The woolly mammoth's extinction is a complex phenomenon that has been attributed to multiple factors, including climate change and early human hunting.

Climate change is believed to have played a significant role in the mammoth's demise, as the warming of the Earth's climate led to the reduction of grassland habitats and the expansion of forests.

The change in vegetation patterns made it difficult for the mammoths to survive, as they were adapted to a specific type of environment.

Additionally, early human hunting may have also contributed to the mammoth's extinction, as humans may have hunted them for their meat, hides, and bones.

The discovery of a "mammoth graveyard" in Siberia, where thousands of mammoth bones were found, suggests that humans may have been involved in the mammoths' death, possibly through hunting or scavenging.

However, it is also possible that the mammoths died due to natural causes, such as disease or environmental factors.

The exact cause of the woolly mammoth's extinction is still debated among scientists, but it is clear that climate change and human activity were likely contributing factors.

The study of the mammoth's extinction can provide valuable insights into the impact of human activity on the environment and the consequences of climate change.

Overall, the woolly mammoth's extinction is a complex and multifaceted phenomenon that requires further research and study to fully understand.

The woolly mammoth's extinction is a complex phenomenon that has been attributed to multiple factors, including climate change and early human hunting.

Title:

Content: Partners news
The cause of the extinction of mammoths
Scientists have found that mammoths died out due to climate change
Photo: Stanislav Krasilnikov / TASS
An international team of researchers found that the cause of the extinction of mammoths in Siberia was primarily a sharp climate change, not human activity.
The article is published in the journal Nature.
Woolly mammoths became extinct only about four thousand years ago.
They were not only the main source of meat of ancient people – the latter made from their bones the basis for dwellings, from their tusks made harpoons and even musical instruments.
Therefore, there is a widespread theory that the main cause of extinction was humans.
Researchers from the Institute of Earth Sciences of St. Petersburg State University together with colleagues from the UK, Denmark, China, Norway and the United States decided to restore the appearance of the tundrosteppe, which was inhabited by mammoths.
To do this, they using the shotgun method — obtaining from a random massive sample of cloned fragments of the original sequence — analyzed the DNA of ancient plants and animals collected from 535 different places in the Arctic, where the mammoth lived, over 20 years.
They also analyzed the DNA of more than 1,500 modern plants and animals.
Researchers were able to map the distribution of populations of mammoths and other representatives of the megafauna of the tundrosteppe.
They saw that over time their populations and genetic diversity became smaller and smaller — making survival increasingly difficult.
With the end of the Pleistocene about 12 thousand years ago and the accompanying retreat of glaciers and the formation of rivers, lakes and marshes, vegetation has decreased in volume, and it has become insufficient to maintain the previous level of populations.
As the climate warms, trees and swamp plants have taken the place of former mammoth pastures.
“We have shown that climate change, in particular rainfall, has directly led to changes in vegetation.
According to our models, people did not have any influence on them [mammoths], ” said the first author of the work, a researcher at the University of Cambridge Yuchen Wang.
However, the extinction of mammoths was influenced not only by the warming of the climate itself.
“His speed was the last nail in the lid of the coffin – they (megafauna tundrosteppe – approx.
“Tape.ru ”) could not adapt quickly enough, when the landscape radically changed and food was not enough, ” said the head of the scientific group, Professor of Copenhagen and Cambridge universities Eske Willerslev.
Only what is important to you is in the “Tape of the Day ” in Telegram.
Subscribe now

According to most recent research, what is the primary cause of wooly mammoth extinction?

How did humans contribute to the wooly mammoth extinction?

What environmental factors contributed to the wooly mammoth extinction?

Climate change is believed to have played a significant role in the mammoth's demise, as the warming of the Earth's climate led to the reduction of grassland habitats and the expansion of forests.

According to most recent research, what is the primary cause of wooly mammoth extinction?

How did climate change affect mammoth' habitat?

food sources disappearing
shrank grassland
restricted habitat

What are the causes of the wooly mammoth extinction?

What aspects of climate change contributed to the wooly mammoth extinction?

What environmental factors contributed to the wooly mammoth extinction?

The change in vegetation patterns made it difficult for the mammoths to survive, as they were adapted to a specific type of environment.

According to most recent research, what is the primary cause of wooly mammoth extinction?

How did climate change affect mammoth' habitat?

shrank grassland
restricted habitat
pastures becoming swampy

What are the causes of the wooly mammoth extinction?

What environmental factors contributed to the wooly mammoth extinction?

Additionally, early human hunting may have also contributed to the mammoth's extinction, as humans may have hunted them for their meat, hides, and bones.

Title:

Content: Woolly Mammoth Bones Unearthed in Austrian Wine Cellar

It wasn’t the first time that ancient artifacts were discovered in one of Kamptal’s wine cellars.

An Austrian winemaker renovating his cellar unearthed a trove of woolly mammoth bones that could expand our understanding of the relationship between humans and the prehistoric beasts.

Andreas Pernerstorfer’s winery is in the notable winemaking and cultural region of Kamptal in northeastern Austria. After stumbling upon the huge bones in the dirt floor, he reported his discovery to Austria’s Federal Monuments Office. The Austrian Archaeological Institute has been excavating the site since March 2024 to a depth of 55 feet below ground and says it’s the first significant paleontology site found in Austria in a century.

The bones are believed to be between 30,000 and 40,000 years old and belonged to at least three woolly mammoths. According to Hannah Parow-Souchon, the paleontologist leading the excavation, the discovery is significant because mammoth bones are rarely found packed together. This could mean they were bunched there by humans, which could indicate they were hunted and slaughtered by humans; the site might be the remains of a Holocene Epoch cookout.

Most archaeologists agree that humans gathered in groups and used spears and other tools to take down woolly mammoths and other megafauna, which would have been immense sources of meat, hides, and bones to use as raw materials for tools. This activity could have contributed to the animals’ extinction

There is some debate whether preying on the massive beasts was a regular practice for Stone Age people, and science is foggy about how a band of simple humans could get the drop on an animal that stood 10 feet tall, weighed as much as six tons, and had fearsome protective tusks. The process would reveal a lot about coordination and planning among Paleolithic people.

Parow-Souchon said in a statement from the Austrian Academy of Sciences that it is possible that humans set a trap for mammoths there. She also said it was the most significant discovery of woolly mammoth remains in more than 100 years; most such sites in Europe have been dug up and hollowed out, with their archaeological value lost over time.

This is not the first such find in Kamptal. About 150 years ago, relics of early human life—including flint artifacts, jewelry fossils, and charcoal—were discovered there in a wine cellar next door.

How did humans contribute to the wooly mammoth extinction?

What are the causes of the wooly mammoth extinction?

The discovery of a "mammoth graveyard" in Siberia, where thousands of mammoth bones were found, suggests that humans may have been involved in the mammoths' death, possibly through hunting or scavenging.

Title:

Content:
This article has been reviewed according to Science X's editorial process and policies. Editors have highlighted the following attributes while ensuring the content's credibility:

fact-checked

peer-reviewed publication

trusted source

proofread

Siberia's 'mammoth graveyard' reveals 800-year human interactions with woolly beasts

Woolly mammoths are evocative of a bygone era, when Earth was gripped within an Ice Age. Current knowledge places early mammoth ancestors in the Pliocene (2.58–5.33 million years ago, Ma) before their populations expanded in the Pleistocene (2.58 Ma–11,700 years ago, kyr). However, as climate changed, their numbers dwindled to isolated populations in modern Siberia and Alaska, until their last dated survival 4 kyr ago.

In the East Siberian Arctic (>70 °N), there is not only evidence of significant woolly mammoth populations, but also how humans interacted with them, the focus of new research in Quaternary Science Reviews.

Along the Berelekh River, Russia, a 'mammoth graveyard' can be found. Here, thousands of disarticulated bones, representing a minimum of 156 individual mammoths, found alongside an indicate the close proximity of these two communities, forming the Berelekh geoarchaeological complex.

Dr. Vladimir Pitulko, of the Russian Academy of Sciences, and colleagues aimed to assess the relationship between the 'mammoth graveyard' and the archaeological site through a re-examination of stratigraphic and paleogeographic data obtained in 2009, with new fieldwork focused on the left riverbanks where have readily yielded from their home in the sediment and appeared on the water's edge. Alongside them are remains of Pleistocene hare, Arctic fox and wolves, as well as soot and charcoal from hearths and worked mammoth tusks (one being an unfinished throwing spear).

The researchers suggest humans created these bone accumulations as a byproduct of the production of mammoth ivory technology, while hares may have been targeted for fur to produce winter clothing.

Notably, evidence of blowfly pupae activity on cavities in skulls and bones is indicative that the mammoth carcasses were added to the 'graveyard' de-fleshed. Indeed, there appears to be evidence of sorting of the bones, with only the most valuable transported to Berelekh from the area in which the mammoth was killed, leaving behind parts such as spinal columns, carpal ('hand') and tarsal ('foot') bones.

There are three radiocarbon dated peaks in woolly mammoth accumulation at 11.8, 12.2 and 12.4 kyr ago, which fall within known human settlement of the area (11.2–12.4 kyr ago) during the Bølling-Allerød deglacial, when the warmed and pollen evidence suggests the region became more arid.

Fluctuations in the abundance of mammoths in the 'graveyard' suggest human settlement of the area may also have changed through time (frequent occupation but not permanent), which the researchers attribute to on the floodplain permitting suitability for erecting campsites.

Radiocarbon dating of mammoth remains identifies their presence here pre-dating human settlement (beginning ~12.5 kyr ago), but also shows that humans remained in the area (until ~11.2 kyr ago) after mass mammoth remains accumulation declined (~11.8 kyr ago).

Given this, four possible causes are suggested by the scientists to explain such a significant mass accumulation of bones: 1) mass death by natural causes or human, 2) repeated group deaths in the same location, likely due to human predation, 3) concentration of remains by , such as river action, or 4) solely derived from human predation or scavenging from deceased carcasses.

However, the latter is considered to be the most likely to produce useful tools from ivory tusks, as well as meat to feed the community, as there is no evidence on the bones for a cause of mass death, radiocarbon ages do not cluster into multiple phases for recurrent death deposits and stream flows were unlikely to reach sufficient velocities to transport such heavy bones.

These findings are concurrent with mammoth remains at the Yana Paleolithic site, also in Siberia. Here, estimates suggest the 'graveyard' increased by 1–2 mammoths per year rather than a mass death event, a figure Dr. Pitulko and colleagues conclude could be similar or even higher for Berelekh.

This research is significant as it alters the previously-held belief that there was a lag of 50–80 years between mammoth bone accumulation from natural processes (such as deposition in flood channels) and , instead now defining a close relationship between the two over 700–800 years. Sadly, now that human-mammoth relationship has continued as ivory hunters have looted the site beyond further study.

More information: Vladimir V. Pitulko et al, From the Berelekh 'mammoth graveyard' to Berelekh geo-archaeological complex: Paleoenvironment, site formation processes, and human-mammoth relationships, Quaternary Science Reviews (2024). DOI: 10.1016/j.quascirev.2024.108692

Journal information: Quaternary Science Reviews

© 2024 Science X Network

Citation: Siberia's 'mammoth graveyard' reveals 800-year human interactions with woolly beasts (2024, June 10) retrieved 10 June 2024 from https://phys.org/news/2024-06-siberia-mammoth-graveyard-reveals-year.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.

Explore further

Huge trove of mammoth skeletons found in Mexico

0 shares

Feedback to editors

How did humans contribute to the wooly mammoth extinction?

What are the causes of the wooly mammoth extinction?

However, it is also possible that the mammoths died due to natural causes, such as disease or environmental factors.

The exact cause of the woolly mammoth's extinction is still debated among scientists, but it is clear that climate change and human activity were likely contributing factors.

How did humans contribute to the wooly mammoth extinction?

What environmental factors contributed to the wooly mammoth extinction?

The study of the mammoth's extinction can provide valuable insights into the impact of human activity on the environment and the consequences of climate change.

Title:

Content: Skip to content
The Future

A zoologist explains why the project to resurrect the wooly mammoth should go extinct

De-extinction, if it is ever possible, will not be simple.
Key Takeaways
  • Over the past couple of decades, a handful of de-extinction projects have explored the potential of "resurrecting" the wooly mammoth.
  • The term is a bit misleading: Rather than resurrecting an extinct species, the process would essentially modify the genome of an existing species in order to give it traits an extinct species once possessed.
  • The British zoologist Matthew Cobb argues that the primary focus of conservation efforts needs to be on the prevention of species loss, not on de-extinction.

Excerpted from As Gods: A Moral History of the Genetic Age by Matthew Cobb. Copyright © 2022. Available from Basic Books, an imprint of Hachette Book Group, Inc.

The most truly god-like ability provided by genetic engineering is the apparent possibility of resurrecting extinct species – ‘de-extinction’. The most attention-grabbing proposal, which has been around for over a decade, is the idea of recreating the woolly mammoth, using our knowledge of the mammoth genome, obtained from tissue frozen in the tundra. It is claimed that de-extincting mammoths and other large tundra-dwelling mammals would not only enable us to encounter fantastic beasts but would also help mitigate some of the effects of climate change – as these creatures trampled and disturbed the ground, they would supposedly allow the winter frost to penetrate deeper, keeping carbon trapped for longer.

Leaving aside the obvious lessons of Jurassic Park, the technical issues involved in recreating a mammoth appear insurmountable. It would require taking the genome of the mammoth’s closest living relative – an Asian elephant – and introducing all the relevant changes (synthesising a whole chromosome is an incredibly arduous process and has not yet been performed in an animal; a woolly mammoth had twenty-nine pairs of chromosomes). These two species split between 2.5 and 5 million years ago; there are millions of base pairs that differ between them. Not all of those differences are significant, and we do not know which are the ones that count, but it is technically possible that all the relevant differences could be identified and then introduced into the elephant genome (the Asian elephant has one fewer pair of chromosomes than a mammoth, so the whole process might prove problematic).

Assuming these difficulties can be overcome, the modified chromosomes would then have to be introduced into an elephant cell and safely interact there with all of the cell’s organelles and molecules. But this cellular environment would be different in so many unknown ways to the cells that the mammoth genome co-evolved with that there is no guarantee that this would work. As an indication of the challenge involved, it took Venter’s group twenty years to master this procedure in a bacterial cell, which has only one chromosome and does not have a nucleus or any of the complex structures found in eukaryotes such as elephants and mammoths and does not develop into a large, hairy, intelligent animal.

Even if all this went smoothly, the resultant embryo would have to be implanted into a surrogate – again, an Asian elephant would be best – and the myriad interactions between embryo and mother would have to function appropriately for months and not kill either or both. This is much trickier than you might think – a few years ago a Spanish-led team of researchers tried to clone an extinct subspecies of Pyrenean ibex; hundreds of embryos were created and implanted in a series of surrogate mothers of the same species, but only one animal was born and she died a few minutes after birth. Things could so easily go awry using a surrogate from a different species.

Perhaps for this reason, one version of the project involves artificial wombs (these are currently hypothetical), like those in Brave New World, but which would presumably have to be the size of a small car. Finally, mammoths were not simply bags of cells and DNA, but complex social animals that lived in an environment that has now disappeared along with the cultural aspects of their social organisation. Even if every one of those unbelievably complex steps could be overcome, there would be profound ethical questions about the well-being of these extraordinary animals in the alien world in which they would find themselves.

As a result of these very real problems, the woolly mammoth de-extinction scheme, initially the brainchild of George Church, has recently become less mammoth in scope. The current version of the project, partly funded by Revive & Restore (R&R), a US foundation co-founded by Stewart Brand, focuses on identifying those alleles that adapted the mammoth to cold temperatures, with the dream of maybe some day creating an elephant with enough mammothy characteristics to enable it to live in northern climes. By 2022, a biotech start-up co-founded by Church called Colossal Biosciences had raised $75 million* to try to create a ‘cold-resistant elephant’, which it was claimed would be ‘functionally equivalent’ to a mammoth. So not a mammoth.

All these nuances were lost in the inevitable media excitement at the Colossal announcement, which yet again led to headlines about de-extincting mammoths (these have recurred every few years). Tori Herridge, a mammoth expert at the Natural History Museum in London, was invited to be involved but declined. She explained why in a thoughtful article in Nature:

Colossal has committed to ‘radical’ transparency, inclusion and community engagement, but has the chance to set the bar even higher, by empowering the public as part of its de-extinction journey. … The ethical road to de-extinction has to include informed citizen voices, alongside experts and activists. This might mean that the process takes longer than five years, but private enterprises working for the common good shouldn’t shy away from the views of those they seek to serve. Let the people decide the future world they want to build.

As evolutionary biologist and R&R board member Beth Shapiro explains in her best-selling if somewhat misleadingly titled How to Clone a Mammoth, it is extremely unlikely that we will ever truly recreate any extinct species, not only because it is technically extremely difficult, but also because the ecological relationships that made up their world have all been lost. In that respect, extinction is indeed forever.

Subscribe for counterintuitive, surprising, and impactful stories delivered to your inbox every Thursday

Even more disturbing and god-like are the semi-serious, profoundly problematic proposals involving the recreation of Neanderthals – extinct humans who lived in Europe, Asia and the Middle East before us. Leaving aside some absurd internet fantasists, no scientist is actually considering such an experiment – cloning a Neanderthal and implanting the embryo in a surrogate human mother would be nauseatingly unethical on every level. However, researchers have studied the function of Neanderthal genes in human brain organoids – lentil-size blobs of tissue that can be grown in the laboratory from stem cells. A Neanderthal allele in a gene that plays a role in neural development and function altered the organisation and activity of otherwise human tissue. Brain organoid research is slightly creepy (they spontaneously grow eye-like structures that respond to light) as well as being a potential ethical minefield (could such a structure become even dimly conscious? How would we know?), but the researchers involved claim that this kind of study might shed light on how the functions of some of our genes may have differed in our close relatives.

Despite all the substantial technical and ethical issues relating to de-extinction, in 2014 the International Union for the Conservation of Nature set up a De-extinction Task Force which produced a set of guiding principles outlining the kind of detailed ecological and financial risk assessments that would be necessary before genetic engineering was applied to endangered or extinct species. In 2019, a subgroup of the Task Force published a positive exploration of the potential impact of genetic technology on conservation. At around the same time, ecologists from the University of California Santa Barbara and Imperial College took a far more cautious view, arguing that any de-extinction program should focus on recently extinct species (their ecology would be more likely to be intact) that could be restored in sufficient numbers to enable the recreation of their lost ecological function. That would rule out the mammoth, or a mammothified elephant.

What looks like a spiffy technofix might provoke excitement and attract funding from the public or mega-rich celebrities but is unlikely to be a solution to extinction for any but a tiny handful of cases. If molecular biology really must be employed, then scientists should try cloning dead members of an endangered species to increase genetic diversity, as has been done in the case of the US black-footed ferret, with funding from the R&R foundation. In 2022, an attempt to recover the genome of the extinct Christmas Island rat, using different extant rat genomes as models, showed that it was impossible to recover around 5 per cent of the genome, with over twenty genes being completely absent. Key genes involved in the sense of smell and the immune system were particularly affected.

De-extinction, if it is ever possible, will not be simple. The primary focus of conservation efforts needs to be on the prevention of species loss, not on de-extinction. In the vast majority of cases, that will involve basic work to prevent habitat degradation and to keep humans away from the endangered organisms. That might be less sexy, but it is a lot more sensible.

Related

Up Next

According to most recent research, what is the primary cause of wooly mammoth extinction?

What are the causes of the wooly mammoth extinction?

What environmental factors contributed to the wooly mammoth extinction?

Overall, the woolly mammoth's extinction is a complex and multifaceted phenomenon that requires further research and study to fully understand.

Title:

Content: Woolly mammoth (Mammuthus primigenius)

The most famous of the 10 mammoth species known to have existed is undoubtedly the woolly mammoth. Standing at around the same size as today’s African elephants, this magnificent animal roamed the northern hemisphere for roughly half a million years, becoming extinct by around 2000 BC.

Advertisement

The reasons for the woolly mammoth’s demise are multifaceted. As the climate warmed at the end of the last Ice Age, and forests spread across the northern hemisphere, the grassland habitats in which the animal thrived were drastically reduced. This, combined with hunting pressures from humans, meant the woolly mammoth population ended up being restricted to just a couple of islands in the Arctic Ocean near Siberia and Alaska.

Some scientists hope to bring the woolly mammoth back from extinction, but with African and Asian elephant populations still facing a huge range of threats, many believe that our focus should be on preserving those animals instead.

Dodo (Raphus cucullatus)

For a large bird species that only became extinct relatively recently, we know surprisingly little about the dodo and its behaviours. In fact, there is just one near- complete dodo skeleton with bones from one bird, and there is only one specimen that contains soft tissue.

What we do know is that the dodo was restricted to Mauritius, an island in the Indian Ocean off the eastern coast of Madagascar and part of the Mascarene Archipelago, and was a relative to doves and pigeons. It’s thought that natural selection caused the animal to evolve into a flightless bird, with the species no longer needing to fly on an island with no predators.

However, when humans – and the animals they brought with them – first came to Mauritius in the 16th century, the dodo became extremely vulnerable. As well as being hunted for meat, it suffered from habitat loss and the predation of its eggs, resulting in its extinction by c1680.

Thylacine (Thylacinus cynocephalus)

Also known as the Tasmanian tiger or Tasmanian wolf, the thylacine was a carnivorous mammal originally found in Australia and New Guinea. Despite being similar in appearance to the domestic dog, it was actually a marsupial – a group of mammals that also includes kangaroos, koalas, wombats and opossums – and had a pouch.

Once widespread, the thylacine became extinct on the Australian mainland no less than 2,000 years ago, although the reasons for this are unknown. The species then became restricted to the island of Tasmania, off the south coast of Victoria, with between 2,000–4,000 individuals remaining when the British arrived in the early 19th century.

Eventually, the thylacine was persecuted as it was deemed a threat to livestock. The last known captive individual died from exposure at a zoo in Hobart in 1936 after being accidentally left out overnight. It’s thought that the last wild thylacines died in the 1960s, but that hasn’t stopped persistent rumours over the species’ continued survival.

Great auk (Pinguinus impennis)

Despite being similar in colouration and shape and bearing the genus name Pinguinus, the great auk wasn’t a relative of penguins, but was instead a member of the same family as puffins and guillemots.

Once a relatively common species in the North Atlantic, it bred on remote rocky islands such as Funk Island off the coast of Newfoundland, which was described by one 18th- century sailor as being “entirely covered with those fowls, so close that a man could not put his foot between them.”

However, exploration of the North Atlantic seas by European sailors spelled danger for the flightless seabird, with overharvesting of its eggs and adults for meat, feathers and body parts dramatically reducing the population. Attempts were made to protect the great auk, but that only increased its worth to collectors.

Sadly, the last breeding pair were killed and their single egg accidentally crushed by fishermen on Eldey Island, Iceland, on 3 July 1844.

Xerces butterfly (Glaucopsyche xerces)

Named after the Persian kings Xerxes I and Xerxes II (whose names are sometimes spelled ‘Xerces’ in France), this diminutive blue butterfly species lived among the coastal sand dunes of the San Francisco Peninsula, where its caterpillar preferred to feed on a single plant species.

However, urban development resulted in the loss of the plant, which could not survive in disturbed soil, and thus the loss of the Xerces blue in the 1940s – the first example of a butterfly becoming extinct due to human activity in North America.

Later, the Xerces Society, a non-profit conservation organisation established in 1971, was named in memory of the lost invertebrate.

For a while, there was uncertainty as to whether the Xerces blue was a distinct species or a subspecies of another blue butterfly. However, a scientific paper published in 2021 examined the DNA of a museum specimen collected in 1928 and proved that it was indeed a distinct species.

Passenger pigeon (Ectopistes migratorius)

The passenger pigeon was one of the most abundant pigeon species on the planet. Native to North America, it was called jahgowa by the Seneca Tribe, which translates to “big bread”, as it was a source of food by the Seneca and the rest of the Haudenosaunee people. Despite this, the hunting of the species was carefully regulated by rules set by each tribe.

However, after colonisation by the Europeans, hunting of the passenger pigeon increased and gradually became more industrial and commercialised. As the population declined, the species then became vulnerable to further pressures such as habitat loss and predation by other animals.

The last living passenger pigeon was a female named Martha, who was kept at Cincinnati Zoo in Ohio. She died on 1 September 1914 – one of the few times we have known the absolute date of a species’ extinction. Her death contributed to the creation of the US Migratory Bird Treaty Act, which requires permits to hunt some migratory bird species.

Golden toad (Incilius periglenes)

So-named for the brilliant yellow-orange colouration of the male (the female was black with yellow and red patterning), the golden toad has become a poster child for extinctions connected to the climate crisis.

Found in the Monteverde Cloud Forest of Costa Rica, the amphibian spent most of the year underground. It only emerged for a few days each April, with males fighting with each other around pools of rainwater in order to mate with females.

In 1987, roughly 1,500 golden toads were observed. However, the following year, only 10 toads were found, and in 1989, just one male. That one male was the last golden
toad ever seen, and the species was officially declared extinct in 2004.

While the exact cause of extinction is unknown, the climate crisis – combined with habitat loss and an infectious disease called chytridiomycosis – are all thought to have played a part.

Baiji (Lipotes vexillifer)

The baiji was a freshwater dolphin that lived in the Yangtze River in China, the third-longest river in the world. Although still listed as ‘Critically Endangered’ on the International Union for the Conservation of Nature’s Red List, having last been assessed in 2017, the species is considered extinct by conservationists. In fact, both the last confirmed sighting of a wild individual and the death of the last captive individual occurred in 2002.

The Yangtze River is also home to the Yangtze finless porpoise, the only freshwater porpoise in the world. Like the baiji, its existence is currently threatened by overfishing, shipping traffic and noise pollution.

However, the 2017 suspension of sand mining in Dongting Lake – a flood basin of the Yangtze in China’s Hunan province – has seen the finless porpoise return to areas that it had previously been avoiding.

Pinta Island giant tortoise (Chelonoidis nigra abingdonii or Chelonoidis abingdonii)

While there is debate about whether the giant tortoises of the Galápagos Islands are subspecies of the same species or a completely different species altogether, one thing is certain: Lonesome George was the last of his kind.

George was a Pinta Island tortoise, a species (or subspecies) that was already thought to have been extinct until he was discovered alone on the island that gave George and his former companions their collective name.

There were attempts to find other Pinta Island tortoises, and to mate him with closely related females, but to no avail. He died in 2012 of natural causes when he was around 100 years old.

Curiously, scientists believe it might be possible to bring back the Pinta Island tortoise, or at least a closely related version. Researchers have discovered hybrid tortoises with Pinta Island tortoise genes on nearby Isabela Island, with their Pinta Island ancestors having been moved there by whalers and pirates.

Megan Shersby is a naturalist, science writer and communicator. She was previously editorial and digital coordinator at BBC Wildlife Magazine

Advertisement

This content first appeared in the November 2023 issue of BBC History Revealed

Authors

Megan ShersbyNaturalist, writer and content creator
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement


The woolly mammoth's extinction is a complex and multifaceted topic that has been studied by scientists and researchers for many years.

According to a study published in the journal Nature, the primary cause of the woolly mammoth's extinction was the rapid change in climate at the end of the last Ice Age.

The warming of the climate led to the reduction of grassland habitats, which were essential for the survival of the woolly mammoths.

Additionally, the expansion of forests across the northern hemisphere further reduced the available habitat for the woolly mammoths.

The combination of these factors, along with hunting pressures from early human populations, ultimately led to the extinction of the woolly mammoths.

It is estimated that the woolly mammoths became extinct around 4,000 years ago, with the last remaining populations restricted to a few islands in the Arctic Ocean.

The exact role of early human hunting in the extinction of the woolly mammoths is still a topic of debate among scientists.

However, it is believed that early humans did interact with and hunt woolly mammoths, as evidenced by the discovery of mammoth bones and artifacts in archaeological sites.

For example, the "mammoth graveyard" discovered in Siberia contains the remains of at least 156 individual mammoths, along with evidence of human activity such as hearths and worked mammoth tusks.

The site has been dated to around 12,000 years ago, during the Bølling-Allerød deglacial period, and suggests that humans may have played a role in the accumulation of mammoth remains.

Furthermore, the discovery of woolly mammoth bones in an Austrian wine cellar has provided further evidence of human interaction with these animals.

The bones, which are estimated to be between 30,000 and 40,000 years old, were found in a layer of sediment that also contained evidence of human activity, such as stone tools and charcoal.

While the exact circumstances of the woolly mammoth's extinction are still not fully understood, it is clear that a combination of climate change and human activity played a significant role.

In fact, the current rate of extinction on Earth is estimated to be more than 100 times higher than it would be without human activity.

This highlights the significant impact that humans have had on the natural world and the importance of taking steps to conserve and protect endangered species.

In conclusion, the woolly mammoth's extinction was a complex process that was influenced by a combination of climate change and human activity.

Further research is needed to fully understand the circumstances surrounding the extinction of this iconic species.

However, it is clear that the loss of the woolly mammoths has had a significant impact on the natural world and highlights the importance of conservation efforts to protect endangered species.

The discovery of woolly mammoth remains and artifacts continues to provide valuable insights into the lives of these animals and the circumstances surrounding their extinction.

As scientists continue to study the woolly mammoths and their place in the natural world, we are reminded of the importance of preserving the natural world for future generations.

The woolly mammoth may be extinct, but its legacy lives on as a reminder of the impact of human activity on the natural world.

In the words of Dr. Vladimir Pitulko, the discovery of the "mammoth graveyard" in Siberia has provided a unique glimpse into the lives of these animals and the circumstances surrounding their extinction.

The study of the woolly mammoths and their place in the natural world continues to be an important area of research, with new discoveries and insights being made regularly.

As we continue to learn more about the woolly mammoths and their extinction, we are reminded of the importance of taking steps to conserve and protect endangered species.

The woolly mammoth may be gone, but its legacy will live on as a reminder of the impact of human activity on the natural world.

The woolly mammoth's extinction is a complex and multifaceted topic that has been studied by scientists and researchers for many years.

According to a study published in the journal Nature, the primary cause of the woolly mammoth's extinction was the rapid change in climate at the end of the last Ice Age.

Title:

Content: Partners news
The cause of the extinction of mammoths
Scientists have found that mammoths died out due to climate change
Photo: Stanislav Krasilnikov / TASS
An international team of researchers found that the cause of the extinction of mammoths in Siberia was primarily a sharp climate change, not human activity.
The article is published in the journal Nature.
Woolly mammoths became extinct only about four thousand years ago.
They were not only the main source of meat of ancient people – the latter made from their bones the basis for dwellings, from their tusks made harpoons and even musical instruments.
Therefore, there is a widespread theory that the main cause of extinction was humans.
Researchers from the Institute of Earth Sciences of St. Petersburg State University together with colleagues from the UK, Denmark, China, Norway and the United States decided to restore the appearance of the tundrosteppe, which was inhabited by mammoths.
To do this, they using the shotgun method — obtaining from a random massive sample of cloned fragments of the original sequence — analyzed the DNA of ancient plants and animals collected from 535 different places in the Arctic, where the mammoth lived, over 20 years.
They also analyzed the DNA of more than 1,500 modern plants and animals.
Researchers were able to map the distribution of populations of mammoths and other representatives of the megafauna of the tundrosteppe.
They saw that over time their populations and genetic diversity became smaller and smaller — making survival increasingly difficult.
With the end of the Pleistocene about 12 thousand years ago and the accompanying retreat of glaciers and the formation of rivers, lakes and marshes, vegetation has decreased in volume, and it has become insufficient to maintain the previous level of populations.
As the climate warms, trees and swamp plants have taken the place of former mammoth pastures.
“We have shown that climate change, in particular rainfall, has directly led to changes in vegetation.
According to our models, people did not have any influence on them [mammoths], ” said the first author of the work, a researcher at the University of Cambridge Yuchen Wang.
However, the extinction of mammoths was influenced not only by the warming of the climate itself.
“His speed was the last nail in the lid of the coffin – they (megafauna tundrosteppe – approx.
“Tape.ru ”) could not adapt quickly enough, when the landscape radically changed and food was not enough, ” said the head of the scientific group, Professor of Copenhagen and Cambridge universities Eske Willerslev.
Only what is important to you is in the “Tape of the Day ” in Telegram.
Subscribe now

According to most recent research, what is the primary cause of wooly mammoth extinction?

What are the causes of the wooly mammoth extinction?

What aspects of climate change contributed to the wooly mammoth extinction?

What environmental factors contributed to the wooly mammoth extinction?

The warming of the climate led to the reduction of grassland habitats, which were essential for the survival of the woolly mammoths.

According to most recent research, what is the primary cause of wooly mammoth extinction?

How did climate change affect mammoth' habitat?

What are the causes of the wooly mammoth extinction?

What aspects of climate change contributed to the wooly mammoth extinction?

What environmental factors contributed to the wooly mammoth extinction?

Additionally, the expansion of forests across the northern hemisphere further reduced the available habitat for the woolly mammoths.

Title:

Content: Woolly mammoth (Mammuthus primigenius)

The most famous of the 10 mammoth species known to have existed is undoubtedly the woolly mammoth. Standing at around the same size as today’s African elephants, this magnificent animal roamed the northern hemisphere for roughly half a million years, becoming extinct by around 2000 BC.

Advertisement

The reasons for the woolly mammoth’s demise are multifaceted. As the climate warmed at the end of the last Ice Age, and forests spread across the northern hemisphere, the grassland habitats in which the animal thrived were drastically reduced. This, combined with hunting pressures from humans, meant the woolly mammoth population ended up being restricted to just a couple of islands in the Arctic Ocean near Siberia and Alaska.

Some scientists hope to bring the woolly mammoth back from extinction, but with African and Asian elephant populations still facing a huge range of threats, many believe that our focus should be on preserving those animals instead.

Dodo (Raphus cucullatus)

For a large bird species that only became extinct relatively recently, we know surprisingly little about the dodo and its behaviours. In fact, there is just one near- complete dodo skeleton with bones from one bird, and there is only one specimen that contains soft tissue.

What we do know is that the dodo was restricted to Mauritius, an island in the Indian Ocean off the eastern coast of Madagascar and part of the Mascarene Archipelago, and was a relative to doves and pigeons. It’s thought that natural selection caused the animal to evolve into a flightless bird, with the species no longer needing to fly on an island with no predators.

However, when humans – and the animals they brought with them – first came to Mauritius in the 16th century, the dodo became extremely vulnerable. As well as being hunted for meat, it suffered from habitat loss and the predation of its eggs, resulting in its extinction by c1680.

Thylacine (Thylacinus cynocephalus)

Also known as the Tasmanian tiger or Tasmanian wolf, the thylacine was a carnivorous mammal originally found in Australia and New Guinea. Despite being similar in appearance to the domestic dog, it was actually a marsupial – a group of mammals that also includes kangaroos, koalas, wombats and opossums – and had a pouch.

Once widespread, the thylacine became extinct on the Australian mainland no less than 2,000 years ago, although the reasons for this are unknown. The species then became restricted to the island of Tasmania, off the south coast of Victoria, with between 2,000–4,000 individuals remaining when the British arrived in the early 19th century.

Eventually, the thylacine was persecuted as it was deemed a threat to livestock. The last known captive individual died from exposure at a zoo in Hobart in 1936 after being accidentally left out overnight. It’s thought that the last wild thylacines died in the 1960s, but that hasn’t stopped persistent rumours over the species’ continued survival.

Great auk (Pinguinus impennis)

Despite being similar in colouration and shape and bearing the genus name Pinguinus, the great auk wasn’t a relative of penguins, but was instead a member of the same family as puffins and guillemots.

Once a relatively common species in the North Atlantic, it bred on remote rocky islands such as Funk Island off the coast of Newfoundland, which was described by one 18th- century sailor as being “entirely covered with those fowls, so close that a man could not put his foot between them.”

However, exploration of the North Atlantic seas by European sailors spelled danger for the flightless seabird, with overharvesting of its eggs and adults for meat, feathers and body parts dramatically reducing the population. Attempts were made to protect the great auk, but that only increased its worth to collectors.

Sadly, the last breeding pair were killed and their single egg accidentally crushed by fishermen on Eldey Island, Iceland, on 3 July 1844.

Xerces butterfly (Glaucopsyche xerces)

Named after the Persian kings Xerxes I and Xerxes II (whose names are sometimes spelled ‘Xerces’ in France), this diminutive blue butterfly species lived among the coastal sand dunes of the San Francisco Peninsula, where its caterpillar preferred to feed on a single plant species.

However, urban development resulted in the loss of the plant, which could not survive in disturbed soil, and thus the loss of the Xerces blue in the 1940s – the first example of a butterfly becoming extinct due to human activity in North America.

Later, the Xerces Society, a non-profit conservation organisation established in 1971, was named in memory of the lost invertebrate.

For a while, there was uncertainty as to whether the Xerces blue was a distinct species or a subspecies of another blue butterfly. However, a scientific paper published in 2021 examined the DNA of a museum specimen collected in 1928 and proved that it was indeed a distinct species.

Passenger pigeon (Ectopistes migratorius)

The passenger pigeon was one of the most abundant pigeon species on the planet. Native to North America, it was called jahgowa by the Seneca Tribe, which translates to “big bread”, as it was a source of food by the Seneca and the rest of the Haudenosaunee people. Despite this, the hunting of the species was carefully regulated by rules set by each tribe.

However, after colonisation by the Europeans, hunting of the passenger pigeon increased and gradually became more industrial and commercialised. As the population declined, the species then became vulnerable to further pressures such as habitat loss and predation by other animals.

The last living passenger pigeon was a female named Martha, who was kept at Cincinnati Zoo in Ohio. She died on 1 September 1914 – one of the few times we have known the absolute date of a species’ extinction. Her death contributed to the creation of the US Migratory Bird Treaty Act, which requires permits to hunt some migratory bird species.

Golden toad (Incilius periglenes)

So-named for the brilliant yellow-orange colouration of the male (the female was black with yellow and red patterning), the golden toad has become a poster child for extinctions connected to the climate crisis.

Found in the Monteverde Cloud Forest of Costa Rica, the amphibian spent most of the year underground. It only emerged for a few days each April, with males fighting with each other around pools of rainwater in order to mate with females.

In 1987, roughly 1,500 golden toads were observed. However, the following year, only 10 toads were found, and in 1989, just one male. That one male was the last golden
toad ever seen, and the species was officially declared extinct in 2004.

While the exact cause of extinction is unknown, the climate crisis – combined with habitat loss and an infectious disease called chytridiomycosis – are all thought to have played a part.

Baiji (Lipotes vexillifer)

The baiji was a freshwater dolphin that lived in the Yangtze River in China, the third-longest river in the world. Although still listed as ‘Critically Endangered’ on the International Union for the Conservation of Nature’s Red List, having last been assessed in 2017, the species is considered extinct by conservationists. In fact, both the last confirmed sighting of a wild individual and the death of the last captive individual occurred in 2002.

The Yangtze River is also home to the Yangtze finless porpoise, the only freshwater porpoise in the world. Like the baiji, its existence is currently threatened by overfishing, shipping traffic and noise pollution.

However, the 2017 suspension of sand mining in Dongting Lake – a flood basin of the Yangtze in China’s Hunan province – has seen the finless porpoise return to areas that it had previously been avoiding.

Pinta Island giant tortoise (Chelonoidis nigra abingdonii or Chelonoidis abingdonii)

While there is debate about whether the giant tortoises of the Galápagos Islands are subspecies of the same species or a completely different species altogether, one thing is certain: Lonesome George was the last of his kind.

George was a Pinta Island tortoise, a species (or subspecies) that was already thought to have been extinct until he was discovered alone on the island that gave George and his former companions their collective name.

There were attempts to find other Pinta Island tortoises, and to mate him with closely related females, but to no avail. He died in 2012 of natural causes when he was around 100 years old.

Curiously, scientists believe it might be possible to bring back the Pinta Island tortoise, or at least a closely related version. Researchers have discovered hybrid tortoises with Pinta Island tortoise genes on nearby Isabela Island, with their Pinta Island ancestors having been moved there by whalers and pirates.

Megan Shersby is a naturalist, science writer and communicator. She was previously editorial and digital coordinator at BBC Wildlife Magazine

Advertisement

This content first appeared in the November 2023 issue of BBC History Revealed

Authors

Megan ShersbyNaturalist, writer and content creator
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement

How did climate change affect mammoth' habitat?

What are the causes of the wooly mammoth extinction?

The combination of these factors, along with hunting pressures from early human populations, ultimately led to the extinction of the woolly mammoths.

How did humans contribute to the wooly mammoth extinction?

It is estimated that the woolly mammoths became extinct around 4,000 years ago, with the last remaining populations restricted to a few islands in the Arctic Ocean.

When did the last population of wooly mammoth become extinct?

Where were the last areas of wooly mammoth habitat?

islands in the Arctic Ocean near Siberia and Alaska

The exact role of early human hunting in the extinction of the woolly mammoths is still a topic of debate among scientists.

Title:

Content: Woolly Mammoth Bones Unearthed in Austrian Wine Cellar

It wasn’t the first time that ancient artifacts were discovered in one of Kamptal’s wine cellars.

An Austrian winemaker renovating his cellar unearthed a trove of woolly mammoth bones that could expand our understanding of the relationship between humans and the prehistoric beasts.

Andreas Pernerstorfer’s winery is in the notable winemaking and cultural region of Kamptal in northeastern Austria. After stumbling upon the huge bones in the dirt floor, he reported his discovery to Austria’s Federal Monuments Office. The Austrian Archaeological Institute has been excavating the site since March 2024 to a depth of 55 feet below ground and says it’s the first significant paleontology site found in Austria in a century.

The bones are believed to be between 30,000 and 40,000 years old and belonged to at least three woolly mammoths. According to Hannah Parow-Souchon, the paleontologist leading the excavation, the discovery is significant because mammoth bones are rarely found packed together. This could mean they were bunched there by humans, which could indicate they were hunted and slaughtered by humans; the site might be the remains of a Holocene Epoch cookout.

Most archaeologists agree that humans gathered in groups and used spears and other tools to take down woolly mammoths and other megafauna, which would have been immense sources of meat, hides, and bones to use as raw materials for tools. This activity could have contributed to the animals’ extinction

There is some debate whether preying on the massive beasts was a regular practice for Stone Age people, and science is foggy about how a band of simple humans could get the drop on an animal that stood 10 feet tall, weighed as much as six tons, and had fearsome protective tusks. The process would reveal a lot about coordination and planning among Paleolithic people.

Parow-Souchon said in a statement from the Austrian Academy of Sciences that it is possible that humans set a trap for mammoths there. She also said it was the most significant discovery of woolly mammoth remains in more than 100 years; most such sites in Europe have been dug up and hollowed out, with their archaeological value lost over time.

This is not the first such find in Kamptal. About 150 years ago, relics of early human life—including flint artifacts, jewelry fossils, and charcoal—were discovered there in a wine cellar next door.

According to most recent research, what cause of wooly mammoth extinction is not as important as previously believed?

However, it is believed that early humans did interact with and hunt woolly mammoths, as evidenced by the discovery of mammoth bones and artifacts in archaeological sites.

Title:

Content:
This article has been reviewed according to Science X's editorial process and policies. Editors have highlighted the following attributes while ensuring the content's credibility:

fact-checked

peer-reviewed publication

trusted source

proofread

Siberia's 'mammoth graveyard' reveals 800-year human interactions with woolly beasts

Woolly mammoths are evocative of a bygone era, when Earth was gripped within an Ice Age. Current knowledge places early mammoth ancestors in the Pliocene (2.58–5.33 million years ago, Ma) before their populations expanded in the Pleistocene (2.58 Ma–11,700 years ago, kyr). However, as climate changed, their numbers dwindled to isolated populations in modern Siberia and Alaska, until their last dated survival 4 kyr ago.

In the East Siberian Arctic (>70 °N), there is not only evidence of significant woolly mammoth populations, but also how humans interacted with them, the focus of new research in Quaternary Science Reviews.

Along the Berelekh River, Russia, a 'mammoth graveyard' can be found. Here, thousands of disarticulated bones, representing a minimum of 156 individual mammoths, found alongside an indicate the close proximity of these two communities, forming the Berelekh geoarchaeological complex.

Dr. Vladimir Pitulko, of the Russian Academy of Sciences, and colleagues aimed to assess the relationship between the 'mammoth graveyard' and the archaeological site through a re-examination of stratigraphic and paleogeographic data obtained in 2009, with new fieldwork focused on the left riverbanks where have readily yielded from their home in the sediment and appeared on the water's edge. Alongside them are remains of Pleistocene hare, Arctic fox and wolves, as well as soot and charcoal from hearths and worked mammoth tusks (one being an unfinished throwing spear).

The researchers suggest humans created these bone accumulations as a byproduct of the production of mammoth ivory technology, while hares may have been targeted for fur to produce winter clothing.

Notably, evidence of blowfly pupae activity on cavities in skulls and bones is indicative that the mammoth carcasses were added to the 'graveyard' de-fleshed. Indeed, there appears to be evidence of sorting of the bones, with only the most valuable transported to Berelekh from the area in which the mammoth was killed, leaving behind parts such as spinal columns, carpal ('hand') and tarsal ('foot') bones.

There are three radiocarbon dated peaks in woolly mammoth accumulation at 11.8, 12.2 and 12.4 kyr ago, which fall within known human settlement of the area (11.2–12.4 kyr ago) during the Bølling-Allerød deglacial, when the warmed and pollen evidence suggests the region became more arid.

Fluctuations in the abundance of mammoths in the 'graveyard' suggest human settlement of the area may also have changed through time (frequent occupation but not permanent), which the researchers attribute to on the floodplain permitting suitability for erecting campsites.

Radiocarbon dating of mammoth remains identifies their presence here pre-dating human settlement (beginning ~12.5 kyr ago), but also shows that humans remained in the area (until ~11.2 kyr ago) after mass mammoth remains accumulation declined (~11.8 kyr ago).

Given this, four possible causes are suggested by the scientists to explain such a significant mass accumulation of bones: 1) mass death by natural causes or human, 2) repeated group deaths in the same location, likely due to human predation, 3) concentration of remains by , such as river action, or 4) solely derived from human predation or scavenging from deceased carcasses.

However, the latter is considered to be the most likely to produce useful tools from ivory tusks, as well as meat to feed the community, as there is no evidence on the bones for a cause of mass death, radiocarbon ages do not cluster into multiple phases for recurrent death deposits and stream flows were unlikely to reach sufficient velocities to transport such heavy bones.

These findings are concurrent with mammoth remains at the Yana Paleolithic site, also in Siberia. Here, estimates suggest the 'graveyard' increased by 1–2 mammoths per year rather than a mass death event, a figure Dr. Pitulko and colleagues conclude could be similar or even higher for Berelekh.

This research is significant as it alters the previously-held belief that there was a lag of 50–80 years between mammoth bone accumulation from natural processes (such as deposition in flood channels) and , instead now defining a close relationship between the two over 700–800 years. Sadly, now that human-mammoth relationship has continued as ivory hunters have looted the site beyond further study.

More information: Vladimir V. Pitulko et al, From the Berelekh 'mammoth graveyard' to Berelekh geo-archaeological complex: Paleoenvironment, site formation processes, and human-mammoth relationships, Quaternary Science Reviews (2024). DOI: 10.1016/j.quascirev.2024.108692

Journal information: Quaternary Science Reviews

© 2024 Science X Network

Citation: Siberia's 'mammoth graveyard' reveals 800-year human interactions with woolly beasts (2024, June 10) retrieved 10 June 2024 from https://phys.org/news/2024-06-siberia-mammoth-graveyard-reveals-year.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.

Explore further

Huge trove of mammoth skeletons found in Mexico

0 shares

Feedback to editors

How did humans contribute to the wooly mammoth extinction?

What are the causes of the wooly mammoth extinction?

For example, the "mammoth graveyard" discovered in Siberia contains the remains of at least 156 individual mammoths, along with evidence of human activity such as hearths and worked mammoth tusks.

How did humans contribute to the wooly mammoth extinction?

What are the causes of the wooly mammoth extinction?

The site has been dated to around 12,000 years ago, during the Bølling-Allerød deglacial period, and suggests that humans may have played a role in the accumulation of mammoth remains.

What are the causes of the wooly mammoth extinction?

from 300,000 years ago up until 10,000 years ago

Furthermore, the discovery of woolly mammoth bones in an Austrian wine cellar has provided further evidence of human interaction with these animals.

What are the causes of the wooly mammoth extinction?

The bones, which are estimated to be between 30,000 and 40,000 years old, were found in a layer of sediment that also contained evidence of human activity, such as stone tools and charcoal.

from 300,000 years ago up until 10,000 years ago

While the exact circumstances of the woolly mammoth's extinction are still not fully understood, it is clear that a combination of climate change and human activity played a significant role.

How did humans contribute to the wooly mammoth extinction?

What are the causes of the wooly mammoth extinction?

What aspects of climate change contributed to the wooly mammoth extinction?

What environmental factors contributed to the wooly mammoth extinction?

In fact, the current rate of extinction on Earth is estimated to be more than 100 times higher than it would be without human activity.

Title:

Content: How would the earth be different if modern man did not exist?
The Libyan Observatory Newspaper
LATEST NEWS
The human footprint can be seen across the planet today, from the towering skyscrapers that define our modern capitals to the pyramids and other ancient relics from our past.
Human activity also represents the sprawling open fields of agriculture, the roads that connect everything together.
But what would the world look like if humans didn ’ t exist before?
Some scientists paint a picture of a pure wilderness and an abundance of species, from fashionable to uncommon.
Trevor Worthy, a paleontologist and assistant professor at Flinders University in Australia, told Live Science: “I think it would be a much more vegetative place with a wealth of animals, of great size, spread across all continents except Antarctica. ”
A world without modern humans may also mean that our extinct human relatives, such as Neanderthals, will still exist.
And, of course, they would have changed the scene as well.
Humans shaped the world at the expense of many species, from the dodo (Raphus cucullatus) to the Tasmanian tiger (Thylacinus cynocephalus), which pushed us to extinction through activities such as hunting and habitat destruction.
The rate of extinction on Earth today is more than 100 times what it would have been without humans, according to the most conservative estimates, and has not been higher since the Cretaceous and Paleogene (K-Pg) extinction event that wiped out about 80% of animal species, including non-floating dinosaurs, 66 million years ago.
In other words, humans collided with the planet like an asteroid, and the dust continues to settle as wildlife continues to deteriorate.
“My great-grandfather was able to see herds of thousands of parrots in the landscape, my grandfather saw a hundred flocks, my father saw little and I ’ m lucky if I could see two in the woods, ” said Worthy.
The human-driven decline of nature suggests that Earth would be a more wild place without us, with some lost giants, such as moas, standing out the most.
This group of ostrich-like birds, some of which extend up to 11.8 feet (3.6 m) in New Zealand, evolved over millions of years.
Within 200 years of humans reaching their land 750 years ago, all nine species of moa have disappeared, along with at least 25 other vertebrate species, including the giant Haast eagles (Hieraaetus moorei) that hunted moa, according to Worthy.
The giant moa and the Haast vultures are recent examples of large animals whose eventual extinction is linked to human activities, such as unsustainable hunting and the introduction of invasive species into new habitats.
They are also indicators of what our relationship with large animals might be like elsewhere.
The survival of large animals is crucial to speculate on the existence of a land without humans, as these monsters have a significant impact on the landscape.
– Serengeti System
Soren Furby, senior lecturer in zoology at the University of Gothenburg in Sweden, believes that humans played a key role in the disappearance of many large mammals thousands of years ago.
He led a 2015 study, published in the journal Diversity and Distributions, which suggested that without humans, the Earth would be much like the contemporary Serengeti system, an African ecosystem teeming with life.
In this scenario, extinct animals similar to those found in Serengeti today – including elephants, rhinos and lions – would live across Europe.
For example, instead of African lions (Panthera leo), there are still cave lions (Panthera spelaea), a slightly larger species that lived in Europe until about 12,000 years ago.
Meanwhile, the Americas will be home to relatives of huge elephants and bears, along with unique species, according to Forby.
"In a world without humans, there will be much more diversity than large mammals, and if you see a greater diversity than large mammals, you tend to see a more open habitat," Forby said.
Elephants and other large animals are well identified when finding food, and will not tolerate unnecessary obstacles.
“If you ’ re old enough, it might be easier to knock on a tree and eat fresh leaves on top of it, ” Forby said.
But also, if there are a large number of large mammals, there is a tendency to have fewer wooded plants in the first place, he said.
Large animals, such as elephants, are known as megafauna.
During the last ice age (2.6 million to 11,700 years ago), the world was rich in megafauna, but most of them died at the end of the ice age, or in the thousands of years since.
For example, about 38 genera of large animals went extinct in North America at the end of the last ice age, according to a 2020 study published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
Over the past century, scientists have debated whether natural climate changes or human activities, such as overfishing, are the main reason for the decline of these large animals.
A 2021 study published in Nature concluded that climate change ultimately wiped out the woolly mammoths (Mammuthus primigenius) and other Arctic megafauna that survived the end of the ice age.
However, humans hunted mammoths.
Scientists who believe humans may have been the main factor in their extinction, such as Forby, argue that mammoths survived climate change before humans appeared and would probably survive to this day had it not been for the added pressure humans placed on them.
Christopher Dottie, an associate professor and ecologist at Northern Arizona University, is modeling how past and present large animals transport seeds and nutrients through eating and defecating.
His work indicates that the transport of elements such as phosphorus, calcium and magnesium, which are important for life, was reduced by more than 90% through the extinction of large animals.
Dotti hypothesizes that without humans, elements would be evenly distributed across the landscape.
This means more fertile soil, which makes ecosystems more productive.
Humans tend to group elements together through practices such as farming and creating fenced areas, so that these areas become less fertile over time compared to terrestrial systems, according to Dauty.
Greater fertility means that plants can devote their resources to more fruit and flowers, so that the world looks more vibrant and feeds more animals.
While it is difficult to determine how humans and megafauna have influenced climate change for thousands of years with evidence obscured over time, it is much easier to judge our impact on Earth ’ s climate today.
Through global warming, caused by activities such as burning fossil fuels, humans have raised the global average temperature by about 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit (1 degrees Celsius) since the beginning of the 20th century.
Therefore, the Earth would have been at least colder without us.
A 2016 study published in the journal Nature concluded that human-induced warming would delay the next ice age by at least 100,000 years.
And it wasn't due for another 50,000 years, though, even without human delay, so it's unlikely that Earth would be in the middle of another ice age today if we didn't exist.
Humans are inevitable.
Scientists aren ’ t sure why Neanderthals went extinct about 40,000 years ago, but because they mate with Homo sapiens, parts of their DNA are found in some of us.
There were probably multiple causes of Neanderthal death, but we're a prime suspect.
Chris Stringer, a professor and research leader in human origins at the Natural History Museum in London, believes competition for resources was a factor in the disappearance of Neanderthals.
“If we weren ’ t around, if we hadn ’ t come to Europe 45,000 or 50,000 years ago, I think they ’ d probably stay here, ” he told Live Science.
According to Stringer, Neanderthals lived a complex life in Europe, similar to modern humans, but they had difficulty adapting to climate change and were relatively few in number, with low genetic diversity.
This is bad news for any species, as it is a sign of inbreeding and ill health.
Stringer said Neanderthals were probably “already in trouble, and when modern humans got there too, I think that ’ s probably what pushed them to the edge. ”
Scientists are still learning about at least one human lineage that lived around the same time as modern humans and Neanderthals: Denisovans.
This lineage appears to be closer to Neanderthals than modern humans in genes and appearance, but it can be distinguished from Neanderthals with very large molars.
There is evidence of DNA in current humans living in places like New Guinea in Oceania — a finding that suggests Denisovans were in Southeast Asia interacting with ancestors of modern humans who later settled in the East, according to a 2012 study published in the journal Science.
These Denisovan interactions, along with fossil evidence, suggest that they had a larger geographic range than Neanderthals, encompassing a variety of environments and, therefore, arguably, were more adaptive than Neanderthals.
DNA evidence also suggests that Denisovans may have had greater genetic diversity than Neanderthals, according to Stringer.
Stringer said: “There ’ s no reason why Neanderthals or Denisovans shouldn ’ t do it eventually, given enough time. ”
He added that they may have overcome any potential intellectual deficiency, which is not clear to them, through evolution.
So maybe the world won ’ t look completely different after all.
Likewise, they could have made the same mistakes we have made since then.
So, global warming could have been here, but with Neanderthals or Denisovans leading it, not us.
"Who knows?"
Source: Live Science

This highlights the significant impact that humans have had on the natural world and the importance of taking steps to conserve and protect endangered species.

What are the causes of the wooly mammoth extinction?

In conclusion, the woolly mammoth's extinction was a complex process that was influenced by a combination of climate change and human activity.

How did humans contribute to the wooly mammoth extinction?

What environmental factors contributed to the wooly mammoth extinction?

Further research is needed to fully understand the circumstances surrounding the extinction of this iconic species.

However, it is clear that the loss of the woolly mammoths has had a significant impact on the natural world and highlights the importance of conservation efforts to protect endangered species.

The discovery of woolly mammoth remains and artifacts continues to provide valuable insights into the lives of these animals and the circumstances surrounding their extinction.

As scientists continue to study the woolly mammoths and their place in the natural world, we are reminded of the importance of preserving the natural world for future generations.

The woolly mammoth may be extinct, but its legacy lives on as a reminder of the impact of human activity on the natural world.

What are the causes of the wooly mammoth extinction?

In the words of Dr. Vladimir Pitulko, the discovery of the "mammoth graveyard" in Siberia has provided a unique glimpse into the lives of these animals and the circumstances surrounding their extinction.

The study of the woolly mammoths and their place in the natural world continues to be an important area of research, with new discoveries and insights being made regularly.

As we continue to learn more about the woolly mammoths and their extinction, we are reminded of the importance of taking steps to conserve and protect endangered species.

The woolly mammoth may be gone, but its legacy will live on as a reminder of the impact of human activity on the natural world.

What are the causes of the wooly mammoth extinction?


Greenland is rich in rare earth minerals, with estimated deposits of 19 million tons of rare earth oxides, including 30% of heavy rare earth elements.

The minerals are primarily located in the Kuannersuit area, which is considered one of the largest rare earth deposits in the world.

The ease of extraction is a concern, as rare earth minerals are often found in conjunction with iron ore and require acid to be extracted, which can be harmful to the environment.

Despite the challenges, several countries and corporations have expressed interest in extracting and exploiting these minerals, including China, which currently dominates the global rare earth market.

However, in 2021, the Greenlandic government banned the extraction of uranium, which is often found with rare earth minerals, due to environmental concerns.

Other companies, such as Tanbreez Mining, have obtained permits to extract rare earth minerals in Greenland, with plans to start production as early as 2024.

Additionally, companies like AEX Gold are investing in gold mining projects in Greenland, which could potentially lead to the discovery of rare earth minerals.

The Canadian company, New Performance Materials, has also obtained a license to explore for rare earth minerals in Greenland.

Overall, Greenland's rare earth minerals have significant economic potential, but extraction efforts must be carefully managed to minimize environmental impacts.

Greenland is rich in rare earth minerals, with estimated deposits of 19 million tons of rare earth oxides, including 30% of heavy rare earth elements.

Title:

Content: Greenland to mine rare earths in 2024 | Economic Horizontal | DW | 30.07.2023
1.
Inhalt
2.
Navigation
3.
Weitere Inhalte
4.
Metanavigation
5.
Suche
6.
Choose from 30 Languages
Advertisement
Economic stratification
Greenland to mine rare earths in 2024
According to the German "Economic Weekly" reported that a mining company has obtained permission from the Greenland government to mine rare earths on the island.
The company said production could begin next year.
Tanbreez Mining, a mining company, plans to mine rare earths in Greenland next year, according to the Economic Weekly.
“We can start production next year, ” said Greg Barnes, a geologist and owner of the company. Greenland ’ s deputy minister for minerals confirmed to the journal that a mining licence had been issued.
Barnes said the Tanbreez mine "contains more than half of the world's rare earth resources" and has 19 million tons of rare earth oxides.
Of these, 30% are highly favored heavy rare earth elements.
Rare earth contains a total of 17 kinds of metal elements, the properties of each metal are different.
Each metal has a unique industrial value.
Some of them are irreplaceable.
They are used, for example, in the manufacture of electric vehicles or wind turbines.
Last year, about two-thirds of Germany ’ s rare earths came from China. Mining such as rare earths is difficult and often harmful to the environment, as rare earths are often associated with iron ore, and the chemical process of refining often requires the use of acidic substances.
What is Rare Earth?
Barnes, owner of Tanbreez Mining, told Economic Weekly that to start mining for rare earths in Greenland, a factory would be needed to separate rare earths from heterosexual rocks.
Currently there are only such factories in Russia and China.
But one such plant will be built in the United States in the coming months.
There are also plans to build a factory in Europe.
Thanks to technological advances, the equipment that separates rare earths currently costs only $40 million.
According to Barnes, China paid 1.7 billion U.S. dollars for the equipment 13 years ago.
In January, Swedish state-owned mining company LKAB announced the discovery of Europe ’ s largest rare earth deposit to date.
But the company said it would take 10-15 years for the rare earth mine, located in Kiruna in northern Sweden, to be available to the market.
EU Plans to Diversify Rare Earth Supply Chain
(Agence France-Presse, Economic Weekly)
© 2023 Deutsche Welle Copyright Notice: All content in this article is protected by copyright law and may not be used without special permission from Deutsche Welle.
Any misconduct will lead to recovery and criminal prosecution.
DW.COM

What does Greenland's Tanbreez mine contain?

30% of oxides are highly sought after heavy rare earth metals

The minerals are primarily located in the Kuannersuit area, which is considered one of the largest rare earth deposits in the world.

Title:

Content: Greenland ban on uranium mining prevents Chinese companies from expanding rare earths
November 13, 2021 17: 33
Eastern Network Television
More News Clips
As part of its Arctic strategy, China has supported the mining of rare earths in Greenland by Australia ’ s Greenland Minerals, a Chinese-owned subsidiary of Shenghe Resources, through the Belt and Road Initiative.
However, Greenland ’ s parliament passed a new law banning uranium mining and halting the development of rare earth deposits at Kuannersuit, the southern tip of Greenland.
China's rare earth mining accounts for more than 70% of the global mining volume, and China's rare earth magnetic processing volume accounts for 90% of the global processing volume.
Sungho Resources, one of the world ’ s largest producers of rare earth materials, acquired a 12.5% stake in Greenland Minerals in 2016, making it the largest shareholder in the latter.
Guanast in southern Greenland is home to the world ’ s second-largest reserves of rare earths and uranium after China, accounting for 10% of the world ’ s rare earth production.
Since former US President Donald Trump proposed the idea of buying Greenland in 2019, the rich rare earth resources of Guanaster in southern Greenland have attracted attention.
Greenland ’ s local parliament was elected early on April 6. In the end, the pro-environmental left-wing Inuit Ataqatigiit party won the election, and its leader, Mute Egede, became the new prime minister.
He declared that he would do everything in his power to stop the Guanast Rare Earth Mine project.
In response, Greenland ’ s parliament has passed a new bill aimed at banning exploration of uranium deposits, as well as other radioactive deposits such as thorium, and halting the development of rare earth deposits at the southern tip of Greenland.

Which Greenland rare earth deposits has its Parliament prohibited from developing?

The ease of extraction is a concern, as rare earth minerals are often found in conjunction with iron ore and require acid to be extracted, which can be harmful to the environment.

Despite the challenges, several countries and corporations have expressed interest in extracting and exploiting these minerals, including China, which currently dominates the global rare earth market.

Title:

Content: Advertisement
Economics.
A race between financiers around the world to search for this substance in Greenland.
Interesting details!
10-08-2022 | 00: 49
A-
A +
photos 0
A +
A-
CNN reports that some of the world ’ s wealthiest people are funding large treasure hunts using helicopters and signal transmitters on Greenland ’ s west coast.
The climate crisis is causing Greenland ’ s ice to melt at unprecedented rates, ironically creating an opportunity for investors and mining companies looking for a treasure trove of important minerals capable of powering clean energy transitions.
Advertisement
Search for minerals in Greenland
Many billionaires, including Jeff Bezos, Michael Bloomberg and Bill Gates, are betting that what lies beneath the surface of the hills and valleys of Disco Island and Greenland ’ s Noswak Peninsula are important enough minerals to power millions of electric vehicles.
Speaking to CNN, Kobold Metals CEO Kurt House said: “We are looking for a deposition that will be the largest or second largest nickel and cobalt deposition in the world. ”
The disappearance of Arctic ice – both on land and in the ocean – highlights a unique dichotomy: Greenland is the zero point for the effects of climate change, but it could also be the zero point for the search for the minerals needed to provide solutions to this crisis.
For their part, representatives of Kobold Metals, a California-based mineral exploration company, said the billionaires ’ club is supporting the company financially.
Bezos, Gates and Bloomberg did not respond to requests from CNN for comment on the news, and Kobold Metals is partnering with Bluejay Mining to find precious and rare metals in Greenland, which are essential for building the electric vehicles and huge batteries needed to store renewable energy.
The Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland said Greenland could be a hot spot for coal, copper, gold, rare earth elements and zinc.
The Greenland government has conducted several assessments on ice-free land and is aware of the country ’ s “ability to diversify the national economy through mineral extraction, ” the agency said.
(Arabic Post)
Go ahead.
Advertisement
Our news via your email
SIGN UP
Softimpact
All rights reserved © Lebanon24
All rights reserved © Lebanon24
Softimpact

What countries are invested in Greenland Minerals corp?

However, in 2021, the Greenlandic government banned the extraction of uranium, which is often found with rare earth minerals, due to environmental concerns.

Other companies, such as Tanbreez Mining, have obtained permits to extract rare earth minerals in Greenland, with plans to start production as early as 2024.

What company has obtained permission to extract Greenland's rare earths?

Additionally, companies like AEX Gold are investing in gold mining projects in Greenland, which could potentially lead to the discovery of rare earth minerals.

Title:

Content: AEX Gold aims to invest in Greenland through its new gold mining project

Traditionally known for its fishing and hunting industries, Greenland is fast becoming the next significant area of exploration for mining businesses. The largest island in the world, Greenland remains one of the least populated areas worldwide with 56,000 citizens, and it has sought to attract local and foreign investment across a number of new projects.

The island’s current position remains complex. A sovereign government, it is positioned under the Danish kingdom who provide grants to support its local economy. To further its independence and bolster its economy to create increased tax revenue, Greenland has embraced the exploration of new mining projects as well as utilising all the renewable and local resources it has to offer.

Rich in rare-earth minerals, gold, iron-ore, uranium, in addition to hydro and wind power, Greenland’s favourable legal framework and robust infrastructure, particularly in South Greenland, have factored into AEX Gold’s vision to explore through its Greenlandic subsidiary, Nalunaq Gold Mine, situated in the Nanortalik Gold belt, Southern Greenland.

Acquiring an existing Exploitation Licence in 2015, the company is at the advanced exploration stage of its Nalunaq property, including the previously operating Nalunaq Gold Mine.   It also holds Exploration Licences at the early exploration stage Vagar and Tartoq properties.

Hosting a high-grade NI 43-101 compliant gold resource estimate of 263k oz (inferred) at 18.7 g/t and a number of regional exploration targets, AEX Gold has undertaken three years of exploration at Nalunaq, developing an updated geological model and an extension of the main vein strike length up to 1km.

“The government is very supportive, so it's about having a sound exploration strategy. We are very much focused on that, as we have an asset package that we think we can grow and create a lot of value,” explains Chief Executive Officer, Eldur Olafsson.

Originating from Iceland, Olafsson has gained extensive experience of the local geography. Focusing on mining projects in Greenland since 2012, he has analysed the country’s potential against the backdrop of environmental responsibilities and associated legalities with partner SRK Exploration Services. Through this process, the business has turned its attentions solely towards gold exploration.

“The known gold deposits in Greenland are in an area where the climate is mild and, given our experience, logistics are relatively easy. Gold opportunities are easier to finance than larger base metals projects and our perception was that we could fully fund projects like these through our support here in Iceland and in the UK market,” he explains.

“We started looking for opportunities in the South Greenland Gold Province and became aware of this historically producing mine. We were attracted by the extremely high-grade potential of the resource and the fact that the project had significant infrastructure in place.  We believed there were significant opportunities to materially improve the mining operation that had been run by previous operators.”

Extensive exploration

Throughout the exploration of high-grade resources, Olafsson is proud to remain hands on and is regularly seen on site. By undertaking various technical studies, AEX has gained the ability to comprehensively analyse similar types of assets with potential.  After acquiring the Nalunaq project in 2015 the company has continued to expand its portfolio. Whilst Nalunaq encompasses the required licence to explore and recommence production at the old gold mine, they own the larger Vagar exploration licence, situated a few kilometres to the west of the mine, where AEX believes the ground is prospective for the discovery of further Nalunaq-type deposits.  In addition, they also own the early stage Tartoq Project to the North West of Nalunaq. Each licence area is at a different stage of exploration which supports AEX’s aim of having a continuous pipeline of projects being brought into production.

“We have a total of 690sqkm of licences in south Greenland and we're the only active listed gold company in Greenland. Previous operators undertook very little forward-looking exploration once the mine was in production.  It's a very under-explored region so we intend to recommence production within the next two years at Nalunaq in order to support our exploration in the larger licences in the next 5-10 years,” he says.

“Iceland is a short distance from Greenland, so logistically it’s good for us. Additionally, in Iceland you need to be really self-sufficient, and the same can be said for those in Greenland. We don't have as many people or the multitude of services that you would have in other countries which encourages you to think creatively,” he adds.

Consequently, the company has sought to maximise efficiency whilst keeping costs down, yet all the time adding increased value across its operations.

By acquiring a high-grade deposit, less material is needed to be broken down, lowering AEX Gold’s carbon footprint. Everything taken out of the mine from underground will be processed and shipped out to a different processing facility, or processed on site adhering to the current environmental guidelines. Historically, electricity has been generated through the use of traditional fossil fuels, something which is steadily changing throughout Greenland.

“We're using oil to put in generators or to power mobile mining equipment which is high cost both in monetary and environmental terms.   Greenland currently has five hydroelectric power plants and they are looking at building more in south Greenland,” says Olafsson.

Seeing huge opportunities, he explains that the use of hydropower and wind power would complement AEX Gold’s operations, not only in its existing exploration activities, but with the implementation of an electric mining fleet with electricity being obtained from local renewable resources.

Providing local opportunities

In the future, it will be essential for Greenland to gain further revenue to unlock opportunities and services for its citizens. This is something Olafsson believes that AEX Gold can help with due to its knowledge of Iceland as it has many similarities to Greenland and has been through a period of comparable change.

“Greenland is in a similar position to Iceland not so long ago. Iceland didn't have a high education rate and wasn’t wealthy compared to other European countries, with economic and cultural activities that were very insular. We are now at the highest level of all parameters in terms of education, wealth per family, etc. and this has stemmed from improving the breadth of schooling and creating opportunities for people to grow and develop outside of the traditional areas of agriculture and fisheries.

“Our aim is that the majority of employees will be Greenlandic, but it will take time. Greenland has a large number of people competing for jobs in the fisheries and tourist centres. It is important that Greenlanders are able to access programmes that will allow them to consider other career options. In Iceland we are importing a lot of people to work in different industries in our country because we don't have enough people. This might be the case for Greenlanders as well if the anticipated growth of the Mining Sector materialises but we want to ensure that, where possible, we use local people first before looking elsewhere.

“The Greenlandic Government provides good support for those who seek education.  There are an increasing number of Greenlandic students attending Danish Universities so that now, for example, we are seeing well qualified Greenlandic geologists available for employment.  There has been a Mining School at Sisimiut for the last 10 years which provides local qualified labour who can take advantage of opportunities in the Mining sector.  You need skilled labour and as we own a mine that was in production for 10 years previously, there is a fair bit of local knowledge that we have been able to use during our exploration work and which we are keen to utilise going forward,” he says.

“We are creating revenue for local communities, creating highly skilled jobs, and are providing benefits where local communities can live better lives and grow as individuals. We need to create opportunities for young people.”

Additionally, by working with local businesses as well as those who have been operating in Greenland for some time, AEX has made a conscious effort to hire companies which can support its growth. AEX have therefore acquired a longstanding relationship with Cartwright Drilling, due to the company’s extensive experience in Greenland and subsequent knowledge of the island’s government systems, processes and practices.

Planning to mine high-grade resources using significant infrastructure already in place, AEX Gold holds extensive licences managed by an experienced team. Previous operations produced between 50,000 to 100,000 ounces a year at 15.4 grams/ton produced and this has provided a benchmark for the company, who will utilise this cash flow to explore the wider region in the long-term.

“We have a five-year plan where we want to get into production at Nalunaq and use the cash generated to fund exploration in the wider district.   We envisage investing a significant amount in exploration assets to provide a portfolio of different deposits that we can bring into production. We are creating a company that has a long-term mission in Greenland to build up local know how to support our aim of ramping up to very profitable production across a number of projects,” notes Olafsson.

“It will create a dramatic effect on the local community and hopefully be a springboard for unlocking much larger potential in Greenland. There are plenty of deposits that have been found, but you have to be able to develop them. You can only do that that with support and cooperation from the local people who believe in your vision.”

Share
Share
Author
Executives
Eldur Olafsson

The Canadian company, New Performance Materials, has also obtained a license to explore for rare earth minerals in Greenland.

Title:

Content: A Canadian company has been granted a license to mine rare metals in Greenland.
© AP Photo / David Goldman Greenland ice melt August 3, 2017
Follow us via
Toronto ’ s New Performance Materials, one of the few rare earth metal processors outside China, has obtained an exploration license in Greenland from Hudson Resources in Vancouver (Canada).
Washington - Sputnik.
“Through a special-purpose entity, NEO plans to explore and develop the Surfertog project to further diversify its global sources of rare earth ore and expand the supply chains that feed the company ’ s rare earth ore separation facility in Estonia, ” it said in a statement.
NEO CEO Constantine Karianopoulos told the New York Times that his goal was to reduce the company ’ s exposure to volatile global crude prices.
NEO buys semi-processed raw materials from Russia, the United States and Australia.
"Collects Rare Minerals"...
China enters the world of "space mining" with the launch of the first robot...
A picture.
The Surftog Carbonatite complex contains mineral deposits rich in neodymium and praseodymium, which are essential components of the rare earth permanent magnet used in electric vehicles, wind turbines, high-efficiency electric motors and pumps that help reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
NEO also plans to build a new permanent magnet manufacturing plant in Estonia to supply European manufacturers of electric and hybrid vehicles, wind turbines, and energy-efficient electric motors and pumps, the statement said.
News Ticker
0.
To participate in the discussion
Sign in or Register
loader
Conversations
Заголовок открываемого материала

What Canadian rare earths processing company obtained an exploration permit in Greenland?

Overall, Greenland's rare earth minerals have significant economic potential, but extraction efforts must be carefully managed to minimize environmental impacts.