In a new study published in the journal Nature Microbiology, Efrem Lim and his colleagues explore the galaxy of viruses present in the gut, known as the gut virome. They find that some preterm infants undergo marked alterations in their pattern of gut viruses shortly before developing a serious and often fatal disease known as necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC).

Professor Lim is a researcher in the Biodesign Center for Fundamental and Applied Microbiomics. He is also the principal investigator of the Center for Viral Genomics at ASU and an assistant professor at ASU’s School of Life Sciences.

The study was conducted in collaboration with ASU colleagues and researchers from the Washington University School of Medicine.

Although the bacterial component of the gut microbiome has received considerable research attention, viruses inhabiting the gut remain a largely hidden realm. The viral signature highlighted in the study, along with changes in gut bacterial communities, could provide an early warning signal that an infant is at risk of developing NEC, allowing clinicians to take emergency action.

“For many years now, there’s been some inkling that the microbiome is implicated in this rapidly developing disease,” Lim says. “Studies have shown that changes in the microbiome of the gut in these preterm infants seem to predict the progression to NEC disease.”

Yet teasing out the specific microbial changes leading to the disease has been challenging and the precise mechanism causing the affliction is still unknown. The current study is the first to comprehensively investigate changes in the viral microbiome that appear to set the stage for the development of NEC in preterm infants.

A microbial world is born

Microbes begin colonizing the infant gut during birth, when a baby encounters a variety of microorganisms from its mother’s vaginal tract. As the baby suckles, it picks up additional microbes from its mother’s skin as well as those that have infiltrated her breast milk.

The infant will acquire new microbes from other family and non-family members and even from household pets. These all become incorporated into the developing gut microbiome, composed of some 20-100 billion microbes.

This vast microbial community will go on to shape many aspects of an individual’s health, throughout the person’s life. Unsurprisingly, abnormal alterations in the gut microbiome can spell serious trouble and premature infants are particularly vulnerable to such disruptions.

Before their time

Preterm birth usually refers to infants born after less than 37 weeks of pregnancy. The condition appears to be on the rise, though the causes of this are not fully understood. In many low-income countries, factors including HIV, infections, malaria, and high adolescent pregnancy rates have all been implicated.

In 2020, preterm birth affected 1 of every 10 infants born in the United States. Babies born too early (particularly before 32 weeks), have higher rates of death and disability. Those that survive may experience lasting health issues, including feeding difficulties; breathing, vision and hearing problems; and abnormalities including developmental delays and cerebral palsy.

Babies born prematurely are also at risk of NEC. The disease often strikes suddenly. When babies are born after fewer than 32 weeks of gestation, the incidence of NEC ranged from 2-7% in high-income countries. Mortality among infants with necrotizing enterocolitis ranges from 22-38%.

A stealthy disease

While rarely occurring in full-term infants, this largely mysterious disease affects 1 in 1,000 premature babies. The condition strikes without warning and can cause an infant to go from appearing healthy to a dire state of illness within hours. The disease usually occurs two to six weeks after birth.

The disease produces severe inflammation of intestinal tissue, causing it to die. Such afflictions are known as necro-inflammatory diseases. A perforation may also form in the intestine, allowing bacteria to leak into the abdomen or bloodstream. The sequence of steps leading to NEC remain unclear, though risk factors are believed to include the prolonged use of antibiotics early in life and formula feeding (in addition to preterm birth).

Although studies have strongly implicated changes in the gut microbiome as contributors to the development of NEC, no single bacterial genus has been consistently associated with the disease.

Babies who survive the affliction often face lifelong health issues, which can include neurodevelopmental disabilities and a condition known as short bowel syndrome.

The role of viruses

In the current study, 138 stool samples were collected over the first 11 weeks of life. The samples were from 23 preterm infants in a neonatal intensive care unit in St. Louis, Missouri. Nine of these infants developed NEC, while 14, matched for weight and gestational age, did not.

The study explored the samples using metagenomics, a sequencing method that allows researchers to comprehensively sample genes from all organisms present in a sample. This allows microbiologists like Lim to evaluate bacterial diversity and detect microbial abundance in various environments. The technique also enables the detailed study of microorganisms that are difficult or impossible to culture in the laboratory. (In early 2020, Lim used metagenomic sequencing to rapidly probe the 30,000 letter code of the SARS CoV-2 virus, identifying a unique mutation.)

The study demonstrates that the NEC infants showed a convergence of viral and bacterial signatures in the gut virome. Notably, babies with NEC showed a reduced diversity in viral composition between communities in the gut, a feature known as ?-diversity. The diminishing viral ?-diversity occurred over a 10-day period preceding the onset of NEC, providing a potential biomarker, alerting clinicians to the looming danger. The findings suggest that the developing virome holds vital clues reflecting on the health of preterm infants.

Microbial horizons

The research could lead not only to faster diagnosis and better therapies for NEC but also for a broad range of diseases mediated by the microbiome. Further, existing therapies directed at modifying the gut microbiome, for example, fecal transplant therapy, could be further improved by taking stock of the viral component.

The study demonstrates that the underexplored viral constituents of the microbiome have much to teach us and almost certainly play an important role not only in the transition to NEC in preterm infants but also in other diseases. With new and rapidly evolving sequencing technologies, researchers can begin to mine the virome for valuable diagnostic signposts of disease and develop more effective therapies.

Efrem Lim is the 2022 recipient of the ASU Faculty Research Achievement Award, delivered at the university’s Founder’s Day celebration on March 17.

The findings show that managing parks to protect species and their habitats is crucial — and without such management, parks are more likely to be ineffective.

Next month world leaders will gather in China to set the agenda of global conservation efforts for the next decade. Plans to formally protect 30% of the Earth’s surface by 2030 are gathering pace, but the study’s authors say this alone will not guarantee the preservation of biodiversity. They are arguing that targets need to be set for the quality of protected areas, not just the quantity.

The study focussed on waterbirds, examining the impact of 1,500 protected areas (in 68 countries) on more than 27,000 waterbird populations, but the findings are likely to have wider relevance to conservation.

The study was led by the universities of Exeter and Cambridge and is published in the journal Nature.

“We know that protected areas can prevent habitat loss, especially in terms of stopping deforestation,” said lead author Dr Hannah Wauchope, of the Centre for Ecology and Conservation on Exeter’s Penryn Campus in Cornwall.

“However, we have much less understanding of how protected areas help wildlife.

“Our study shows that, while many protected areas are working well, many others are failing to have a positive effect.

“Rather than focussing solely on the total global area protected, we need more focus on ensuring areas are well-managed to benefit biodiversity.”

The study uses a “before-after-control-intervention” method — comparing waterbird population trends before protected areas were established with trends afterwards, and also comparing the trends of similar waterbird populations inside and outside protected areas.

This provided a much more accurate and detailed picture than previous studies.

“We are not saying protected areas don’t work,” Dr Wauchope said.

“The key point is that their impacts vary hugely, and the biggest thing this depends on is whether they are managed with species in mind — we can’t just expect protected areas to work without appropriate management.

“It also appears that larger protected areas tend to be better than smaller ones.”

The study focussed on waterbirds because they are well studied and found in many locations worldwide, and their mobility means they can quickly colonise or leave a location based on the quality of the conditions.

The research team included Wetlands International and the universities of Bangor, Queensland, Copenhagen, and Cornell, and the research relied on the efforts of many thousands of volunteers across the world to collect the data on waterbird population numbers.

Professor Julia Jones from Bangor University, a co-author of the study, said “To slow biodiversity loss, we need a much better understanding of which conservation approaches work, and which don’t. This analysis gives really useful indications of how conservation can be improved to deliver better outcomes for species.”

Data on waterbirds in North America came from the National Audubon Society. The research team included Wetlands International and the universities of Bangor, Queensland, Copenhagen, and Cornell, and the research relied on the efforts of many thousands of volunteers across the world, organised by the Christmas Bird Count (National Audubon Society) and the International Waterbird Census (Wetlands International), to collect the data on waterbird population numbers

The study published in Nature is the first to identify that an interaction between rising temperatures and land use changes, is driving widespread losses in numerous insect groups across the globe.

Lead author Dr Charlie Outhwaite (UCL Centre for Biodiversity & Environment Research, UCL Biosciences) said: “Many insects appear to be very vulnerable to human pressures, which is concerning as climate change worsens and agricultural areas continue to expand. Our findings highlight the urgency of actions to preserve natural habitats, slow the expansion of high-intensity agriculture, and cut emissions to mitigate climate change.

“Losing insect populations could be harmful not only to the natural environment, where insects often play key roles in local ecosystems, but it could also harm human health and food security, particularly with losses of pollinators.

“Our findings may only represent the tip of the iceberg as there is limited evidence in some areas, particularly in the tropics which we found have quite high reductions in insect biodiversity in the most impacted areas.”

The researchers analysed a large dataset of insect abundance and species richness from areas across the globe, including three-quarters of a million records for nearly 20,000 insect species.

The team compared insect biodiversity in different areas depending on how intensive agriculture is in the area, as well as how much historic climate warming the local area has experienced.

They found that in areas with high-intensity agriculture and substantial climate warming, the number of insects was 49% lower than in the most natural habitats with no recorded climate warming, while the number of different species was 29% lower. Tropical areas saw the biggest declines in insect biodiversity linked to land use and climate change.

The researchers found that in areas of low-intensity agriculture and substantial climate warming, having nearby natural habitat buffered the losses: where 75% of the land was covered by natural habitat, insect abundance only declined by 7%, compared to a 63% reduction in comparable areas with only 25% natural habitat cover. Many insects rely on plants for shade on hot days, so a loss of natural habitats could leave them more vulnerable to a warming climate.

The researchers say that insect declines due to human influences may be even greater than their findings suggest as many areas with long histories of human impacts would have already seen biodiversity losses before the start of the study period, and the study also did not account for the effects of other drivers such as pollution.

Senior author Dr Tim Newbold (UCL Centre for Biodiversity & Environment Research) said: “The environmental harms of high-intensity agriculture present a tricky challenge as we try to keep up with food demands of a growing population. We have previously found that insect pollinators are particularly vulnerable to agricultural expansion, as they appear to be more than 70% less abundant in high-intensity croplands compared to wild sites. Careful management of agricultural areas, such as preserving natural habitats near farmland, may help to ensure that vital insects can still thrive.”

Joint first author Peter McCann, who conducted the research while completing an MSc at the UCL Centre for Biodiversity & Environment Research, said: “We need to acknowledge how important insects are for the environment as a whole, and for human health and wellbeing, in order to address the threats we pose to them before many species are lost forever.”

UCL Centre for Biodiversity & Environment Research scientists are at the forefront of research into human impacts on the planet, such as by developing the science underpinning the IUCN’s Red List that quantifies extinction risk, and discovering that changes to land use may be increasing the risks of disease outbreaks like Covid-19 that jump from animals to humans. The centre’s new interdisciplinary People and Nature Lab is developing innovative approaches, such as citizen science programmes and employing artificial intelligence, to tackle these urgent global challenges and foster a more sustainable relationship between people and nature.

The research was supported by the Natural Environment Research Council and the Royal Society.

Safety is a good thing. But sometimes things we do in the name of safety create more hazards. Flame retardants are intended to slow the spread of a fire and allow for additional escape time. They began to be used extensively in all kinds of products in the 1970s to meet flammability standards set to increase public safety. With growing awareness of the health risks associated with many of the chemicals, some regulations changed. But harmful flame retardants are still everywhere, and they really shouldn’t be.

What Are Flame Retardants?

“Flame retardant” describes a chemical’s function – to make a product less flammable – but doesn’t say anything about the chemical itself. Not all of them are health concerns. But halogenated fire retardants (HFRs), a broad class of flame retardants containing chlorine or bromine are on the Red List. They are persistent, bioaccumulative toxins with adverse effects on neurological development and reproduction. They can cause thyroid hormone disruption and possible liver toxicity. When burnt, they release dioxins and furans, which are known carcinogens. HFRs include PBDE, TBBPA, HBCD, Deca-BDE, TCPP, TCEP, Dechlorane Plus, and others.

Which Products Contain Them?

Even though HFRs are on the Red List, and certain HFRs are banned, others can be found in a frightening variety of products. HFRs are found in insulation (virtually all foam insulations contain HFRs), myriad other foam products, tents, electronics, and upholstery — including in children’s car seats. Over time and with use, flame retardants release into the dust and air. Inhaling and ingesting contaminated dust is the most common exposure pathway. Flame retardants escape into the environment with laundry water, where wildlife can be exposed long after the chemicals leave your home.

Getting Rid of Flame Retardants

Some of the worst flame retardants are no longer used. Manufacturers voluntarily stopped producing two kinds of PBDEs (Penta-BDE and Octa-BDE) in 2004. After Washington state banned a third PBDE (Deca-BDE), manufacturers stopped producing, importing, and selling it in the U.S. in 2012. For decades, furniture cushions used halogenated flame retardants to comply with the 1975 California flammability standard TB 117. That standard was revised in 2014 so that new furniture has increased fire safety without the need for flame retardant chemicals. However, it is possible that these chemicals are being used in other countries and entering the United States in finished products. The safety of many of the chemicals that have replaced HFRs is unknown.

Although it may not be possible to avoid flame retardants entirely, when remodeling or building a new home, look for safer building materials. Many products manufactured before 2014 that contain halogenated flame retardants are still in use in people’s homes. While reuse is usually the best course for old furniture, replace the foam first to avoid creating ongoing hazards in someone else’s home. Unfortunately, recycling options are limited at best for the old foam. Landfilling is the safest disposal option because burning or incineration can release toxins into the air.

Avoiding Flame Retardants

Many products no longer contain any added flame retardant chemicals. Read the flammability label carefully when buying upholstered products. Labels should identify any added chemicals. Boron is not an HFR and is a suitable alternative for many applications. If you have an older upholstered or foam-containing item that you want to keep, any U.S. resident can submit a sample of polyurethane foam (PUF) for testing by using the submission form on the Duke University website.

For many other product types, like insulation, there is a healthy selection of choices that do not contain harmful flame retardants. When purchasing electronics, look for TCO certification to ensure that only non-halogenated flame retardants reviewed by GreenScreen® for Safer Chemicals are used.

HFRs are persistent chemicals and were widely used in the past. That means the dust in your house probably contains HFRs. Dust and vacuum frequently with a damp cloth and a vacuum with a HEPA filter. Wash your hands after cleaning and before eating to avoid ingesting the dust.

About Pajamas

Children may be particularly vulnerable to the toxic effects of chemicals because their brain and other organs are still developing. Hand-to-mouth behavior and proximity to the floor also increase their potential exposure to flame retardants. Researchers have confirmed that children have higher concentrations than adults of flame retardants in their bodies. However, the Code of Federal Regulations at 16 CFR Part 1615 for children’s sleepwear sized 9 months to 6X, and 16 CFR Part 1616 for children’s sleepwear sized 7 through 14 require children’s sleepwear and loungewear to pass flammability testing to self-extinguish if a flame from a candle, match, lighter, or a similar item causes it to catch fire. Read labels carefully, and consider letting kids sleep in comfortable clothes instead. Just be sure to increase your home fire safety protocols as well.

Digital photography is the most commonly used method of visual representation, but despite its speed and efficiency, it often fails to faithfully represent the artefact being studied. In recent years, 3-D scanning has emerged as an alternative source of high-quality visualizations, but the cost of the equipment and the time needed to produce a model are often prohibitive.

Now, a paper published in PLOS ONE presents two new methods for producing high-resolution visualizations of small artefacts, each achievable with basic software and equipment. Using expertise from fields which include archaeological science, computer graphics and video game development, the methods are designed to allow anyone to produce high-quality images and models with minimal effort and cost.

The first method, Small Object and Artefact Photography or SOAP, deals with the photographic application of modern digital techniques. The protocol guides users through small object and artefact photography from the initial set up of the equipment to the best methods for camera handling and functionality and the application of post-processing software.

The second method, High Resolution Photogrammetry or HRP, is used for the photographic capturing, digital reconstruction and three-dimensional modelling of small objects. This method aims to give a comprehensive guide for the development of high-resolution 3D models, merging well-known techniques used in academic and computer graphic fields, allowing anyone to independently produce high resolution and quantifiable models.

“These new protocols combine detailed, concise, and user-friendly workflows covering photographic acquisition and processing, thereby contributing to the replicability and reproducibility of high-quality visualizations,” says Jacopo Niccolò Cerasoni, lead author of the paper. “By clearly explaining every step of the process, including theoretical and practical considerations, these methods will allow users to produce high-quality, publishable two- and three-dimensional visualisations of their archaeological artefacts independently.”

The SOAP and HRP protocols were developed using Adobe Camera Raw, Adobe Photoshop, RawDigger, DxO Photolab, and RealityCapture and take advantage of native functions and tools that make image capture and processing easier and faster. Although most of these softwares are readily available in academic environments, SOAP and HRP can be applied to any other non-subscription based softwares with similar features. This enables researchers to use free or open-access software as well, albeit with minor changes to some of the presented steps.

Both the SOAP protocol and the HRP protocol are published openly on protocols.io.

“Because visual communication is so important to understanding past behavior, technology and culture, the ability to faithfully represent artefacts is vital for the field of archaeology,” says co-author Felipe do Nascimento Rodrigues, from the University of Exeter.

Even as new technologies revolutionize the field of archaeology, practical instruction on archaeological photography and three-dimensional reconstructions are lacking. The authors of the new paper hope to fill this gap, providing researchers, educators and enthusiasts with step-by-step instructions for creating high quality visualizations of artefacts.

According to the IPBES (Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services) report, currently 25 percent, or 1 million species, are threatened with extinction. The drivers of change have only accelerated in the past 50 years. The human population has doubled to 8 billion, contributing to climate change, land and sea-use change, overexploitation of resources and pollution. Two-thirds of the oceans are impacted. 85 percent of wetlands have been lost.

As a result of these stark data findings, the IPBES agreement fingered human land-use changes as the primary culprit.

Now, an ASU research team has developed the first-of-its-kind study that combines conservation with practical economic tools for a case study of Colombia, South America, a high priority but underfunded country for biodiversity conservation.

“We focused on the case study of the country of Colombia to demonstrate an approach to maximize the biodiversity benefits from limited conservation funding while ensuring that landowners maintain economic returns equivalent to agriculture,” said Leah Gerber, who was lead author of the IPBES report, and is a professor of conservation science in the School of Life Sciences and founding director of the Center for Biodiversity Outcomes (CBO) at Arizona State University.

While they found that Colombia would need to substantially increase its conservation spending,

the study developed a prioritization map that permits policymakers to target conservation actions toward regions where conservation benefits are the highest and economic impacts are low — giving the biggest ecological bang for the buck.

To do so, Gerber teamed up with Colombia native Camila Guerrero-Pineda, who, just three years ago, left her home country to join ASU and be mentored as a graduate student by Gerber and Gwenllian D. Iacona, assistant research professor at the School of Life Sciences, to ultimately make a difference back home.

“It’s fair to categorize that Colombia is a megadiverse country” said Guerrero-Pineda. “It arguably has some of the greatest biodiversity in the world, given its size, and a lot of scientists and academics in Colombia fear the ecological consequences of human actions.”

Now, she is the first author and a first-year ASU School of Life Sciences and Conservation Innovation Lab graduate student who contributed their results in the journal Nature Sustainability.

Cattle, coca and biodiversity

Colombia ranks among one of just 17 megadiverse countries in the world.

Colombia possesses a unique geography and natural beauty as the only South American country with combined coastlines of the Pacific Ocean and Caribbean Seas, along with the Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta, which at 13,000m, is the world’s highest coastal mountain range.

Human actions now threaten the only freshwater species of its kind, the pink river dolphin. The cotton-top tamarin. The Orinoco crocodile. The 100-pound, giant capybara rodent. The spectacled bear. Plants (flor de mayo orchid), amphibians (golden poison frog) and butterflies (Colombian eighty-eight) too.

All unique species to Colombia. And all could vanish.

In the South American continent, Colombia stands out as a region that has retained its biodiversity, one of the few silver linings due to a long history of violent, human conflicts. Prior to a 2016 peace agreement, Colombia had government instability and a decades long guerrilla war led by the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, or FARC, and other minor groups.

“FARC had a lot of control over the forests, and it prevented a lot of economic development” said Guerrero-Pineda. Since the FARC controlled the forest for coca leaf (the plant used to produce cocaine) production and the drug trade to finance five decades of asymmetrical warfare, one effect was to prevent unbridled development — and inadvertently preserve biodiversity.

In the ASU-led study, they found that the probability of transformation to cattle and other crops decreases with distance to roads, while the probability of transformation to coca increases. These results suggest that coca crops are grown in more isolated areas, away from roads, compared with cattle.

The presence of FARC was the most influential variable determining the fate of the deforested area, as the odds of forest conversion to coca crops over conversion to cattle or other crops in areas with presence of FARC is 308.04% higher than the odds in areas without FARC.

“It also prevented a lot of scientific monitoring because scientists were afraid of going into the forests,” said Guerrero-Pineda.

But Colombia now stands at a biodiversity crossroads. The 2016 peace agreement has now brought unprecedented development. During the past 5 years alone, GDP growth has been 5-6% every year.

During that time, the deforestation rate rose by 44% after the peace agreement. Palm oil production, logging, mining, and gas oil extraction are some of the leading culprits besides agriculture development.

Do nothing, and Gerber’s team estimates the current biodiversity loss rate could increase by 50% by 2033.

Paradise lost or opportunity cost?

But how does Colombia preserve its biodiversity while balancing the need for economic development? Gerber’s team thinks they found a new blueprint to not only aid Colombia, but also extend to other policymakers in other countries to help make a difference.

For the first time, they applied a unique quantitative model that relates conservation investment to national biodiversity outcomes.

“The methods developed here offer an approach to identifying areas of greatest conservation returns on investment by balancing cost of conservation action, measured as opportunity cost for agriculture, and biodiversity impacts,” said study lead author Camila Guerrero-Pineda.

When it comes to development, everything economically comes down to opportunity costs.

An extreme example of the choices nations must make is often referred to as the “Guns versus butter” model of economics. It refers to whether a country is more interested in spending money on war or feeding their people — but it can’t do both, and there are always going to be tradeoffs.

In Colombia’s case, it’s economic development versus biodiversity outcomes. Or more colloquially, parks versus parking lots. Preservation versus development.

Their team modeled the opportunity cost of conservation (OCC) to agriculture as an approximation of the expected cost of compensating a landowner for avoiding conversion of their property.

“Opportunity cost is what you’re missing out on or what you’re not doing because of a decision to do something else,” said Guerrero-Pineda. “What that means is that someone is not going to be able to use the land that is going to be used for conservation.”

They assumed in the modeling of a protection cost that deforestation can be counteracted by compensating the land owner, either by purchase, such as the setting the sale value of a parcel equal to its expected future cash flow, or as continued payments for ecosystem services.

To avoid this additional biodiversity loss, Gerber’s groups estimated that Colombia would have to invest $37-39 million USD annually in the best and worst-case scenarios of deforestation. According to them, this means an increase in its conservation spending of 7.69-10.16 million USD per year. Avoiding this decline (preventing further loss) would require $61-63 million USD annually, which is more than twice the conservation spending before the peace agreement.

“Our strategy for targeting conservation funding involves first identifying regions with a high

risk of forest conversion to agriculture [such as cattle ranching or other crops],” said Gerber.

“More broadly, the research agenda is around incorporating cost into decision-making to achieve the most outcomes, given limited resources.”

They found that the Andean region contains the highest mean OCC, reflecting a very strong probability of agricultural conversion of the remaining forests. Following closely behind were the Pacific, the Caribbean and the Orinoquía regions. The Amazon region, the one with the lowest mean probability of agricultural conversion, had the greatest forest cover percentage and the greatest forest area, had a much lower OCC.

“One of the things we’re excited about with this work is that it’s a demonstration of the potential of this idea of using return on investment for thinking about allocated conservation resources,” said co-author Gwenllian D. Iacona. “And so, we took these two high profile approaches that are out there, called the Waldron Model and the Species Threat Abatement and Restoration (STAR) metric, and we put them together so country-level decision makers can make the best-informed decisions at that type of scale.”

Their results can also assist in the planning of land preservation and national parks. In Colombia, the National Natural Park System is working to declare five new protected areas, and to expand three more. This builds on evidence showing that more effective and lasting conservation outcomes are achieved when governance empowers local communities and support their environmental stewardship, including indigenous communities, reserves and Afro-Colombian lands.

More to come

“I think Camila’s work really sets us up to assist entities, whether they be countries or companies, in quantitatively measuring the impact of conservation interventions on different metrics, whether they need biodiversity or climate mitigation, or other types of conservation strategies,” said Gerber. “I’m optimistic that we’ll be able to build and scale this to improve conservation outcomes more generally.”

“Camila, for example, in the summer, will be working on a collaborative USAID project with Conservation International in Peru and we’re going to be applying a similar approach to identify green economic growth pathways.”

Their approach is another prime example of ASU’s commitment to advance research to finding practical solutions of social, economic and today’s urgent environmental challenges.

“So, in that sense, Camila’s foundational work is not only novel, but also represents a practical foundation for broad applications globally,” said Gerber. “We’re exploring applications in several other countries and for additional sustainable development goals. By coupling this work with market-based incentives, this work offers to rapidly accelerate our ability to achieve sustainable development goals.”

Invest in Our Planet. That’s the theme for Earth Day 2022, coming up on April 22. How are you celebrating Earth Day? There’s so much you can do to invest in our planet, from joining a cleanup, planting trees, and civic action to hosting an event online or in your community.

We have a chance to completely rethink everything, from what we’re eating, to what we’re wearing, to what we’re sitting on, to our buildings and cars, everything. It’s happening, but it could happen at lightning speed if we bring the companies in, if we bring in and celebrate and support the inventors, if we find a way to educate our kids and promote climate literacy.” —Kathleen Rogers, president of EarthDay.org

Join an Earth Day Event

One of the easiest ways to take action is by participating in a local cleanup. Find a cleanup near you on the Great Global Cleanup interactive map. You can also find additional events to join on the Earth Day event map. Check back for additional events that will be added to the map as we get closer to Earth Day.

If you can’t wait until Earth Day to take action, no problem! Check out 52 Ways To Invest in Our Planet for a list of practical actions you can take now or any day.

Host an Earth Day Event

Donate to EarthDay.org

Unable to participate in an event? EarthDay.org works to diversify, educate, and activate the environmental movement worldwide to drive positive action for our planet. You can support this work by donating to EarthDay.org (previously the Earth Day Network). (EarthDay.org is a 501(c)3 nonprofit organization.)