clarity and transparency to potential investors about just what their money should buy them".

In order to comply with the code, the commission added that woodland projects had to be managed to national standards, use established methods for estimating the amount of carbon captured by the trees, and be independently verified.

In order to be considered by the code's administrators, project managers will have to register each offsetting scheme, stating its exact location and long-term objectives.

Once approved, the commission added, the project would then be listed in a national online register.

The announcement coincided with the publication of government guidance for organisations on "reporting greenhouse gas removals and emissions from domestic woodland creation".

More than sinks

Responding to the publication of the code, Dr Nick Atkinson from the Woodland Trust said the guidelines would help re-energise the woodland sector of the voluntary carbon market.

Continue reading the main story

The important thing to remember is that woodlands are not just carbon sponges - they are also vital in supporting a range of threatened wildlife”

End Quote Martin Harper, RSPB "The Woodland Carbon Code puts woodland creation on the map as part of the UK's response to climate change," he said.

"Businesses looking to voluntarily support tree planting can have confidence in the claims made around carbon removal whilst at the same time demonstrating their environmental commitment to their customers."

However, the RSPB was a little more cautious in its welcome. Conservation director Martin Harper warned that planting trees in the UK to offset carbon emissions would not solve climate problems, and must not put wildlife at risk.

"The important thing to remember is that woodlands are not just carbon sponges - they are also vital in supporting a range of threatened wildlife," he said.

"They must also be planted in the right places - much of our wildlife-rich natural landscapes such as lowland heathland have been destroyed by irresponsible, poorly planned tree-planting."

He added: "Unfortunately, this code does not go far enough when it comes to promoting the restoration of some important wildlife habitats like peat bogs.

"UK forestry has a vital role in addressing climate change, not by planting new woodlands, but by restoring peat bogs that were inappropriately drained and planted with forestry.

"These important carbon stores can and should be restored, both to help tackle climate change and to provide important sites for wildlife."

Commenting on the launch of the code, Forestry Commission chairwoman Pam Warhurst said that tree-planting projects were beneficial for organisations for a range of reasons.

"They can reduce their carbon footprint at low cost, improve the environment and enhance their environmental reputation," she said.

Quick fix?

However, offsetting schemes that involved tree planting had been criticised for being an easy option, allowing companies to reduce their carbon footprint without changing their day-to-day operations.

In a 2007 report on voluntary carbon markets, MPs on the Environmental Audit Committee concluded that some schemes were "less than robust" and threatened to undermine any potential environmental gains.

Later that year, the Forestry Commission commissioned Professor Sir David Read to review the role that UK forests could play in mitigating human-induced climate change.

In 2009, the University of Sheffield professor of plant science published his findings, and concluded that woodland creation offered a "highly cost-effective and achievable abatement of GHG emissions when compared with potential abatement options across other sectors".

Ms Warhurst said that progress had been made since then, culminating in the launch of the code.

"We now have the means to capitalise on some very significant funding opportunities and attract very new woods and forests for everyone's benefits," she suggested.

The UK's woodlands, which cover about 12% of the nation's land area, are estimated to absorb about 2% of its annual greenhouse gas emissions.

View the original article here