Apart from the Cordyceps fungi genus, another fascinating/terrifying insect fungal infection makes cicadas hypersexual "flying salters of death" [1] that - in zombie-like fashion as well - fly around releasing spores from their decomposing abdomens, trying to bang other cicadas.
The White Nose Syndrome fungus is actually endemic to Europe and Asia; it was just its introduction to the US that decimated the population. The fungus is found on European bats with no mortality. It seems the US bat population had no immunity.
Cavers suspect that it was a tourist caver that picked up spores elsewhere and then went caving here. Many cavers stopped caving entirely to slow the spread.
"Casadevall has argued that C. auris is an example of just the sort of warming-induced adaptation he predicted. In a paper published in the journal mBio, he and two colleagues posited that the fungus has always been out there; only recently, though, under the pressure of climate change, did it evolve to flourish in the hothouse that is the human body."
That's a compelling hypothesis but it needs more evidence. There are mammals cooler than humans (for example sloths with their famously slow metabolism). Do we see a spike in fungal infections in these species?
This could also be tested directly on fungi themselves. Do we see them enduring higher temperatures than previously recorded?
I see the same problem with this article. Speculation on how climate change could breed new pathogens and then a list of new (or newly discovered) pathogens.
Very interesting article but har to separate a lot of interesting facts from the very recently released show Last of Us. The opening of the first episode of the show talks about mammalian warmth keeping us safe from fungi which survive at much cooler temperatures. However global warming is selecting for warmer and warmer fungi it's hypothesized so we should be concerned for humanity. Interesting but also so tv plotish that it's hard to feel it's a bit silly. Do scientists really think a whole branch of organisms will adapt up over 10 degrees to greatly threaten humanity?
It's entirely possible. And it doesn't have to be 10 degrees.
The current thinking, if I can paraphrase based on my understanding, is that an increase in average temperature due to climate change will select for fungi that can handle a warmer temperature, which makes them better able to survive in the human body.
For another really interesting take on human/fungus interaction from an anthropological perspective, I highly recommend "The Mushroom at the End of the World"
The subtitle frustrates me because we, as in humans, caused this. From what I can tell, the fungus was introduced to North America, almost certainly by humans or due to humans. It's a good example of the fact that to respect nature, you need to stay out of it.
But we are a part of nature as well, and have no choice but to interact with it.
There is no such thing as a perfect ecosystem equilibrium (If only because of entropy), life is constantly evolving, whether there are humans involved or not.
I understand your point and frustration though, as striving to preserve diversity (of species and ecosystems) is good because they are a valuable source of knowledge and resilience. And as a species we've done rather poorly in that regard, especially in the last century.
We do have a choice in how we interact with it, though. We will end up paying for all of this and already are. Entropy is what it is, but there's no need for us to speed it up.
Meh, as much as I agree with the idea to avoid helping invasive species spread, it's not like they need human intervention. Apparently even monkeys have managed to raft across the ocean[0], and considering how much more resilient the fungus is according to the article, ilI suppose spores could probably even catch a ride on a bird?
What bird species migrates across the Atlantic Ocean?
One off examples of other animals doesn't hold a candle to the damage done by humans in spreading both invasive animals and plants worldwide, both intentionally and unintentionally.
Thanks. I wonder if any of those birds share habitats with bats on the East coast of North America or where the fungus is located in Europe or are suspected of being connected with carrying the fungus.
A slightly more Darwinistic conclusion would be that we are judging the effects of our biological success on too short a timescale. The fungus is obviously thriving in its new habitat.
These things always have downstream effects, often quite negative. Bats are an important species that help keep insect and pest populations in check in addition to pollinating plants and spreading seeds.
I mean that our activity is the vector for another organism’s survival by spreading to a new habitat. That is, according to natural selection, how nature works. It is on the other hand odd that we humans believe ourselves to be exempt from evolution, and therefore in this case, feel guilt from being the mode of transportation for a mushroom, and in so many other cases, ignoring and even denying, the we too evolve through selection and evolutionary pressures.
I’m no fan of invasive species, but who are we to judge the migrants looking for a better life in the new world?
As a member of the most successful invasive species on this planet, its low orbits and for a few hours of the moon, far be it from me to throw stones in the glass house.
What is weird about it? Every square inch of this Earth is ours? Of course we're part of nature, as a whole. I didn't say otherwise.
I don't know why commenters are making wild and hyperbolic conclusions from what I said.
We have our cities, towns, and parks. A lot of so-called nature lovers love being in nature, but it's somewhat selfish as its harmful to nature and not everyone can do that. What I meant by "staying out of nature", which I thought would be relatively clear given the context, is to stay out of anything not explicitly designated as a park and trail. Even then, it is questionable whether our parks aren't harmful. When I've been to parks, I see less wildlife than I do in my own local yard and woods. It's likely to the heavy foot traffic and noise.
And yes, maybe it is time to reconsder our travel patterns considering how harmful they are to us, other animals, and the world at large. We can't have everything our way and expect no consequences.
> Of course we're part of nature, as a whole. I didn't say otherwise.
You said "to respect nature, you need to stay out of it.". This implies that we are not part of nature; there is no way to stay out of nature if we are part of nature ourselves. Or well there is one way, and that is to get rid of ourselves altogether. But I suppose this is not what you meant.
Even a single cave spelunker or rock climber or hiker could have spread this. It seems unlikely it was a simple tourist as the article implies, as it seems to me that one would need to have a bit more overlap with where bats roost and rest.
As both one of those nature lovers (guilty as charged) and a former trailworker, I have to point out the obvious: "Designated" parts of nature don't just come out of nowhere. We purposely plan parks and trails and preserves and wildernesses both to protect and, almost always, also to allow recreation.
Only in some areas is recreation the primary threat to conservation. Usually it's something more like logging, mining, or simple development that threatens a natural area.
I'd argue that relative to the other ways we treat nature, providing planned recreational access is a very low cost to pay if that means we get to then manage and protect that place for posterity, with the public's support (and funding).
Yes, even then we occasionally fuck up, whether it's through fungal spread or simple overuse. But relative to the more destructive alternatives, a few trails and tours is often the lower impact option. It's also the much more palatable (to the public) option compared to the nuclear "protect it but don't let allow recreation" option, which is only used in exceptionally sensitive circumstances (like some caves).
Realistically, people aren't going to want to stop seeing natural places. If anything, more people are going to want to as more people get richer and nature becomes rarer and more precious. I don't think there's any stopping that, any more than we have a chance of stopping industrial development for the sake of some philosophical ideal society. It's just not gonna happen. Yes, we're headed into a bleak overbuilt dystopia, and no, there's no stopping it. The best we can hope for is to slow down the destruction through management and education, both of which go hand in hand with planned recreation.
Recreation is often the "bribe" we dangle in front of the public, asking in return for them to minimize impacts. Like Prohibition or prostitution or drugs, shutting it down completely doesn't work, and it means you can't regulate it or tax and fund it. It means you can't enact management best practices, and you can't educate and encourage visitors to lower their impacts.
We can't expect the world to just listen to our pipe dreams and stop doing the things they want to do. We can, however, work with people to ensure the places and activities they love will be there for a couple more generations... if we're lucky.
> Only in some areas is recreation the primary threat to conservation. Usually it's something more like logging, mining, or simple development that threatens a natural area.
When I last visited Rocky Mountain National Park, it was quite clear that the park's existence itself was detrimental to conservation. Even while I was there, a black bear had been hit by a car and several other wildlife killed by vehicles getting into and out of the park. The trails were packed and people swimming in unauthorized ponds and lakes, leaking sunscreen, bug spray, and whatever else contaminates into the water and other such harmful behavior. There was little understanding from visitors that we were in someone else's home, where they fight for survival and aren't just there for recreation.
It became quite clear that they are going to have to start limiting visitation and closing off areas of the park to cars.
Some of the best conservation I have seen is done by non-government foundations that have very specific trails and subsequently limit and even outright prevent any expansion whatsoever. In otherwords, they just let nature alone.
Yeah, the most popular parks (Rockies, Yosemite, Yellowstone, Zion, etc.) are typically also the most impacted. I think Zion's shuttle program is a good thing, and the Rockies is one of the worst that I've visited in terms of traffic and impacts. Yosemite at least has the valley shuttle, and outside of the valley it's not so bad. More and more places are implementing permit and lottery systems. It's a tough job =/
Private/NGO nature preserves have their place, but I think public access for parks is also a big part in cultivating an appreciation for nature. Not everyone is going to "get it", it's true, but some will. How else would you inspire the next generation of environmentalists, if they never get to experience what it is that's even worth protecting to begin with?
> that to respect nature, you need to stay out of it.
Even without mentioning the human activity and presence is nature or not, you don't give boundaries to this statement, eg, are agricultural fields should also stay out of nature ?
So calling out that you might imply to eradicate humanity is perfectly valid, and some clarification is certainly needed to understand what you actually mean. (I'm curious to know too)
Staying out of something implies staying in somewhere else, not disappearing entirely. Taking a statement to some hyberbolic extreme is not discussing in good faith. Eradicating humanity is a ridiculous conclusion when I basically meant stay on the trails and reduce our expansion into still wild-ish areas and reconsider our existing presence in some areas and habits.
Your mention of agricultural fields is a much more reasonable one to think about and consider. From one side, bats are an important part of our agricultural. So this disease will affect us through losing their beneficial contribution to our agriculture. On the other hand, it is pretty well known that our agricultural practices are quite detrimental to the soil and ecosystems. I don't know what to about that, but one way is that fields often create boundaries between open fields and wooded areas, which are great places for bat houses.
Fungus probably comes from space, the emergence of the same new fungal infection all at once on different continents is another indication that it is true. Either by a "cloud of fungus" the earth passes through or through fungal spores distributed in the atmosphere from breaking up (mini) meteorites. The same could hold true for viruses and maybe even bacteria.
Well, how did it evolve in space? What did it feed on? Where did it come from originally, and what is its lifecycle like there?
Regardless of its primordial origin, it's been on earth a long time, enough to have developed symbiotic relationships with other life here, whether or not that life also came from space.
I don't think panspermia really provides any ultimate answers, just shifts the origins in time and space, but the same questions of evolutionary lifecycle and such are still there.
