GoGreenNation news

Yeast on Mars could survive, unique new research shows

News Feed

Tuesday, November 4, 2025

View larger. | Saccharomyces cerevisiae, also known as baker’s yeast. Could yeast survive on Mars? A new study from scientists in India shows how yeast on Mars could, in fact, tolerate the red planet’s harsh conditions. Image via Mogana Das Murtey/ Patchamuthu Ramasamy/ Wikimedia Commons (CC BY 3.0). Yeasts are single-celled microorganisms of the fungus kingdom. Could yeast survive on Mars? A new study from researchers in India shows that some of them would be able to. The yeast cells were exposed to high-intensity shockwaves and toxic perchlorate salts in lab tests. Many of them survived. Science matters. Wonder matters. You matter.Join our 2025 Donation Campaign today. Yeast on Mars When it comes to earthly organisms that could conceivably survive on Mars’ harsh surface, the options are seemingly few. But scientists in India found one that just might be able to: yeast. Researchers at the Indian Institute of Science (IISc) and the Physical Research Laboratory (PRL) said on October 24, 2025, that simple yeast cells could survive shockwaves from meteorite impacts and highly toxic perchlorate salts. The research team used simple baker’s yeast (Saccharomyces cerevisiae) for their experiments. Yeasts are tiny, single-celled microorganisms that are classified as part of the fungus kingdom. There are more than 1,500 species currently known. The researchers published their peer-reviewed findings in the journal PNAS Nexus on October 14, 2025. Shockwaves and salts To find out if yeast could actually survive the extreme conditions on Mars, the researchers exposed their yeast samples to two kinds of environmental factors. These were shock waves, mimicking meteorite impacts or marsquakes, and perchlorate salts, which are highly toxic and common on Mars. The shockwaves reached mach 5.6 in intensity. In addition, the researchers exposed the yeast cells to 100 mM sodium perchlorate. This was done both in isolation from the shockwaves and in combination with the shockwaves. These unique experiments had not been done before, explained lead author Riya Dhage, a project assistant at the Indian Institute of Science: One of the biggest hurdles was setting up the HISTA tube to expose live yeast cells to shock waves – something that has not been attempted before – and then recovering yeast with minimum contamination for downstream experiments. What makes this work unique is the integration of shock wave physics and chemical biology with molecular cell biology to probe how life might cope with such Mars-like stressors. Could life survive on Mars? Yeast offers a clue #EarthDotCom #EarthSnap #Earth — Earth.com (@earthdotcom.bsky.social) 2025-10-25T13:25:36Z Yeast on Mars survived in simulations Remarkably, many of the yeast cells did survive. Notably, this was the case whether they were tested with the shockwaves and perchlorates together or separately. The growth of the cells did slow down, but the stressful and toxic conditions didn’t kill them. Co-author Purusharth Rajyaguru said: We were surprised to observe yeast surviving the Mars-like stress conditions that we used in our experiments. We hope that this study will galvanize efforts to have yeast on board in future space explorations. So, how did they survive? The researchers said that ribonucleoprotein (RNP) condensates, produced by the cells, likely saved them. Those are tiny structures that have no membranes. They help protect and reorganize mRNA (messenger RNA) when the cells are under stress. mRNA is a type of single-stranded RNA (ribonucleic acid) involved in protein creation. In fact, the shockwaves triggered the creation of two types of RNPs, called stress granules and P-bodies. The perchlorates, meanwhile, caused the formation of just P-bodies. In some cases, however, the yeast cells weren’t able to form those structures. And consequently, those cells didn’t survive. View larger. | This image shows yeast cells with the protective RNP condensates in them (yellow dots). Image via Riya Dhage/ Indian Institute of Science. Lead author Riya Dhage and co-author Purusharth Rajyaguru at the Indian Institute of Science. Image via Swati Lamba/ Indian Institute of Science. Possible biosignatures The fact that many of the yeast cells did survive was surprising, and shows that similar kinds of cells could indeed survive on Mars in some instances. With that in mind, the protective RNP condensates might actually be good biosignatures – signs of life – when searching for evidence of extraterrestrial lifeforms. Dhage said: What makes this work unique is the integration of shock wave physics and chemical biology with molecular cell biology to probe how life might cope with such Mars-like stressors. Bottom line: A new study from scientists in India shows that yeast could survive on Mars, tolerating both shockwaves from impacts and toxic perchlorate salts. Source: Ribonucleoprotein (RNP) condensates modulate survival in response to Mars-like stress conditions Via Indian Institute of Science Read more: Life on Mars? Odd rings and spots tantalize scientists Read more: Prototaxites: Oldest giant organisms a lost kingdom of life?The post Yeast on Mars could survive, unique new research shows first appeared on EarthSky.

A new study from scientists in India shows that yeast could survive on Mars, tolerating both shockwaves from impacts and toxic perchlorate salts. The post Yeast on Mars could survive, unique new research shows first appeared on EarthSky.

Black and white image of many oblong, egg-like objects that have other small round features attached to them. — View larger. | *Saccharomyces cerevisiae*, also known as baker’s yeast. Could yeast survive on Mars? A new study from scientists in India shows how yeast on Mars could, in fact, tolerate the red planet’s harsh conditions. Image via Mogana Das Murtey/ Patchamuthu Ramasamy/ Wikimedia Commons (CC BY 3.0).

Yeasts are single-celled microorganisms of the fungus kingdom.
Could yeast survive on Mars? A new study from researchers in India shows that some of them would be able to.
The yeast cells were exposed to high-intensity shockwaves and toxic perchlorate salts in lab tests. Many of them survived.

Science matters. Wonder matters. You matter.
Join our 2025 Donation Campaign today.

Yeast on Mars

When it comes to earthly organisms that could conceivably survive on Mars’ harsh surface, the options are seemingly few. But scientists in India found one that just might be able to: yeast.

Researchers at the Indian Institute of Science (IISc) and the Physical Research Laboratory (PRL) said on October 24, 2025, that simple yeast cells could survive shockwaves from meteorite impacts and highly toxic perchlorate salts. The research team used simple baker’s yeast (Saccharomyces cerevisiae) for their experiments.

Yeasts are tiny, single-celled microorganisms that are classified as part of the fungus kingdom. There are more than 1,500 species currently known.

The researchers published their peer-reviewed findings in the journal PNAS Nexus on October 14, 2025.

Shockwaves and salts

To find out if yeast could actually survive the extreme conditions on Mars, the researchers exposed their yeast samples to two kinds of environmental factors. These were shock waves, mimicking meteorite impacts or marsquakes, and perchlorate salts, which are highly toxic and common on Mars.

The shockwaves reached mach 5.6 in intensity. In addition, the researchers exposed the yeast cells to 100 mM sodium perchlorate. This was done both in isolation from the shockwaves and in combination with the shockwaves.

These unique experiments had not been done before, explained lead author Riya Dhage, a project assistant at the Indian Institute of Science:

One of the biggest hurdles was setting up the HISTA tube to expose live yeast cells to shock waves – something that has not been attempted before – and then recovering yeast with minimum contamination for downstream experiments.

What makes this work unique is the integration of shock wave physics and chemical biology with molecular cell biology to probe how life might cope with such Mars-like stressors.

Could life survive on Mars? Yeast offers a clue #EarthDotCom #EarthSnap #Earth

— Earth.com (@earthdotcom.bsky.social) 2025-10-25T13:25:36Z

Yeast on Mars survived in simulations

Remarkably, many of the yeast cells did survive. Notably, this was the case whether they were tested with the shockwaves and perchlorates together or separately. The growth of the cells did slow down, but the stressful and toxic conditions didn’t kill them. Co-author Purusharth Rajyaguru said:

We were surprised to observe yeast surviving the Mars-like stress conditions that we used in our experiments. We hope that this study will galvanize efforts to have yeast on board in future space explorations.

So, how did they survive? The researchers said that ribonucleoprotein (RNP) condensates, produced by the cells, likely saved them. Those are tiny structures that have no membranes. They help protect and reorganize mRNA (messenger RNA) when the cells are under stress. mRNA is a type of single-stranded RNA (ribonucleic acid) involved in protein creation. In fact, the shockwaves triggered the creation of two types of RNPs, called stress granules and P-bodies. The perchlorates, meanwhile, caused the formation of just P-bodies.

In some cases, however, the yeast cells weren’t able to form those structures. And consequently, those cells didn’t survive.

Yeast on Mars: 3 greenish rounded egg-like blobs on black background. There are a few tiny yellow spots on the blobs. — View larger. | This image shows yeast cells with the protective RNP condensates in them (yellow dots). Image via Riya Dhage/ Indian Institute of Science.

Smiling woman with eyeglasses and taller smiling man with blue shirt next to her in a lab. — Lead author Riya Dhage and co-author Purusharth Rajyaguru at the Indian Institute of Science. Image via Swati Lamba/ Indian Institute of Science.

Possible biosignatures

The fact that many of the yeast cells did survive was surprising, and shows that similar kinds of cells could indeed survive on Mars in some instances. With that in mind, the protective RNP condensates might actually be good biosignatures – signs of life – when searching for evidence of extraterrestrial lifeforms. Dhage said:

What makes this work unique is the integration of shock wave physics and chemical biology with molecular cell biology to probe how life might cope with such Mars-like stressors.

Bottom line: A new study from scientists in India shows that yeast could survive on Mars, tolerating both shockwaves from impacts and toxic perchlorate salts.

Source: Ribonucleoprotein (RNP) condensates modulate survival in response to Mars-like stress conditions

Via Indian Institute of Science

The post Yeast on Mars could survive, unique new research shows first appeared on EarthSky.

Read the full story here.

Photos courtesy of

Related News

‘Forever chemicals’ represent new environmental threat for Florida’s fragile Everglades

The co-author of a new paper says the presence of PFAS on the Everglades reservation of the Miccosukee Tribe suggests more restoration may be necessary in the river of grass.

Chemicals

Why Lung Cancer Is Increasing among Nonsmoking Women Under Age 65

Thoracic surgeon Jonathan Villena explains why early screening for lung cancer is critical—even for those without symptoms.

Rachel Feltman: For Scientific American’s Science Quickly, I’m Rachel Feltman.Lung cancer is the deadliest cancer among women in the United States, surpassing the mortality numbers of breast and ovarian cancer combined. And surprisingly, younger women who have never smoked are increasingly being diagnosed with the disease.Here to explain what could be driving this trend—and why early screening can make all the difference—is Johnathan Villena, a thoracic surgeon at NewYork-Presbyterian and Weill Cornell.On supporting science journalismIf you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.Thank you so much for joining us.Johnathan Villena: Thank you for having me.Feltman: So our viewers and listeners might be surprised to hear that lung cancer [deaths] in women now tops breast cancer, ovarian cancer combined. Can you tell us more about what’s going on there?Villena: Yeah, definitely. So in general lung cancer is the number-one cancer [killing]people in the U.S., both men and women. If you look at the American Cancer Society, around 226 new—226,000 new cases of lung cancer are projected to be diagnosed in 2025. Of those about 50 percent are cancer-related deaths, meaning [roughly] 120,000 people die every year from lung cancer. Now, what’s—the good news is that the incidence has actually been decreasing in the last few years.Feltman: Mm.Villena: If you look at the American Cancer Society’s statistics, in the last 10 years [ of data, which goes through 2021], the, the incidence of lung cancer has decreased in men around 3 percent per year. And it’s about half of that in women, meaning it’s decreasing [roughly] 1.5 percent per year. So one of the reasons that they think that this might be happening is that there was an uptick in smoking in women around the ’60s and ’70s, and that’s why we’re seeing a slight, you know, decrease in the incidence in men but not so much in the women.What’s more interesting and very surprising is the fact that when you look at younger people, meaning less than 65 years old—especially younger never-smoking people—there’s actually an increase of women in that subgroup. They’re overrepresented, and that’s something very surprising.Feltman: Does the research offer us any clues about what’s going on in this demographic of younger women?Villena: Yeah, so there’s been a lot of research. So, you know, in general—and something that people don’t know is that about 20 percent of lung cancers actually occur in people that have never smoked in their entire lives.Feltman: Mm.Villena: This is something that we don’t really understand why this happens to this one in five people, but there are some risk factors associated with it. Number one is exposure to radon, which is a natural gas that sometimes people are exposed to for a prolonged time. Number two is secondhand smoking ...Feltman: Mm.Villena: So they don’t smoke directly, but they live in a household where they smoke. And number three are kind of other environmental factors, things such as working in a specific, you know, manufacturing plant that deals with specific chemicals. And then lastly, the one that has had, actually, had a lot of research into it are genetic factors. There’s definitely a preponderance of certain mutations in somebody’s genes that can cause lung cancer, and that is overrepresented in women.Feltman: Do women face any unique challenges in getting diagnosed or treated when it comes to lung cancer?Villena: So, yes. First of all, you know, how do we treat or catch lung cancer? So the newest and, and latest way of catching this disease is actually through lung cancer screening.That’s something that’s relatively new; it’s only happened in the last 10 years. And that’s in certain demographics, meaning that if someone is over 50 years old and they have smoked more than one pack per day for 20 years, they meet the criteria for lung cancer screening, which is basically a radiograph or a CAT scan of their lungs. That’s the way that we pick up lung cancer.That’s the—almost the exact same thing that people have for breast cancer, such as mammography, or colonoscopy. So that’s before any symptoms come in. That’s really just to try to capture it when it’s in very nascent stages, right?Feltman: Mm-hmm.Villena: Where it’s very small or not symptomatic. And that’s the way we diagnose a, a lot of lung cancer.Now, that being said, there’s a couple of things. So first of all, [roughly] 60 to 70 percent of people, like, in general get mammographies.Feltman: Mm-hmm.Villena: [About] 60 to 70 percent of people get colonoscopies. Only 6 percent of people actually get lung cancer screening. So it’s dismally low.Feltman: Yeah.Villena: The reason being that sometimes people don’t know about it; it’s relatively new. Sometimes even doctors don’t know about it. There’s also a little bit of guilt involved, where people, you know, they think they did it to themselves by smoking ...Feltman: Hmm.Villena: So they don’t wanna go do it. The second thing is that, as you could imagine, this is only for high-risk individuals or people that have a history of smoking, all right? So it misses these never-smoking one in five patients. So that’s one of the things that we’re actively working on.Feltman: Yeah, how else does the, you know, the stigma associated with lung cancer because of its association with smoking, how does that impact people’s ability to get diagnosed and treated?Villena: I think there’s a lot of hesitancy between patients. There’s, you know, a recent study that showed that people are more—have more tendency to downplay their smoking history, meaning that if they quit, let’s say 10 years ago, you tell your doctor that you never smoked.Feltman: Mm.Villena: And that’s something very common. Or if you smoked, you know, one pack a day, maybe you say you smoked half a pack a day because you feel that guilt. So then you don’t give your doctor or your caretaker the full picture. And sometimes that prevents you from getting these tests, right? So there’s definitely that attitude.There’s also a bit of a fatalistic attitude, sort of like, “I did it to myself. I’d rather not know. You know, this is something that—you know, I made that choice, and if I get cancer, that’s my choice.” Right? So that’s, that’s also another attitude that we’re constantly trying to change in patients. You know, the treatment, once you capture it, is all the same, but really it’s about getting screening and it’s about finding the lung cancer.Feltman: So with smoking no longer necessarily being the driving factor, at least in this younger demographic, what kinds of risk factors should we be talking about more?Villena: So I think, you know—so smoking is always number one.Feltman: Sure.Villena: In the never-smoking people it’s either radon, secondhand smoking or environmental factors, and then a little bit of genetics plays, plays a part.Radon is something that people can test for in their homes. It’s something that people should read up on. So that’s number one: if you have exposure to that, to get rid of that.If you are in, in an environment, let’s say you work with chemicals that you think, you know, are astringent or have caused—causes you to have coughs or, you know, affects you in any sort of way, to kind of try to talk to your employer to work in a more ventilated setting.Really important with genetic factors is understanding your family history.Feltman: Mm.Villena: If you have a mother, a grandmother, a grandfather who died of cancer or you have a lot of cancer in your family, sometimes understanding that and knowing that from your, you know, from your family perspective will actually clue a doctor in to doing further tests, to looking into that further, ’cause that sometimes is passed down and you can have the same genes.Feltman: Are there any big research questions that scientists need to answer about lung cancer, specifically in young women?Villena: So, you know, there’s so much to look at, all right? So if we think about just the genetic aspect of it, there’s one specific gene called the EGFR gene—or it’s a mutation that’s found in lung cancer that in, if you look at all people with lung cancer, it’s found in about 15 percent ...Feltman: Mm-hmm.Villena: Of the population with lung cancer. Now, if you look at never-smoking Asian women that get lung cancer, it’s about 60 percent of them ...Feltman: Mm.Villena: Have that mutation. So the important thing about that EGFR mutation is there’s a specific drug for that mutation, all right?So there’s definitely a lot of genetic kind of information that we’re still actively researching. But the important thing about this genetic information is that there’s drugs targeted specifically for those mutations. So the more we know, the more we understand, the better.Feltman: So for folks who are hearing this and are surprised and, and maybe concerned what is your advice for how they should proceed, how they should look into their risk factors?Villena: You know, I think one of the, the, the major aspects of health in general is understanding your own health.Feltman: Mm.Villena: I think that younger people tend to delay care, tend to not see their doctors, and because, one, they’re busy, right, at their very busy moment in their lives. But second is that, you know, you don’t wanna deal with it, and you think that you will not get cancer, that you will not get this disease because you’re young and you’ve never smoked and you’ve never done anything bad.Feltman: Mm.Villena: But, you know, you have to be very aware of your body, so what are the kind of top four symptoms? So number one, let’s say you have a cough, and that cough lasts for longer than two weeks, right?Feltman: Mm-hmm.Villena: A normal cold, things like that will go away after a couple of weeks. But if it’s there for a couple of months, and I’ve definitely seen patients that tell me in retrospect, you know, “I’ve had this cough for three months,” right, and it should have been checked up sooner. So understanding yourself, understanding your body, not, you know, waiting for things, not procrastinating, which is very hard to do, but you should definitely see your doctor ...Feltman: Yeah.Villena: Regularly.Second is, like I said before, understanding your family, right, and what your genetic makeup is, right? Knowing your family history, understanding if your parents, grandparents had cancer, etcetera, or other chronic diseases.Feltman: Mm-hmm.Villena: And that’s, that’s basically the, the major aspects of it. It’s really being in tune with yourself.Feltman: So once a patient is actually diagnosed, what does treatment look like?Villena: So treatment for lung cancer, actually, is heavily dependent on the stage. There’s everything from stage 1, in which it’s localized to one portion of a lung, to stage 4, where it actually has gone to other parts of the body.Now, stage 1 disease, you basically need a simple surgery, where that lung nodule, or that lung cancer, is surgically removed, and typically you don’t need any other treatments. So stage 1 is what we look for. Stage 1 is the reason that lung cancer screening works because stage 1 doesn’t really have any symptoms ...Feltman: Mm.Villena: So when you find it that early patients do very well.Stage 4, once it’s left the lung, you are no longer a surgical candidate, unless in, you know, sometimes very specific cases, but for the most part you’re no longer a surgical candidate. And there you need systemic treatments.Feltman: And how long does the treatment tend to take for a stage 1 patient, if it’s just a surgical procedure?Villena: So if it’s just a surgical procedure, look, I do these surgeries all the time: the patient comes in; we do the surgery; the patients usually go home the next day.Feltman: Wow.Villena: And then we follow the patient and get CAT scans every six months for a long time to make sure nothing comes back or nothing new comes. So it’s pretty straightforward, and we do this all the time. We do these surgeries robotically now. Patients recover incredibly well, and they’re out, you know, doing—living their lives in a couple of weeks. So it’s really something very, very, very efficient.Feltman: Yeah, so huge incentive to get checked early.Villena: Mm-hmm.Feltman: Are there any advances in treatment, you know, any new treatments that doctors are excited about?Villena: Yeah, so there’s two major steps forward that have changed lung cancer treatment. Number one is something called targeted therapy.Feltman: Mm-hmm.Villena: So that means that there’s a drug that targets a specific mutation. So just how I was speaking about earlier about the EGFR mutation in young, never-smoking Asian women, there is a drug that targets that mutation that has really shown amazing results at all stages now.And the second one is actually immunotherapy, which won the Nobel Prize, which is this idea that you can use your own body’s immune system to kill the cancer cell. So cancer is very smart—what it does is it evades your immune system; it pretends that it’s part of your own body. And what this drug does is that it basically reawakens your immune system to recognize that cancer again and kill it. And we’ve seen amazing results, even in the stage 4 patients, where they are potentially cured of cancer, which, which we’ve never seen before.Feltman: What motivated you to get into this specialty?Villena: You know, I do have a family history of this in an uncle that passed away from lung cancer ...Feltman: Mm.Villena: And he was a heavy smoker. And, you know, I saw how, basically, decimated his, he was—[his] life [was], basically. He was a very vibrant guy, he was very active, and in six months he was gone, right?And I think, you know, once I started getting into, you know, medical school and understanding things, one of the major things that I really got into was research. And I see that if my uncle had been treated 20 years ago, he potentially could have been saved ...Feltman: Mm.Villena: Because of these advances in research. And right now we are right at the cusp where we are learning all these new things, and we actually have the tools to change how patients are treated, you know? And this—every year there’s a new treatment, which prior to that, there was no new treatment; i t was basically just chemo, and that’s it, all right? So I think that that really motivated me—something that I can actually take part in and actually change the course for a lot of people.Feltman: Well, thank you so much for coming on to chat with us today. This has been great.Villena: Thank you.Feltman: That’s all for today’s episode. We’ll be back on Friday to unpack the shocking story of a missing meteorite.Science Quickly is produced by me, Rachel Feltman, along with Fonda Mwangi and Jeff DelViscio. This episode was edited by Alex Sugiura and Kylie Murphy. Shayna Posses and Aaron Shattuck fact-check our show. Our theme music was composed by Dominic Smith. Subscribe to Scientific American for more up-to-date and in-depth science news.For Scientific American, this is Rachel Feltman. See you next time.

Chemicals

Health

Science

Newsom vetoes bill banning forever chemicals in cookware

California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) vetoed a bill that would have banned the use of “forever chemicals” in cookware and other products in California. The bill became a source of controversy in the Golden State, with celebrity chefs among those who rallied against the cookware ban, while environmental and health activists have argued for it. It would have blocked the sales of cleaning products, dental floss, children's products, food packaging and ski wax that contained such chemicals starting in 2028 and cookware with them starting in 2030. While the bans would have only applied in California, the state’s sheer size gives it significant influence over what gets manufactured for sale across the nation. Newsom, in his veto message Monday, raised concerns about the availability of affordable cookware if the ban were to be implemented. “The broad range of products that would be impacted by this bill would result in a sizable and rapid shift in cooking products available to Californians,” the likely 2028 presidential hopeful wrote. “I appreciate efforts to protect the health and safety of consumers, and while this bill is well-intentioned, I am deeply concerned about the impact this bill would have on the availability of affordable options,” he added. However, proponents of the bill say the veto will result in more exposure to toxic chemicals. “By vetoing SB 682, Governor Newsom failed to protect Californians and our drinking water from toxic forever chemicals,” said Anna Reade, director of PFAS advocacy with the Natural Resources Defense Council, in a written statement. “It’s unfortunate that misinformation and greed by some in the cookware industry tanked this policy,”  Reade added. Forever chemicals are the nickname of a group of chemicals called PFAS that have been used in a wide variety of everyday products, including those that are nonstick or waterproof. Exposure to them has been linked to prostate, kidney and testicular cancer, as well as immune system and fertility issues. They can persist for decades in the environment instead of breaking down and have become pervasive in U.S. waterways, tap water and human beings. California has historically been a relatively aggressive state in terms of environmental and product regulations — for example, requiring that products containing certain chemicals contain warning labels. However, several other states have already banned PFAS in cookware and other products.

Chemicals

Activism

Health

Senators press EPA chemical chief nominee on speeding up TSCA

Douglas Troutman faced a divisive Senate hearing last week on his nomination to lead the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention. Democrats voiced concerns about Troutman’s ties to industry while Republicans praised his experience as valuable for the agency role.

Chemicals

Pollution

Costa Rica Pesticide Use Harms Soil Life, UNA Study Finds

Costa Rica is one of the countries that uses the most agrochemicals, which has a series of negative repercussions in various areas. A recent study revealed that the intensive use of agrochemicals in the horticultural region of Zarcero causes physiological stress in earthworms, leading them to flee from contaminated soils. This demonstrates the vulnerability of these organisms to environmental alterations caused by such substances. The research was carried out by student Gabriel Brenes from the Regional Institute for Studies on Toxic Substances at the National University (Iret-UNA) as part of the requirements for a Master’s Degree in Tropical Ecotoxicology. Through both field and laboratory studies on earthworm species abundant in the area, the research determined a reduction in enzyme activity and defense mechanisms when the worms were exposed to soils containing agrochemicals or samples taken from them. After conducting behavioral tests, it was found that 90% of the worms avoided remaining in contaminated environments, moving instead to soils managed with organic practices or with lower agrochemical use. According to the study, this could have consequences for agricultural activity, as earthworms improve soil fertility, facilitate nutrient cycling and water movement, and contribute to the decomposition of organic matter. “The intensive use of agrochemicals induces physiological stress in earthworms and causes them to flee contaminated soils. This can have repercussions on the microfauna community and the ecosystem services that sustain agriculture,” explained Brenes. Evidence of reduced intestinal microbial diversity in soil worms exposed to agrochemicals indicates alterations that negatively affect soil health. “We found that the intestinal microbiome of earthworms functions as a sensitive bioindicator of soil health. A reduction in its diversity can affect not only the organisms themselves but also the ecological services they provide, such as fertility and nutrient recycling,” said the researcher. It also detected seasonal changes in microbial composition between the dry and rainy seasons on organic farms with good practices, demonstrating plasticity and adaptation to environmental conditions. For example, during the rainy season, there was an increase in the abundance of genera such as Lactobacillus and Acinetobacter, which were not dominant in the dry season. In contrast, worms from conventional soils showed no seasonal change in their intestinal communities, indicating a loss of ecological flexibility. The research showed that contamination is not limited to plots where agrochemicals are applied. Residues reach organic farms and nearby forest areas, confirming processes of drift and environmental transport. In Zarcero, a small area with intensive horticultural production, the presence of agrochemicals in untreated soils demonstrates that environmental exposure is widespread. The excessive use of agrochemicals in our country is aggravated by the fact that 93% of them are classified as highly hazardous. The post Costa Rica Pesticide Use Harms Soil Life, UNA Study Finds appeared first on The Tico Times | Costa Rica News | Travel | Real Estate.

Chemicals

Agriculture

Health

Suggested Viewing

The Story of Plastic

A searing expose uncovering the ugly truth behind the global plastic pollution crisis. Striking footage shot over three continents illustrates the ongoing catastrophe: fields full of garbage, veritable mountains of trash; rivers and seas clogged with waste; and skies choked with poisons from plastic production and recycling processes with no end in sight. Original animations, interviews with experts and activists, and never-before-filmed scenes reveal the disastrous consequences of the plastic flood around the world – and the global movement rising up in response.

Chemicals

Pollution

Crisis

Sprayed

An exploration of what happens when whole communities get exposed to toxins: Naled sprayed on Miami residents to fight Zika virus, Agent Orange sprayed on the Vietcong, and release of GMO mosquitoes in Brazil with pyriproxyfen added to drinking water to fight dengue. What are the results for nature and humanity? We meet Agent Orange survivors at Vietnamese detoxification and rehabilitation centers, parents of babies born with microcephaly from Zika virus, and Florida residents dealing with efforts to kill mosquitoes carrying Zika virus. Perspectives of doctors, scientists, and politicians are balanced with voices of ordinary citizens and victims to explore concerns about the potential impact on current and future generations.

Chemicals

Health

Science

Unacceptable Risk: Dr. Margaret Kripke on Cancer and the Environment

Unacceptable Risk tells the story of a prominent cancer researcher who rethinks her assumptions about the causes of cancer and the true burden of environmentally-induced cancers.

Chemicals

Science

Health

Lead in the Land

Lead in the Land is a documentary focusing on the harsh reality and far-reaching effects of lead poisoning, an invisible and insidious threat afflicting thousands of children in the United States. The film sheds light on the circumstances around lead poisoning, examining its causes, effects and potential solutions.

Chemicals

Social Justice

Health

Toxic Business

A documentary on the profits international chemical companies are gaining in Africa at cost of the health of small-scaled-farmers and consumers.International chemical companies sell high toxic agro-chemicals in Kenya, which are banned since long in Europe. They are banned because their ingredients cause cancer and have a major negative impact on the nature and environment. Anyhow – in developing countries like Kenya those toxic chemicals are sold without any regulations through small agro-shops all over the country. The small scaled farmers do believe in the promises of better and safer harvest those companies give. Today, the use of pesticides even inside the villages is already a daily business. Furthermore many of them already depend on hybrid seeds, old and resistant seeds supplants. Most of the consumers do not have the knowledge, how dangerous those agro-chemicals are: the WHO announced that annually 346.000 people die, caused by accidentally poisoning with those chemicals, 2/3 of them within developing countries.In the face of world food, industry is trying to push its way into the markets. On the contrary, statistics and alternative farming methods in East Africa show that it no longer needs chemicals and hybrid seeds to feed the world, but a general rethinking.

Agriculture

Chemicals

Business

Cookies help us run our site more efficiently.

GoGreenNation news

Yeast on Mars could survive, unique new research shows

Yeast on Mars

Shockwaves and salts

Yeast on Mars survived in simulations

Possible biosignatures

Related News

‘Forever chemicals’ represent new environmental threat for Florida’s fragile Everglades

Why Lung Cancer Is Increasing among Nonsmoking Women Under Age 65

Newsom vetoes bill banning forever chemicals in cookware

Senators press EPA chemical chief nominee on speeding up TSCA

Costa Rica Pesticide Use Harms Soil Life, UNA Study Finds

Suggested Viewing

The Story of Plastic

Sprayed

Unacceptable Risk: Dr. Margaret Kripke on Cancer and the Environment

Lead in the Land

Toxic Business

Join us to forge
a sustainable future

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

Cookies help us run our site more efficiently.

Yeast on Mars could survive, unique new research shows

Yeast on Mars

Shockwaves and salts

Yeast on Mars survived in simulations

Possible biosignatures

Related News

‘Forever chemicals’ represent new environmental threat for Florida’s fragile Everglades

Why Lung Cancer Is Increasing among Nonsmoking Women Under Age 65

Newsom vetoes bill banning forever chemicals in cookware

Senators press EPA chemical chief nominee on speeding up TSCA

Costa Rica Pesticide Use Harms Soil Life, UNA Study Finds

Suggested Viewing

The Story of Plastic

Sprayed

Unacceptable Risk: Dr. Margaret Kripke on Cancer and the Environment

Lead in the Land

Toxic Business

Join us to forgea sustainable future

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

Join us to forge
a sustainable future