The elephants died of sepsis related to Pasteurella bacteria, the same bacteria which killed 200,000 antelopes in Kazakhstan.
The bacteria is normally commensurate in the pharynx/tonsils however a virulence factor or increased infectiousness was gained somehow (possibly ambient temperature related).
I would discard ambient temperature, both species support a lot of heat. neither lack of food fits because all cohorts died simultaneously.
Toxins, poison or hidden radioactivity dust most probably [1]
if I remember correctly Saiga mortality in Kazahstan happened a few months after wildfires in Chernobyl. Is also an area contaminated with fuel rockets. There are two species of Saiga currently so this makes the problem much worse.
Is a fact that elephants have an enemy in farmers, and that lions and other African wild fauna had been systematically poisoned in recent years to be replaced by cattle.
[1] triggering low immunity, that leads to opportunist bacterial infections, that leads to (or just facilitate), mass death at all levels.
Might not be, it could be bacterial evolution. While temperatures shouldn't be ruled out bacteria and viruses evolve much more rapidly compared to multi-cellular organisms. In fact DNA of multi-cellular organisms are often altered by them. Not by much, but enough we can track if our ancestors experienced the bubonic plague in DNA.
I think it is possible to assume they acclimated and became stronger maybe due to the introduction of fertilizers.
United States is experiencing problems with algae blooms and this is typically downstream of water contaminated with fertilizer. Higher than what typically would be organically washed down stream.
My understanding of bacterial disease is that generally the disease itself is caused by bacteria emitting various toxins, either as waste materials or as part of their defense system.
Does it make sense that a commensal bacterium would evolve into something dangerous?
Depends on the environment. We all evolve due to our surrounding environment. Being stronger doesn't necessarily mean defensive, it might mean longer life cycles. More waste as you said.
I find it so sad that 84% of the remaining African savannah elephants live in protected areas and yet their population is declining 8% per year, showing that our conversation efforts are not enough and less effective every year.
This is the most massive and iconic land animal on Earth with plenty of public support and funding, this should be one of the easiest ones to keep track of and protect.
What does this say about our ability to prevent mass extinction of other species?
And Africa is huge! It's not like they are crammed in on a small continent. The entire USA including Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico etc. is about 25% the size of the African continent.
In which which this article would be an exception to your claim.
1. Headline suggests an answer
2. Content of article delivers the actual answer
3. There are even links provided to previous articles showing that this had been a bona fide mystery until recently
Clickbait is stuff like a youtube video titled "OMG Car market just flipped!" and it's a 15 minute video where a podcaster gets told by his dad various reasons to believe the car market hasn't really flipped yet.
Why don't you skip posting anything instead of discussing something that has nothing to do with the topic. Your "contribution" is also worse than clickbait.
While one could technically derive a stark, bizarrely restrictive definition to be a link that requires one to click through to satisfy one's curiosity, any good faith reading would note that the whole point of the term is to characterize links which are also sensationalized and deceptive (upon reading click-through content).
The 2nd paragraph makes this explicit, comparing click-bait to pre-digital "bait-and-switch," which is-- again-- a deceptive practice.
Being annoyed at having to click a link isn't the same as being deceived into clicking one.
That seems unnecessarily presumptuous/hostile. I hate click bait too, this just didn't strike me as having that tone. Sometimes I think we jump a little too quick to negativity about every little thing. E.g. in my opinion, "not summarizing the conclusion" is only one trait of click bait, not the definition.
I hate coming here to discuss the article and learn about elephants, but only finding low quality irrelevant uninteresting bitchy posts like yours instead of relevant thoughtful comments and fascinating elephant facts. If there's not already a subreddit about whining about clickbait, then you should start one and go there.
Edit: Then take your own advice, downvote my comment, delete your own comment, and move on, to serve as an example.
By presenting a mystery without any reason why else you might be interested other than the fact that it _might_ be a mystery.
Many people prefer titles to be an accurate and concise summary of the article, rather than relying on emotional tricks to get you to visit an external website find out what it's actually about. On a news aggregator site like HN, an accurate title is nicer because it respects your time and lets you choose your content.
Mysteries are interesting, so humans want to solve them. If the article turns out to be something uninteresting or something not to do with the headline, then the reader has wasted their time and the author and the website is being dishonest and being rewarded for it by clicks.
> By presenting a mystery without any reason why else you might be interested other than the fact that it _might_ be a mystery.
In the article, they claim it was a mystery and have a link to a previous story they published in September about said mystery.
> If the article turns out to be something uninteresting or something not to do with the headline, then the reader has wasted their time and the author and the website is being dishonest and being rewarded for it by clicks.
That's about the nicest concise definition of clickbait I've ever read!
It's also exactly the reason why this article does not qualify as click bait:
1. The answer is interesting to anyone who cares about elephants (and if you clicked the headline link I assume you care about elephants)
2. The answer in the article is literally the answer to the headline.
Please consider the distinction between a) annoying headline links that require you to click to get the answer, and b) clickbait-- by your own definition-- which leaves you with uninteresting/non-relevant content to what was claimed in the link
If you overload clickbait to mean both things, you might erroneously reply with a buffer too large for the type of definition you meant and accidentally pad with private key material
That's the same thing, but presented even more bluntly as an open appeal to your baser desire for a mystery, but it's still clickbait nonetheless - it's presenting itself as a mystery without any further reason information other than "elephants died". "Endangered" is emotional content without any further information; all elephants are endangered (or at the very least vulnerable) so this is another hint that the title is emotional (clickbait) driven rather than a useful summary.
The Guardian aims itself at people who like to consider themselves more intelligent than the average bear. The clickbait will therefore be toned down a little. Some people still prefer it to not exist at all, if possible.
I cannot stand these clickbait titles that explain the content of the article. I only read news where the article is zalgo text renderings of Bukowski quotes. Real news should have titles so off putting and repulsive that only geniuses in the throws of lunacy might dare click.
What kind of baby society has conditioned us to expect “short summaries” as the title to an article? The only appropriate title for this article is a word-for-word copy-and-paste of the entire text of the book 1984.
So you want a complete summary of the article in the title so you can discuss it without actually clicking on the link and bothering to read it? You're not even discussing the article, just its title. Shallow, boring, and formulaic. It would be more interesting if you were whining about the article's html formatting.
Edit: How am I attacking the character of the poster? I described his post, not his personality or belief system. And now you're doing worse than what he's doing, posting uninteresting off topic personal attacks that aren't even true. If you don't have anything to say about elephants, then don't say anything. Your time would be better spend looking up and learning what the term "strawman" means.
>So you want a complete summary of the article in the title
that's literally the point of an articles' title, the idea that you think it's somehow strange makes it seem as if clickbait strategies have become so ingrained as to appear invisible.
Titles aren't meant to be gamified and reduced into the shortest possible quip that will produce hits, they're supposed to aid in summary of the content. They're supposed to be shallow and formulaic; they're a tool for indexing and summarization, not a tool for generative publicity.
"Septicemia - possibly exacerbated by climate change - kills dozens of elephants." vs. "Scientists discover elephants TRUE KILLER, CLICK HERE NOW!"
'Shallow, boring, formulaic' is a good thing and it keeps with thousands of years of academic tradition and good sense.
I always write the body/article/post first, then the summary/abstract, then the title/subject. If I save my reader a click because they can easily judge the article's relevance at a glance, good. That is the whole point of a title. The only people who should click in are the ones whose interest would actually be helped by the content.
Attention-marketplace advertising has turned that on its head. Now the people who would actually be helped by the content will click in regardless, and the goal of the title is to waste the time of as many other people as possible, to pump those numbers up.
I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you about the parent's tone (though I think "attack the character" is not really accurate). However:
> Please do better.
This specific phrase, especially as a standalone sentence, comes off as highly superior/patronizing. It's almost exclusively something you would say to a child, or as a humble resolution about yourself.
Clickbait is not the same as sensationalism, though sometimes they overlap. "Clickbait" is literally correct here since they are withholding precisely "why dozens of endangered elephants dropped dead" in the title itself, so you are baited into clicking through.
Came here after reading the article hoping for an interesting discussion of it, and was disappointed to find this thread instead. Next time do better, or do nothing. Because what you did this time is worse than clickbait.
The article notes "the Pasteurella bacteria generally lives harmlessly" in antelopes, but became more virulent, possibly because of above-average temperatures. There's also a mention that the elephants were likely stressed because of drought conditions. Those facts suggest a link to climate change, and could be a bit of a canary-in-the-coalmine for humans and infectious diseases.
> Elephants are highly sociable animals, and also were likely stressed due to the drought conditions at the time, which made such an outbreak more likely.
> Scientists believe the Pasteurella bacteria generally lives harmlessly in the tonsils of some, if not all, of the antelopes. An unusual temperature increase to 37C, however, caused the bacteria to pass into the bloodstream, where it caused septicaemia.
I think the parent comment is referring to this paragraph:
> Pasteurella bacteria has previously been linked to the sudden death of about 200,000 saiga antelopes in Kazakhstan – an incident that researchers believe could shed light on what happened to the elephant herds. Scientists believe the Pasteurella bacteria generally lives harmlessly in the tonsils of some, if not all, of the antelopes. An unusual temperature increase to 37C, however, caused the bacteria to pass into the bloodstream, where it caused septicaemia.
I read it as the effect of body temperature, but the parent has interpreted it as air temperature. I am not sure which interpretation is correct.
> They concluded that a rise in temperature to 37C and an increase in humidity above 80% in the previous few days had stimulated the bacteria to pass into the bloodstream where it caused haemorrhagic septicaemia, or blood poisoning.
Fair to point out the confusion, however not sure the distinction is needed for the core point that global warming may increase similar incidents -- I think it's safe to assert body temperature is correlated with air temperature
> I think it's safe to assert body temperature is correlated with air temperature
Not at all. The whole point of warm-blooded organisms is to maintain a constant temperature, to a really good level of accuracy.
A change in body temperature is not needed for this sort of things to happen, though. A warmer environment is enough. See for example the headlines about flesh eating bacteria creeping north in the US.
I don't think they are correlated in warm blooded animals.
Anyway, 37 degrees is a day at the beach in San Diego or Miami.
It should hardly be fatal to most any mammal.
You can blame drought, which is what the article did, but air temperature is not directly correlated with body temperature unless you're referring to an animal that's already dead.
> Scientists believe the Pasteurella bacteria generally lives harmlessly in the tonsils of some, if not all, of the antelopes. An unusual temperature increase to 37C, however, caused the bacteria to pass into the bloodstream, where it caused septicaemia
"... except because it will be efficiently removed by its immune system (that knows perfectly what is a Pasteurella)" is the part of the phrase that is missing here.
It this does not happen... the question is why this year is not happening.
It's also worth noting, one of the author's of the paper: "Transmission of the bacteria is possible, especially given the highly sociable nature of elephants and the link between this infection and the stress associated with extreme weather events such as drought, which may make outbreaks more likely."
This isn't an everything is fine mongering statement.
Everything is not fine, but without clear cut research linking two completely different problems is not a scientific way of understanding why what happened. Fear mongering is what the original commenter is doing.
> This isn't an everything is fine mongering statement.
Then my apologies. The hand-wavey 'climate change happened before and will happen again' sounded like you thought it wasn't a critically important challenge facing us, frequently being down-graded by people with vested interests in understating the problem via dismissive 'this has happened before and we're okay' style comments.
The 'we need more science' refrain is also often heard from that quarter, so I expect you'll continue to spark a certain reaction when you use that phrase.
The problem in TFA definitely seems to be related to small rises in temperature leading to a much more favourable environment for pathogens. That it happened in elephants is profoundly sad, but what's genuinely frightening is we probably have close to zero coverage on what pathogens we're susceptible to are about to reach a viability threshold with a 2 degree rise.
In another comment you ignored TFA findings and said:
> But I am probably going to point out increased commercial farming in Africa as a potential culprit. The use of fertilizers are an issue with algae and bacteria growth.
It would be convenient for climate change apologists if that were the case, but as per TFA the event seems to be pretty clearly attributable to Pasteurella bacteria.
WOW! I've never seen so many forms of psychosis in one post.
You quote, and say but you're an apologist. Please check your privelege. This isn't an apologist stance. One of the largest influencers of climate change is the growth of crops not deomestically supported by the environment. Agriculture in Africa has raised drastically over the last 5 years and the use of fertilizers in Africa is among the highest in the world.
I think we're done with this conversation because you don't understand someone who would rather take the scientific approach of analyzing a problem when you'll foot in mouth take the emotional route.
TFA asserted cause was a specific pathogen that benefited from a temperature rise, and correlated with a similar incident wiping out 200k antelopes in 2015.
You said you thought we should 'look into fertilisers' as the root cause.
Perhaps you could argue your well-reasoned case with the authors of the paper published in Nature:
TLDR fertalizers increase bacterium growth study done on bowvine. Fertalizer use in Africa as a content is up 300% and 33% higher than most developing countries. For example while USA uses a lot of fertilizer a small country like South Africa uses half. That is a lot in terms of land.
Indeed, climate change will continue to happen, but I would prefer if humanity also continued to happen for a little while. Ergo I prefer not to hasten its end by accelerating climate change beyond its natural rate.
So I'll preface this by saying that it's my belief climate change is real, that it's being accelerated this time by human behaviour etc.
However I would suggest that it is not an existential threat to humanity. It IS a threat to an enormous number of individuals (literally billions) but humans will continue to populate the earth long after the climate has changed.
Humans have proved to very adaptable, living sustainably in the deserts of the Sahara as well as the ice of Alaska. I don't think we'll see the decision of humanity here.
Life as we know it? Civilization? Sure I can see cataclysmic change there over the next 100 years. Then again life now is completely different to 100 years ago, so that's no surprise.
One of the many reasons we are doing a lot of ice age hole boring. Get a clear picture of the hot/cold and wet/dry periods. The problem is that it can only peer into that biom.
The planet has been hotter and there was still wildlife. I am not going to rule out climate change as a problem.
But I am probably going to point out increased commercial farming in Africa as a potential culprit. The use of fertilizers are an issue with algae and bacteria growth.
I think you are not understanding the comment. Much of the issues right now are a byproduct of agriculture less with temperature. Most of it is the use of fertilizers that wash out and go down stream.
Humans are the factor, but the planet has been warming up for a long time. I guarantee this bacterial growth is more connected to fertilizers uses in crops nearby.
Polluting is the problem. But it isn't the marginal bump in temp because climate change makes temperature swings drastic which is not great for bacterial growth. And equatorial locations are not as susceptible to the temperature swings as more polar points of the planet. The problem is more likely related to the heavy unregulated use of fertilizers. Eh em, pollution.
The bacteria is normally commensurate in the pharynx/tonsils however a virulence factor or increased infectiousness was gained somehow (possibly ambient temperature related).