Cookies help us run our site more efficiently.

By clicking “Accept”, you agree to the storing of cookies on your device to enhance site navigation, analyze site usage, and assist in our marketing efforts. View our Privacy Policy for more information or to customize your cookie preferences.

Accept Deny

GoGreenNation news

Unveiling the Molecular Mechanisms Behind PTSD and Depression: Latest Findings

News Feed
Tuesday, June 11, 2024

Researchers from McLean Hospital and collaborating institutions have discovered shared and distinct molecular changes in brain regions, genomic layers, cell types, and blood of individuals with PTSD and MDD, offering new insights for therapeutic and diagnostic advancements. Credit: SciTechDailyStudy reveals molecular distinctions and similarities in PTSD and depression, highlighting potential therapeutic targets and biomarkers.A comprehensive examination of multiple biological processes is essential for understanding the development of stress-related disorders. Recent research conducted by scientists at McLean Hospital, along with collaborators from The University of Texas at Austin and Lieber Institute for Brain Development, has revealed both shared and unique molecular changes in brain regions, genomic layers, cell types, and blood among individuals with posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and major depressive disorder (MDD). These findings, published in Science, could pave the way for innovative treatments and biomarkers.The Complexity of PTSD Explored“PTSD is a complex pathological condition. We had to extract information across multiple brain regions and molecular processes to capture the biological networks at play,” explained lead author Nikolaos P. Daskalakis, MD, PhD. Stress-related disorders develop over time, stemming from epigenetic modifications caused by the interplay between genetic susceptibility and traumatic stress exposure. Although previous research has identified factors such as hormonal, immune, methylomic, and transcriptomic influences, the limited availability of postmortem brain tissues from PTSD patients has hindered a comprehensive understanding of these brain-based molecular changes.Multi-omics Approach to Studying PTSD and Depression“Our primary goals for this study were to interpret and integrate differential gene and protein expression, epigenetic alterations and pathway activity across our postmortem brain cohorts in PTSD, depression and neurotypical controls,” said senior author Kerry Ressler, MD, PhD, chief scientific officer and director of Division of Depression and Anxiety Disorders and Neurobiology of Fear Laboratory at McLean Hospital, and a professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School. “We essentially combined circuit biology with powerful multi-omics tools to delve into the molecular pathology behind these disorders.”For this, the team analyzed multi-omic data from 231 PTSD, MDD, and neurotypical control subjects, along with 114 individuals from replication cohorts for differences in three brain regions — the medial prefrontal cortex (mPFC), hippocampal dentate gyrus (DG) and central nucleus of the amygdala (CeA). They also performed single-nucleus RNA sequencing (snRNA-seq) of 118 PFC samples to study cell-type-specific patterns and evaluated blood-based proteins in more than 50,000 UK Biobank participants to isolate key biomarkers associated with stress-related disorders. Finally, the overlap of these key brain-based disease process genes was compared with genome-wide association studies (GWAS)-based risk genes to identify PTSD and MDD risk.Molecular Variations and Disease MechanismsIndividuals with PTSD and MDD shared altered gene expression and exons in the mPFC but differed in the localization of epigenetic changes. Further analysis revealed that a history of childhood trauma and suicide were strong drivers of molecular variations in both disorders. The authors noted that MDD disease signals were more strongly associated with male-specific results, suggesting that sex differences may underlie disease risk.Top disease-associated genes and pathways across regions, omics, and/or traits implicated biological processes in both neuronal and non-neuronal cells. These included molecular regulators and transcription factors, and pathways involved in immune function, metabolism, mitochondria function, and stress hormone signaling.Implications for Diagnostic and Therapeutic Advances“Understanding why some people develop PTSD and depression and others don’t is a major challenge,” said investigator Charles B. Nemeroff, M.D., PhD, chair of the Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences at Dell Medical School of UT Austin. “We found that the brains of people with these disorders have molecular differences, especially in the prefrontal cortex. These changes seem to affect things like our immune system, how our nerves work, and even how our stress hormones behave.”The genetic components of the work built on a study published last month by researchers including Ressler and Daskalakis in Nature Genetics, in which they identified 95 locations, or loci in the genome (including 80 new) associated with PTSD. Their multi-omic analyses found 43 potential causal genes for the disorder.The researchers now could reveal only limited overlap between the top genes and those implicated in GWAS studies, underscoring the gap in current understanding between disease risk and underlying disease processes. In contrast, they discovered greater correlations between brain multi-omics and blood markers.“Our findings support the development of brain-informed blood biomarkers for real-time profiling,” said Daskalakis.Ressler added, “These biomarkers could help overcome current challenges in obtaining brain biopsies for advancing new treatments.”Future DirectionsLimitations of the study include the inherent biases in postmortem brain research, including population selection, clinical assessment, comorbidities, and end-of-life state. The authors also caution that they did not fully characterize all cell subtypes and cell states and that future studies are required to understand contrasting molecular signals across omics or brain regions.The team plans on using this database as groundwork for future analysis of how genetic factors interact with environmental variables to create downstream disease effects.“Learning more about the molecular basis of these conditions, PTSD and MDD, in the brain paves the way for discoveries that will lead to more effective therapeutic and diagnostic tools. This work was possible because of the brain donations to the Lieber Institute Brain Repository from families whose loved ones died of these conditions,” said Joel Kleinman, MD, PhD, associate director of Clinical Sciences at the Lieber Institute for Brain Development. “We hope our research will one day bring relief to individuals who struggle with these disorders and their loved ones.”For more on this research, see New Molecular Insights Into PTSD and Depression.Reference: “Systems biology dissection of PTSD and MDD across brain regions, cell types, and blood” by Nikolaos P. Daskalakis, Artemis Iatrou, Chris Chatzinakos, Aarti Jajoo, Clara Snijders, Dennis Wylie, Christopher P. DiPietro, Ioulia Tsatsani, Chia-Yen Chen, Cameron D. Pernia, Marina Soliva-Estruch, Dhivya Arasappan, Rahul A. Bharadwaj, Leonardo Collado-Torres, Stefan Wuchty, Victor E. Alvarez, Eric B. Dammer, Amy Deep-Soboslay, Duc M. Duong, Nick Eagles, Bertrand R. Huber, Louise Huuki, Vincent L. Holstein, Mark W. Logue, Justina F. Lugenbühl, Adam X. Maihofer, Mark W. Miller, Caroline M. Nievergelt, Geo Pertea, Deanna Ross, Mohammad S. E. Sendi, Benjamin B. Sun, Ran Tao, James Tooke, Erika J. Wolf, Zane Zeier, PTSD Working Group of Psychiatric Genomics Consortium**, Sabina Berretta, Frances A. Champagne, Thomas Hyde, Nicholas T. Seyfried, Joo Heon Shin, Daniel R. Weinberger, Charles B. Nemeroff, Joel E. Kleinman and Kerry J. Ressler, 24 May 2024, Science.DOI: 10.1126/science.adh3707Disclosures: Nikolaos P. Daskalakis is on the scientific advisory boards for BioVie Inc., Circular Genomics, Inc., and Feel Therapeutics, Inc.; Daniel R. Weinberger is on the advisory boards of Pasithea Therapeutics and Sage Therapeutics for unrelated work; Duc M. Duong is a cofounder of ARC Proteomics, and cofounder and paid consultant of Emtherapro Inc.; Chia-Yen Chen is an employee of Biogen Inc.; Mohammad S. E Sendi receives consulting fees for unrelated work from Niji Corp, Benjamin B. Sun is an employee and stockholder of Biogen Inc.; Kerry J. Ressler has received consulting income from Alkermes and sponsored research support from Brainsway and Takeda, and is on the scientific advisory boards for Janssen, Verily, and Resilience Therapeutics for unrelated work.Funding: This work was supported by grants from NIMH, the Brain & Behavior Research Foundation, Stichting Universitas / the Bontius Foundation, the Dutch Research Council (NWO) fund, and McLean Hospital.

Study reveals molecular distinctions and similarities in PTSD and depression, highlighting potential therapeutic targets and biomarkers. A comprehensive examination of multiple biological processes is essential...

PTSD Brain Differences Art

Researchers from McLean Hospital and collaborating institutions have discovered shared and distinct molecular changes in brain regions, genomic layers, cell types, and blood of individuals with PTSD and MDD, offering new insights for therapeutic and diagnostic advancements. Credit: SciTechDaily

Study reveals molecular distinctions and similarities in PTSD and depression, highlighting potential therapeutic targets and biomarkers.

A comprehensive examination of multiple biological processes is essential for understanding the development of stress-related disorders. Recent research conducted by scientists at McLean Hospital, along with collaborators from The University of Texas at Austin and Lieber Institute for Brain Development, has revealed both shared and unique molecular changes in brain regions, genomic layers, cell types, and blood among individuals with posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and major depressive disorder (MDD). These findings, published in Science, could pave the way for innovative treatments and biomarkers.

The Complexity of PTSD Explored

“PTSD is a complex pathological condition. We had to extract information across multiple brain regions and molecular processes to capture the biological networks at play,” explained lead author Nikolaos P. Daskalakis, MD, PhD.

Stress-related disorders develop over time, stemming from epigenetic modifications caused by the interplay between genetic susceptibility and traumatic stress exposure. Although previous research has identified factors such as hormonal, immune, methylomic, and transcriptomic influences, the limited availability of postmortem brain tissues from PTSD patients has hindered a comprehensive understanding of these brain-based molecular changes.

Multi-omics Approach to Studying PTSD and Depression

“Our primary goals for this study were to interpret and integrate differential gene and protein expression, epigenetic alterations and pathway activity across our postmortem brain cohorts in PTSD, depression and neurotypical controls,” said senior author Kerry Ressler, MD, PhD, chief scientific officer and director of Division of Depression and Anxiety Disorders and Neurobiology of Fear Laboratory at McLean Hospital, and a professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School. “We essentially combined circuit biology with powerful multi-omics tools to delve into the molecular pathology behind these disorders.”

For this, the team analyzed multi-omic data from 231 PTSD, MDD, and neurotypical control subjects, along with 114 individuals from replication cohorts for differences in three brain regions — the medial prefrontal cortex (mPFC), hippocampal dentate gyrus (DG) and central nucleus of the amygdala (CeA). They also performed single-nucleus RNA sequencing (snRNA-seq) of 118 PFC samples to study cell-type-specific patterns and evaluated blood-based proteins in more than 50,000 UK Biobank participants to isolate key biomarkers associated with stress-related disorders. Finally, the overlap of these key brain-based disease process genes was compared with genome-wide association studies (GWAS)-based risk genes to identify PTSD and MDD risk.

Molecular Variations and Disease Mechanisms

Individuals with PTSD and MDD shared altered gene expression and exons in the mPFC but differed in the localization of epigenetic changes. Further analysis revealed that a history of childhood trauma and suicide were strong drivers of molecular variations in both disorders. The authors noted that MDD disease signals were more strongly associated with male-specific results, suggesting that sex differences may underlie disease risk.

Top disease-associated genes and pathways across regions, omics, and/or traits implicated biological processes in both neuronal and non-neuronal cells. These included molecular regulators and transcription factors, and pathways involved in immune function, metabolism, mitochondria function, and stress hormone signaling.

Implications for Diagnostic and Therapeutic Advances

“Understanding why some people develop PTSD and depression and others don’t is a major challenge,” said investigator Charles B. Nemeroff, M.D., PhD, chair of the Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences at Dell Medical School of UT Austin. “We found that the brains of people with these disorders have molecular differences, especially in the prefrontal cortex. These changes seem to affect things like our immune system, how our nerves work, and even how our stress hormones behave.”

The genetic components of the work built on a study published last month by researchers including Ressler and Daskalakis in Nature Genetics, in which they identified 95 locations, or loci in the genome (including 80 new) associated with PTSD. Their multi-omic analyses found 43 potential causal genes for the disorder.

The researchers now could reveal only limited overlap between the top genes and those implicated in GWAS studies, underscoring the gap in current understanding between disease risk and underlying disease processes. In contrast, they discovered greater correlations between brain multi-omics and blood markers.

“Our findings support the development of brain-informed blood biomarkers for real-time profiling,” said Daskalakis.

Ressler added, “These biomarkers could help overcome current challenges in obtaining brain biopsies for advancing new treatments.”

Future Directions

Limitations of the study include the inherent biases in postmortem brain research, including population selection, clinical assessment, comorbidities, and end-of-life state. The authors also caution that they did not fully characterize all cell subtypes and cell states and that future studies are required to understand contrasting molecular signals across omics or brain regions.

The team plans on using this database as groundwork for future analysis of how genetic factors interact with environmental variables to create downstream disease effects.

“Learning more about the molecular basis of these conditions, PTSD and MDD, in the brain paves the way for discoveries that will lead to more effective therapeutic and diagnostic tools. This work was possible because of the brain donations to the Lieber Institute Brain Repository from families whose loved ones died of these conditions,” said Joel Kleinman, MD, PhD, associate director of Clinical Sciences at the Lieber Institute for Brain Development. “We hope our research will one day bring relief to individuals who struggle with these disorders and their loved ones.”

For more on this research, see New Molecular Insights Into PTSD and Depression.

Reference: “Systems biology dissection of PTSD and MDD across brain regions, cell types, and blood” by Nikolaos P. Daskalakis, Artemis Iatrou, Chris Chatzinakos, Aarti Jajoo, Clara Snijders, Dennis Wylie, Christopher P. DiPietro, Ioulia Tsatsani, Chia-Yen Chen, Cameron D. Pernia, Marina Soliva-Estruch, Dhivya Arasappan, Rahul A. Bharadwaj, Leonardo Collado-Torres, Stefan Wuchty, Victor E. Alvarez, Eric B. Dammer, Amy Deep-Soboslay, Duc M. Duong, Nick Eagles, Bertrand R. Huber, Louise Huuki, Vincent L. Holstein, Mark W. Logue, Justina F. Lugenbühl, Adam X. Maihofer, Mark W. Miller, Caroline M. Nievergelt, Geo Pertea, Deanna Ross, Mohammad S. E. Sendi, Benjamin B. Sun, Ran Tao, James Tooke, Erika J. Wolf, Zane Zeier, PTSD Working Group of Psychiatric Genomics Consortium**, Sabina Berretta, Frances A. Champagne, Thomas Hyde, Nicholas T. Seyfried, Joo Heon Shin, Daniel R. Weinberger, Charles B. Nemeroff, Joel E. Kleinman and Kerry J. Ressler, 24 May 2024, Science.
DOI: 10.1126/science.adh3707

Disclosures: Nikolaos P. Daskalakis is on the scientific advisory boards for BioVie Inc., Circular Genomics, Inc., and Feel Therapeutics, Inc.; Daniel R. Weinberger is on the advisory boards of Pasithea Therapeutics and Sage Therapeutics for unrelated work; Duc M. Duong is a cofounder of ARC Proteomics, and cofounder and paid consultant of Emtherapro Inc.; Chia-Yen Chen is an employee of Biogen Inc.; Mohammad S. E Sendi receives consulting fees for unrelated work from Niji Corp, Benjamin B. Sun is an employee and stockholder of Biogen Inc.; Kerry J. Ressler has received consulting income from Alkermes and sponsored research support from Brainsway and Takeda, and is on the scientific advisory boards for Janssen, Verily, and Resilience Therapeutics for unrelated work.

Funding: This work was supported by grants from NIMH, the Brain & Behavior Research Foundation, Stichting Universitas / the Bontius Foundation, the Dutch Research Council (NWO) fund, and McLean Hospital.

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

Related News

Nature recovery plan in England hit by clause allowing contracts to end with a year’s notice

Conservationists say changes, coupled with underfunding, will curb take-up and leave less land protected for natureUK politics live – latest updatesAn ambitious scheme to restore England’s nature over coming decades has been undermined after the government inserted a clause allowing it to terminate contracts with only a year’s notice, conservationists have said.The project was designed to fund landscape-scale restoration over thousands of hectares, whether on large estates or across farms and nature reserves. The idea was to create huge reserves for rare species to thrive – projects promoted as decades-long commitments to securing habitat for wildlife well into the future. Continue reading...

An ambitious scheme to restore England’s nature over coming decades has been undermined after the government inserted a clause allowing it to terminate contracts with only a year’s notice, conservationists have said.The project was designed to fund landscape-scale restoration over thousands of hectares, whether on large estates or across farms and nature reserves. The idea was to create huge reserves for rare species to thrive – projects promoted as decades-long commitments to securing habitat for wildlife well into the future.Conservationists have warned these changes, as well as underfunding, will lead to low take-up and less land protected for nature. They say allowing contracts to be ripped up after a year is unworkable, as it would leave landowners with rewilded land they can no longer farm and too little time to reconvert it.Landscape recovery is the most ambitious part of the environmental land management schemes (Elms), which were introduced by the previous Conservative government to replace EU farming subsidies.Initially, the schemes were to be split into three strands, with landscape recovery receiving a third of the £2.4bn a year funding pot. But this week, the environment secretary, Emma Reynolds, announced the projects would be given only £500m over 20 years.Jake Fiennes, the director of conservation at the Holkham estate, one of the government’s first pilot schemes for landscape recovery in 2022. He has been creating more than 2,000 hectares (4,940 acres) of wildlife-rich habitat along the north Norfolk coast, including restoring wetland that has already attracted thriving bird life such as the return of rare spoonbills.Fiennes said: “£500m over 20 years is sod all. It was supposed to be a third of the [farming] budget – we could have worked with that. If you’re the person in the street, £500m sounds like the most enormous amount of money. But if you understand the environment and food budget is £2.4bn annually, this is a fifth of that over 20 years. A tiny fraction of it for the most ambitious nature schemes.”Spread across the landscape recovery schemes, it will amount to only a few million pounds a year. But what is being asked of the landowners is incredibly expensive and ambitious, Fiennes says.“Some of the pilots are asking so much more than that as they understand the value of land, and if you put it into permanent land use change, you permanently remove its value. Then it’s implementing your scheme, like re-meandering a river and completely redesigning a landscape. That costs money,” he added.The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) has claimed the funding shortfall could be topped up with private investment. However, farmers say this is unlikely while schemes remain vulnerable to being scrapped with only a year’s notice.The president of the National Farmers’ Union, Tom Bradshaw, said: “Defra’s plans for landscape recovery projects under the [environmental improvement plan] involve combining government funding with private investment.“However, experience shows that attracting private investment has been challenging, raising concerns about how farmers can confidently engage their businesses in the projects.”Toby Perkins, the chair of the environmental audit committee, said: “Do the government’s commitments match its ambition? The £500m for landscape recovery is much needed but, at £25m a year, I am very sceptical that it offers anything like adequate funding.”The government’s environmental improvement plan, announced this week, has watered down the overall ambition for nature on farmland.skip past newsletter promotionThe planet's most important stories. Get all the week's environment news - the good, the bad and the essentialPrivacy Notice: Newsletters may contain information about charities, online ads, and content funded by outside parties. If you do not have an account, we will create a guest account for you on theguardian.com to send you this newsletter. You can complete full registration at any time. For more information about how we use your data see our Privacy Policy. We use Google reCaptcha to protect our website and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.after newsletter promotionAlice Groom, the head of sustainable land policy at the RSPB, said: “In just two years, we’ve gone from needing 65–80% of farmers to manage 10% of their land for nature, to a new target of just 41% of farmers managing only 7%. That is a huge step backwards.“The science is unequivocal: on-farm habitat must be high-quality, the right mix and in the right places to support thriving wildlife populations. Government is simply wrong to suggest that getting 41% of farms to manage 7% of land under almost any [sustainable farming incentive (SFI)] option will be enough. It won’t. And it risks locking in further decline. “The falling numbers of species like corn buntings and turtle doves tell us something deeper that pollinators, beneficial insects, soils and climate-resilient landscapes are under stress.”Farmers and other landowners who signed up to the scheme found that their contracts allowed the government to terminate them for convenience – with no fault attached – with just 12 months’ notice.Fiennes said that he would not sign up to the new schemes yet and hoped to renegotiate with the government.He added: “Some of the legal advice says don’t sign because the government can end the scheme in 12 months. If you’ve done potentially irreversible land use change, you are up a creek without a paddle. Pension funds, banks – if they know there is a commitment from government for a set period, they will top this up, but at the moment it can be struck off in a year.”The nature-friendly farming schemes have been beset by difficulties and delays. Under the Labour government, funding was cut by £100m and the SFI was abruptly frozen, locking farmers out. Ministers say they plan to reopen the SFI in the new year.A Defra spokesperson said: “The £500m for landscape recovery projects is a downpayment which will go a long way to protecting and restoring nature across England.”

Nature
Conservation
Government

Why Is That Woodpecker White?

For years, the author has gathered photographs of local leucistic birds: white (or whitish) woodpeckers, hummingbirds, sparrows, turkeys, bald eagles, and more.  The post Why Is That Woodpecker White? appeared first on Bay Nature.

For several years in my garden, one of the harbingers of spring would be the arrival of the white-headed girl. This bird was a female house sparrow, normal except for her bright white cap. She stood out: field guides describe these birds’ caps as “drab,” meaning grayish-brown. Not white. So the first time I saw her, I wasn’t quite sure what was going on.  That became clear about a month later on a trip to the Sierras. As the sun was setting, the trip leader spotted two red-tailed hawks perched on top of a distant barn. At first glance, they didn’t look like a pair—one’s head seemed encircled by a saintly halo. A look through a spotting scope and a word from the trip leader clarified that the bird was leucistic. Now that I knew what I was seeing, I started noticing leucistic birds elsewhere, and I began collecting photographs of them from local Bay Area bird photographers. Photographer Alan Krakauer captured this partially leucistic white-crowned sparrow at his home in Richmond. Like my white-headed girl, he says that this bird returned annually for several years: “This bird was the VIB [very important bird] of our backyard and we always particularly loved finding it in with the other white-crowned and golden-crowned sparrows.”Photographer Marty Lycan took this photo in January 2023 at Shadow Cliffs Regional Park in Pleasanton. This particular bald eagle had been reported at several other hot spots continuing in 2024, and then into the new year.Mark Rauzon describes these photographs: “Bishop Ranch, San Ramon is a steep hill of super sticky mud, pockmarked by cattle hooves, that make for a challenge as you listen for the ‘haha’ laughing acorn woodpecker, hoping to see a white blur fly by. With patience, especially sitting quietly by the acorn granary, soon a normal and a white bird with a vermilion cap will drop by. Pretty much every bird photographer has made the pilgrimage to see them and take their best shot.” These birds were first reported in the summer of 2023. As of October 1, 2026, Mark thinks there might be as many as five. I love this particular photograph for showing both a typical acorn woodpecker and a leucistic one.Leucism is a rare condition in which a bird’s plumage has white feathers that aren’t normally white. Data from the Cornell Lab of Ornithology’s Feederwatch Program estimates that one in 30,000 birds has leucistic or albinistic plumage. Among those, most are leucistic, as opposed to albino. The difference is often—but not always—clear-cut: albino birds have no melanin, the pigment responsible for color, turning their plumage pure white, their eyes pink or red, and their legs and bills pale. Leucistic birds, instead, have normal eyes, bills, and legs for their species. And their whiteness comes in varying degrees.  Some leucistic birds—like my white-headed girl—have white patches where they shouldn’t have them. Others will have plumage that looks faded—half way between its normal color and white. And in the most extreme cases, the bird’s feathers are completely white.  This bird appeared in photographer Alan Bade’s garden for a few weeks in the springtime, but avoided his hummingbird feeders, perhaps avoiding competition with other birds, Alan speculates. He added that it seemed “a little timid and more delicate than our normal hummers. It goes away for a few days and then shows up again, like a ghost.” When Alan sent a picture of the bird—which he thought was leucistic—to expert Sherri Williamson, she replied that its “‘washed-out’ appearance” is “suggestive of one of the less extreme forms of albinism.” Her prognosis for the bird, however, was hopeful: “Though severe pigment abnormalities can make a bird more vulnerable to excessive plumage wear, sunburn, disease, and predation, there are some cases of ‘pigment-challenged’ Anna’s hummingbirds living to adulthood and breeding successfully. Here’s hoping that this will be one of those success stories.” Photographer Keith Malley is part of a regular crew at the Presidio’s Battery Godfrey who watch for seabirds and birds on migration. They observed this bird recently as it rose up behind their position at the ocean’s edge, then coursed along the bluff for about an hour before crossing north into Marin.Photographer Marty Lycan captured this almost completely leucistic white-crowned sparrow in winter several years ago while walking his dogs near a baseball field adjacent to Sycamore Valley Park. Was the location coincidental? The bird is about the size and color of a baseball showing a few scuff marks. It had been reported there the previous year, too, and then reappeared the following two winters. Sparrows seem to do this.Photographer Mark Rauzon found these finches in Panoche Valley, San Benito Co. where large flocks of house finches and various kinds of sparrows congregate in winter. Mark notes, “Obviously one stood out as it perched on the farming equipment.” Most often, a genetic defect causes leucism, by preventing pigment from moving into the feathers during development. Genetic leucism can result in birds that have patches of white (sometimes called piebald) or that are completely white. But various environmental factors can also contribute to leucism. Poor diet can lead to a loss of pigments, producing gray, pale, or white feathers. So can exposure to pollutants or radiation. Birds that lose feathers through injury sometimes replace the lost ones with new ones that lack pigment, regaining normal color only after the next molt’s feathers come in. And, like humans, birds can experience “progressive graying,”  in which cells lose pigment as they age. Mark Rauzon seems to attract leucistic birds. He described this yellow-rumped warbler, at the Las Gallinas Sanitation Ponds in San Rafael, as “a butterbutt with mayo” or, alternately, “an Audubon warbler piebald with splotches of white and yellow, gray and gray.” (Audubon is a subspecies of yellow-rumped warbler). Photographer Becky Matsubara took this picture of this bird at Marta’s Marsh in Corte Madera a couple of summers ago; it was among 12 other northern mockingbirds. It had first been reported in April and stayed around until at least August. It reminds me of the mockingbird fledglings that descend on my backyard each summer, eating all of my blueberries. While leucistic birds can be a source of wonder for us humans, the abnormal coloration can cause problems for the birds themselves. A bird’s appearance is often critical in its ability to find a mate, and a bird that looks like a snowball instead of a rainbow might have problems getting a date. A bird’s color can camouflage it from predators, but, again, all of that white can be like a painted target. Melanin not only provides color in feathers but it also provides structural integrity, making feathers more durable. And finally, a lack of melanin can affect a bird’s ability to thermoregulate—lighter feathers may absorb less light and heat, so birds might struggle to stay warm in cold temperatures. I heard about this bird from some friends who had said it had been hanging out with three “normal” turkeys (is there such a thing?) in the grassy center divider of Sacramento Avenue in Berkeley for a few days. When I went to find it, the three turkeys were about four blocks away from the leucistic bird. The leucistic turkey disappeared a few days after I photographed it. The others, six months later, are still hanging around (I had to chase them out of my driveway last month!) (Eric Schroeder)At the Merced National Wildlife Refuge, photographer Rick Lewis remembers: “It was early morning, the sun was rising, no other vehicles in sight; I was driving solo and immediately recognized the silhouette as a phoebe. Very exciting as I focused my binoculars and realized that it was leucistic.” Although there have been no large studies that show leucism is on the rise, human activity leads me to believe there are more odd-colored birds around.Some of that increase is intentional: Hummingbird expert Sherri Williamson points out that humans sometimes selectively breed for rare qualities like albinism, meaning we’ve created “hundreds of fancy varieties of poultry, pigeons, and cage birds.” But other increases in leucistic birds are accidental: One study done in the wake of the Chernobyl disaster revealed that there was a tenfold increase in the number of leucistic barn swallows locally. With habitat loss (and degraded avian diets resulting from this), human influences, and other environmental factors, the numbers of leucistic birds are bound to increase. That might not always be a good thing, as we’ve seen.  A bird hotline—in the pre-listserv and eBird days—alerted photographer Bob Lewis to this bird about a decade ago, on a garage roof in a Berkeley neighborhood.  It hung around the neighborhood for several days before disappearing. When I asked him what he thought happened to it, he said he suspected “something ate it.”Photographer Torgil Zethson found this western sandpiper on the Newark Slough Trail at the Don Edwards National Wildlife Refuge in the South Bay. Because this almost pure-white bird was so striking, he suspected that it might be the same one photographed a week earlier in Monterey County or even a bird seen in Coos Bay, Oregon ten days before that. (Torgil Zethson)But of course, the other explanation is that perhaps what’s increasing isn’t leucistic bird numbers, but rather the number of people watching and photographing birds. And I’m encouraged—as are the other Bay Area birders who’ve watched them—by those individual birds that keep showing up year after year, like my white-headed girl once did. After four years of backyard visits, she disappeared. Still, eight years later, when spring rolls around, I keep an eye open for her—or perhaps her offspring. Leucistic acorn woodpeckers. (Mark Rauzon)

Nature

Birdgirl' marks decade of making nature accessible

Dr Mya-Rose Craig marks 10 years of Black2Nature and calls for wider access to nature across the UK.

'Birdgirl' marks decade of making nature accessibleOliver Edwards PhotographyDr Mya-Rose Craig says Black2Nature has helped hundreds of children over the past decadeAn environmental campaigner who founded a charity to help children from ethnic minorities access nature says the cultural landscape has "shifted" since she began her work a decade ago.Dr Mya-Rose Craig, 23, nicknamed 'Birdgirl', set up Black2Nature at the age of 13 to connect more children from Visible Minority Ethnic (VME) communities with the outdoors.Reflecting on the charity's 10th anniversary, she said the current environment feels "very different"; although there is still "a lot of progress to be made". "It's amazing to look back over the past decade of all the hundreds of kids that we've worked with," she said. "All the different activities, the lives we've changed."Dr Craig said that when she first began speaking about the lack of diversity in nature spaces, the reaction was markedly different."I remember when I first started having these conversations, people didn't want to have them with me," she said."It made them very uncomfortable. I think they didn't want to acknowledge that there was exclusion and racism. So much has shifted in the past decade. "For me, that is really exciting, because I think that is how you build a more sustainable environment, by getting everyone on board."Oliver Edwards PhotographyDr Craig says she has noticed a shift in the cultural landscape over the past decadeBlack2Nature runs camps, day trips and outdoor adventures designed to increase access for VME children, young people and families.The organisation also campaigns for greater racial diversity in the environmental sector and for equal access to green spaces.Dr Craig, who is from the Chew Valley in Somerset, said the idea to set up the charity came from a "very deep love of nature and the environment.""I strongly felt that nature was a very important resource for other kids to have access to in terms of mental and physical health," she said."A lot of these kids have never been to the countryside, so it's about breaking down those assumptions."For a lot of kids that we work with, they feel like the countryside is not a space for them."Research from the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment (CABE) shows that people from ethnic minorities have an average of 11 times less access to green space than others in society.For parents such as Kumar Sultana, 42, from Bristol, Black2Nature has provided opportunities her family would have otherwise missed."I'm a low-income parent and I can't afford things like camping," she explained.She added the activities have helped her children connect with the natural world and learn about sustainability.Black2NatureBlack2Nature runs camps and adventure trips for childrenMs Sultana, who has a Pakistani background, said she did not have those experiences growing up."We don't have camping in our culture and money is also a barrier to accessing it," she said."Some of the places we've been, I couldn't afford to take my kids."Black2NatureThe charity campaigns for equal access to green spacesTo mark its 10th anniversary, the charity will host a conference at the University of the West of England (UWE) on Wednesday, focusing on race equity, education and career pathways in the environmental sector.Looking ahead, Dr Craig said she hopes to see environmental organisations engage more meaningfully with diverse communities and for young people to be made aware of career prospects in that sector.She also wants wider access to nature across the UK."I'd love to see better quality of green spaces in cities. There's very often a class divide in terms of green spaces, where nicer neighbourhoods have nicer parks."

Nature
Culture
Health

Labor’s nature law overhaul contains wins – but we should watch for gremlins in the details | Adam Morton

The Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act changes are an improvement, but the rush to pass them was purely politicalSign up for climate and environment editor Adam Morton’s free Clear Air newsletter hereWe should start at the beginning in assessing the Labor-Greens deal to revamp Australia’s national environment law. And the beginning is that, ideally, you would not start from here.Despite its name, the 1999 Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act was designed under John Howard to allow developments to go ahead, usually with conditions attached that may limit the damage to nature. Continue reading...

We should start at the beginning in assessing the Labor-Greens deal to revamp Australia’s national environment law. And the beginning is that, ideally, you would not start from here.Despite its name, the 1999 Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act was designed under John Howard to allow developments to go ahead, usually with conditions attached that may limit the damage to nature.The law does not prioritise environmental protection. It shouldn’t be a shock that it has spectacularly failed to deliver it. There is a case that the best approach would have been to scrap and replace the act.Labor instead chose to amend the existing legislation, arguing it could improve it for both the environment and business, which has complained of long delays in approval decisions. It means the deal announced on Thursday is a repair job, not a complete rethink of how to best protect Australia’s unique wildlife and wild places as the country faces what scientists say is an extinction crisis.It is worth noting there was no need for the changes to be rushed through this year. A committee inquiry is still under way. The Greens cut a deal at least in part because they feared if they didn’t, the government’s offer would evaporate and it would be content to make a much weaker agreement, from an environmental perspective, with the Coalition next year. The deadline was only political. Sign up to get climate and environment editor Adam Morton’s Clear Air column as a free newsletterThe result is the changes have not had proper scrutiny. The independent senator David Pocock had a point when he described the process as a farce. It means there are likely to be gremlins in the laws that will not be uncovered for a while.But let’s look at what we do know.From an environmental perspective: is this deal an improvement on the existing law? In some key ways, clearly yes.The creation of a national Environment Protection Agency with the power to enforce compliance and apply beefed-up penalties is a step forward – if well used. The same applies to the creation of minimum national environment standards against which development applications will be assessed.Plenty about the standards is still not known, though. Only two draft standards have been released, with more to come. As with so much of this, the details will matter.The commitment to tighten loopholes that made state-sanctioned native forest logging and agricultural land-clearing effectively exempt from national laws is a significant and necessary win for nature. The revamp would have been a joke without them.This change won’t stop logging or land-clearing, but will boost legal and social pressure on the logging industries in Tasmania and New South Wales. Anthony Albanese basically acknowledged this on Thursday, saying the forest industry was increasingly reliant on plantation timber – it already provides nearly 90% of wood in Australia – and that the government would kick in $300m for a “forestry growth fund” as it moved in that direction.The Greens’ demand that fossil fuel projects cannot be fast-tracked in the way other developments can – renewable energy and housing, for example – makes obvious sense as far as it goes.It also makes sense that Labor has dropped a proposal to give states and territories the power to make decisions on large coalmining and unconventional gas projects that affect groundwater or waterways under plans to “streamline decision-making”. Water resources are a national issue, and should have federal oversight.Here the politics get a little murky. Did Labor actually ever really plan to give up power over what is known as the “water trigger”? At least some of the “concessions” to the Greens – the commitment to axe the logging loophole, for example – were steps the government had said it was prepared to make, but held back for the final negotiations.skip past newsletter promotionSign up to Clear Air AustraliaAdam Morton brings you incisive analysis about the politics and impact of the climate crisisPrivacy Notice: Newsletters may contain information about charities, online ads, and content funded by outside parties. If you do not have an account, we will create a guest account for you on theguardian.com to send you this newsletter. You can complete full registration at any time. For more information about how we use your data see our Privacy Policy. We use Google reCaptcha to protect our website and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.after newsletter promotionSimilarly, it’s an open question whether the environment minister, Murray Watt, and those around him really believed an agreement was could be landed with the divided and self-destructing Coalition, despite repeated claims that he was prepared to make concessions either way. If a deal was done it was always likely to be with the Greens. They don’t call Watt a political fixer for nothing.Back on the positives: one of the more contentious issues in the debate over the laws has been whether to include a definition of “unacceptable impacts” that should in theory lead to quick “no” decisions on some developments. It stayed in. Again, the details and interpretation will be crucial.But there are also problems, and many unanswered questions.The amended laws lean heavily on the use of offsets, which basically allow some nature to be bulldozed as long as other areas are protected. As Guardian Australia’s Lisa Cox has shown, offset schemes have repeatedly not delivered anything like what has been promised.The government has proposed a “restoration contribution fund” that will allow developers to kick in cash in return for permission to do some environmental damage. This sort of model, which critics have called a “pay-to-destroy” fund, failed spectacularly in NSW. The negotiations with the Greens have introduced some limits, but many people will be sceptical whether the “net gain” for nature that Watt has promised can be guaranteed.Non-fossil fuel developments will be able to be fast-tracked, with decisions promised in as little as 30 days and in some cases left to the states. The country needs a rapid rollout of renewable energy, but this timeframe risks squashing the rights of communities to test and object to developments.The laws also maintain the existing approach of giving the minister of the day significant discretion over how the act is used. Experts say this includes in some cases the authority to approve developments they consider in the national interest, and a “rulings power” that could limit legal challenges.Finally, the laws go close to ignoring what will ultimately be the greatest threat to much of the environment – the climate crisis. Developers will have to disclose their expected emissions, but this information will have no bearing on whether a project goes ahead. As has been said many times before, this defies logic.It means that – even as some conservationists celebrate victories that have been the result of years of dedicated campaigning – the arguments over what more is needed to give Australian nature the protection it deserves will continue.

Nature
Climate
Conservation

Long-sought environmental law reform is finally here. But will the compromise deal actually protect nature?

After years of failed attempts, Australia’s environmental laws are finally getting an overhaul. But will they stop the damage done to nature?

Brayden Stanford/Pexels, CC BY-NC-NDToday is a landmark day for environmental law. After years of false starts and abandoned promises, Labor has finally struck a deal with the Greens to pass long-awaited changes to the federal Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act. The laws are expected to pass the Senate today – the final parliamentary sitting day of the year. Change is long overdue, as the 25-year-old laws have been shown to be not fit for purpose. Australia’s unique species and ecosystems are in real trouble. Threatened species populations are falling year after year, while climate change is driving species to extinction and ecosystems towards collapse. Significantly, neither Labor nor the Greens are declaring the bill a complete success. In its second reading today, Labor Senator Michelle Ananda-Rajah described the bill as “not perfect”, while the Greens described it as falling “woefully short” on climate. Environment Minister Murray Watt was negotiating with both the Coalition and the Greens to pass the laws. While the Greens agreed to the deal and extracted key concessions on native forest protections, Watt has left some wins for business and the Liberal Party. The compromise deal is indeed far from perfect. But after five years of stalled reforms, it’s clear significant compromise was the only way for the laws to pass. What was in the original reform bill? In late October, Labor introduced reforms that proposed a slew of changes to existing environment laws. These included provisions for: making national environmental standards to guide decision-making a new federal environmental protection agency planning at a bioregional scale to assess cumulative damage across a landscape These changes were broadly positive. But other elements raised considerable concern, namely: considerable ministerial discretion over whether to apply the new national environmental standards to development applications a wide-ranging national interest exemption allowing the government to fast-track projects in the undefined “national interest” fast-tracking for some decisions allowing developers to pay into a “restoration fund” to compensate for biodiversity loss despite evidence it worsens biodiversity loss excluding native forest logging from Commonwealth oversight plans to devolve environmental decision-making to states, with the pro-mining and anti-regulation Western Australian government the first in line. The original 500-page draft bill had areas of considerable uncertainty, such as requiring the minister to knock back developments if satisfied they would have “unacceptable impacts”. The idea was sound: create red lines where projects don’t have to be considered if damage to the environment would be too great. But the definitions were confusing and subjective. For instance, an “unacceptable impact” on a critically endangered species was defined as one that “seriously impairs, will seriously impair, or is likely to seriously impair” species viability. But “seriously impair” was nebulously defined as “something if, compared to the action not being taken, the impact results in the thing being seriously altered for the worse”. Industry criticised this for setting the bar too low, fearing it would stop projects in their tracks. What concessions have the Greens secured? While the Labor-Greens deal means the bills can now pass the Senate, it hasn’t fundamentally changed what was introduced by Labor. The concessions include: better protection for native forests banning fast-tracking of new coal and gas projects reining in ministerial discretion. The Greens are claiming their major concession is the removal of a longstanding exemption for the logging industry for areas of native forest covered by Regional Forest Agreements. Forested areas under these agreements currently have no protection from federal environment laws. Under the changes, these agreements will have to comply with the laws and meet higher standards within 18 months. The deal contains compensation for forestry workers. This is a clear win for the environment. The Greens also secured modest progress on climate, but far short of their long-sought climate trigger, which was a non-starter for Labor. Instead, the bill will be amended to remove coal and gas projects from fast-tracked approvals and to prevent the minister from declaring these to be projects to be in the “national interest”. Crucially, the Greens claim the deal will tighten ministerial discretion. The original reforms said the minister “must be satisfied” a decision is “not inconsistent with” the National Environmental Standards. This gave the environment minister of the day wide leeway to depart from the standards and approve projects. The Greens are claiming a major win here by changing the language from “not inconsistent with” these standards to “consistent with”. This isn’t semantics – it’s a stricter legal test. The amendments will also bring more land clearing under the environment assessment regime and allow the minister to declare some matters too important to be offset by paying into the new Restoration Contributions Fund. This could be a potentially important safeguard. Wins for the Liberals? In recent months, Watt has pitched these reforms as a win for the environment and for business, which would benefit from faster approvals. But businesses were wary of the nebulous concept of “unacceptable impacts”. It looks like Liberal Senator Jonathon Duniam’s proposed changes to the definition of “unacceptable impacts” have been supported. The definition of an “unacceptable impact” on a critically endangered species has been pared back to “seriously impairs […] viability”. This means projects can’t be knocked back if they are only likely to seriously impair viability. “Seriously impair” has now been redefined as “something if, compared to the action not being taken, the impact results in an impairment or alteration of the thing that is of a severe nature and extent”. These are terms requiring subjective interpretation, but “severe nature” may make it harder to reject projects than “seriously altered for the worse”. Will the new legislation stem the damage to nature? The bar for improvement is low. Australia’s current environment laws are riddled with administrative discretion. Many projects are never assessed, and 99% of projects assessed under these laws are given the green light. The revised bill contains some key elements proposed by the scathing 2020 Samuel Review, such as provision for National Environmental Standards, while the concessions won by the Greens reduce ministerial discretion. Samuel described today’s deal as a “great balance” between environment and business concerns. Much will be up in the air even after these laws pass. The government has only drafted two of the many environmental standards anticipated, one on matters of national environmental significance and one on environmental offsets. It remains to be seen whether these standards will improve decision-making, and they are also not yet finalised. Major questions around the interpretation of language in the new laws may need to be hashed out in future court proceedings. The Greens were unable to remove Labor’s new “pay to destroy” from the laws. This is a significant concern, as the controversial ability for developers to pay into a restoration fund will likely be seen as the easy route. This mechanism is already up and running in New South Wales, with poor outcomes. What now? These reforms are the end of a tortuous process – and the start of another, far bigger, job. To be successful, they will need to be coupled with far greater public investment and rigorous enforcement. The true test of these reforms will be whether we succeed in the ultimate act of conserving and recovering the wildlife and places Australians know and love. Justine Bell-James receives funding from the Australian Research Council, the Great Barrier Reef Foundation, the Queensland Government, and the National Environmental Science Program. She is a Director of the National Environmental Law Association and a member of the Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists.Euan is a Councillor within the Biodiversity Council, a member of the Ecological Society of Australia and president of the Australian Mammal Society.Phillipa C. McCormack receives funding from the Australian Research Council, Natural Hazards Research Australia, the National Environmental Science Program, Green Adelaide, the North East NSW Forestry Hub and the ACT government. She is a member of the National Environmental Law Association and International Association of Wildland Fire and affiliated with the Wildlife Crime Research Hub.Yung En Chee receives/has received funding from the Australian Research Council. She also receives funding and research contracts from Melbourne Water through the Melbourne Waterway Research-Practice Partnership 2023-2028. Yung En is a member of the Society for Conservation Biology.

Nature
Business
Conservation

Suggested Viewing

Tellus

"Tellus" is a love letter for Mother Earth which celebrates our connection with her - from pure joy and love towards nature’s elements, to our collective fears and worries about the damage that humankind has done to our planet, to an inspiring call for action and a hope for a greener, more united future. "Tellus" is a sustainable, female-led community project that captures love, concern and hope for our planet from voices across the world.

Culture
Nature
Experimental

Capturing The Fire

When Louise Coghill saw the first plume of smoke begin to rise behind her parents property, she could never have predicted that in less than four hours, it would become a wall of flames, swallowing everything in its path. A photographer by trade, Louise has travelled the world documenting everything from the nomadic wanderers of Mongolia, to base life at Mount Everest. Capturing the extraordinary comes naturally to Louise, so when her family home in the semi-rural Western Australian town of Gidgegannup became engulfed in flames, her first instinct wasn’t to take shelter, it was to pick up her camera.

Conservation
Climate
Nature

Changing Seas: "Maui Aloha ʻĀina: Mauka to Makai"

Embark on a journey across the breathtaking landscape of Maui, where scientists, land restorationists, and passionate volunteers are drawing upon the ancient wisdom of the Hawaiian people to breathe new life into their cherished ecosystems. Even amidst profound loss in the wake of recent wildfires, these resilient islanders are unwavering in their commitment to revive traditional watersheds, safeguarding the invaluable coral reefs that define their coastline. Rooted in the principles of aloha ʻāina—love of the land—and mālama ʻāina—caring for the land—they are reconnecting water pathways from mauka to makai—from the mountains to the ocean—and working together to heal their island home.

Culture
Solutions
Nature

Alles hat Grenzen NUR DER MONDFISCH NICHT

"Alles hat Grenzen, NUR DER MONDFISCH NICHT" is an environmental film musical, in which nature acts and speaks in a diversity of voices. Surfacing evocatively from micro- and macrocosmic layers, she resonates with water as the source of life and resounds as exploited resource. She echoes from the trenches of an inverted world and speaks out as a human being. Reverberating through ecological-cultural depths, images, sounds and associations push to light, giving shape to a vision of humanity being in tune with nature.

Music
Experimental
Nature

Wings of Hope

“Wings of Hope,” is a film chronicling the re-discovery of a population of wild Harpy Eagles in the Maya Mountains of southern Belize. It details the history of the Belize Foundation and Research and Environmental Education (BFREE) and UNC Wilmington initiative born from this discovery – the Integrated Community-based Harpy Eagle and Avian Conservation Program. Created by Emmy-award winning filmmakers, Richard and Carol Foster of Wildlife Film Productions, this 20-minute documentary is rich with breath-taking footage of adult and juvenile Harpy eagles and other wildlife and vistas found in the pristine tropical forests of the Bladen Nature Reserve. Over the seven year duration of the project, the Fosters followed local people involved as they transition from trainees to conservationists and as their lives are changed through their efforts to save this rare bird and its diminishing habitat.

Animals
Nature
Conservation

Join us to forge
a sustainable future

Our team is always growing.
Become a partner, volunteer, sponsor, or intern today.
Let us know how you would like to get involved!

CONTACT US

sign up for our mailing list to stay informed on the latest films and environmental headlines.

Subscribers receive a free day pass for streaming Cinema Verde.
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.