Q&A: How anacondas, chickens, and locals may be able to coexist in the Amazon
Ahead of the paper's publication, the team at Frontiers conducted this wide-ranging Q&A with Conesday. It has not been altered.
Frontiers: What inspired you to become a researcher?
Beatriz Cosendey: As a child, I was fascinated by reports and documentaries about field research and often wondered what it took to be there and what kind of knowledge was being produced. Later, as an ecologist, I felt the need for approaches that better connected scientific research with real-world contexts. I became especially interested in perspectives that viewed humans not as separate from nature, but as part of ecological systems. This led me to explore integrative methods that incorporate local and traditional knowledge, aiming to make research more relevant and accessible to the communities involved.
F: Can you tell us about the research you're currently working on?
BC: My research focuses on ethnobiology, an interdisciplinary field intersecting ecology, conservation, and traditional knowledge. We investigate not only the biodiversity of an area but also the relationship local communities have with surrounding species, providing a better understanding of local dynamics and areas needing special attention for conservation. After all, no one knows a place better than those who have lived there for generations. This deep familiarity allows for early detection of changes or environmental shifts. Additionally, developing a collaborative project with residents generates greater engagement, as they recognize themselves as active contributors; and collective participation is essential for effective conservation.
F: Could you tell us about one of the legends surrounding anacondas?
BC: One of the greatest myths is about the Great Snake—a huge snake that is said to inhabit the Amazon River and sleep beneath the town. According to the dwellers, the Great Snake is an anaconda that has grown too large; its movements can shake the river's waters, and its eyes look like fire in the darkness of night. People say anacondas can grow so big that they can swallow large animals—including humans or cattle—without difficulty.
F: What could be the reasons why the traditional role of anacondas as a spiritual and mythological entity has changed? Do you think the fact that fewer anacondas have been seen in recent years contributes to their diminished importance as an mythological entity?
BC: Not exactly. I believe the two are related, but not in a direct way. The mythology still exists, but among Aritapera dwellers, there's a more practical, everyday concern—mainly the fear of losing their chickens. As a result, anacondas have come to be seen as stealthy thieves. These traits are mostly associated with smaller individuals (up to around 2–2.5 meters), while the larger ones—which may still carry the symbolic weight of the 'Great Snake'—tend to retreat to more sheltered areas; because of the presence of houses, motorized boats, and general noise, they are now seen much less frequently.
F: Can you share some of the quotes you've collected in interviews that show the attitude of community members towards anacondas? How do chickens come into play?
BC: When talking about anacondas, one thing always comes up: chickens. 'Chicken is her [the anaconda's] favorite dish. If one clucks, she comes,' said one dweller. This kind of remark helps explain why the conflict is often framed in economic terms. During the interviews and conversations with local dwellers, many emphasized the financial impact of losing their animals: 'The biggest loss is that they keep taking chicks and chickens…' or 'You raise the chicken—you can't just let it be eaten for free, right?'
For them, it's a loss of investment, especially since corn, which is used as chicken feed, is expensive. As one person put it: 'We spend time feeding and raising the birds, and then the snake comes and takes them.' One dweller shared that, in an attempt to prevent another loss, he killed the anaconda and removed the last chicken it had swallowed from its belly—'it was still fresh,' he said—and used it for his meal, cooking the chicken for lunch so it wouldn't go to waste.
Some interviewees reported that they had to rebuild their chicken coops and pigsties because too many anacondas were getting in. Participants would point out where the anaconda had entered and explained that they came in through gaps or cracks but couldn't get out afterwards because they 'tufavam' — a local term referring to the snake's body swelling after ingesting prey.
We saw chicken coops made with mesh, with nylon, some that worked and some that didn't. Guided by the locals' insights, we concluded that the best solution to compensate for the gaps between the wooden slats is to line the coop with a fine nylon mesh (to block smaller animals), and on the outside, a layer of wire mesh, which protects the inner mesh and prevents the entry of larger animals.
F: Are there any common misconceptions about this area of research? How would you address them?
BC: Yes, very much. Although ethnobiology is an old science, it's still underexplored and often misunderstood. In some fields, there are ongoing debates about the robustness and scientific validity of the field and related areas. This is largely because the findings don't always rely only on hard statistical data.
However, like any other scientific field, it follows standardized methodologies, and no result is accepted without proper grounding. What happens is that ethnobiology leans more toward the human sciences, placing human beings and traditional knowledge as key variables within its framework.
To address these misconceptions, I believe it's important to emphasize that ethnobiology produces solid and relevant knowledge—especially in the context of conservation and sustainable development. It offers insights that purely biological approaches might overlook and helps build bridges between science and society.
F: What are some of the areas of research you'd like to see tackled in the years ahead?
BC: I'd like to see more conservation projects that include local communities as active participants rather than as passive observers. Incorporating their voices, perspectives, and needs not only makes initiatives more effective, but also more just. There is also great potential in recognizing and valuing traditional knowledge. Beyond its cultural significance, certain practices—such as the use of natural compounds—could become practical assets for other vulnerable regions. Once properly documented and understood, many of these approaches offer adaptable forms of environmental management and could help inform broader conservation strategies elsewhere.
F: How has open science benefited the reach and impact of your research?
BC: Open science is crucial for making research more accessible. By eliminating access barriers, it facilitates a broader exchange of knowledge—important especially for interdisciplinary research like mine which draws on multiple knowledge systems and gains value when shared widely. For scientific work, it ensures that knowledge reaches a wider audience, including practitioners and policymakers. This openness fosters dialogue across different sectors, making research more inclusive and encouraging greater collaboration among diverse groups.
The Q&A can also be read here.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Post
2 days ago
- New York Post
Mouthwashes get a bad rap — scientists found one that lets good bacteria flourish
Gum and get it. While mouthwash is widely regarded as an excellent weapon against gum disease, it has the unfortunate tendency of wiping out all of the good bacteria with the bad. But a recent study — published in Frontiers in Oral Health — says it doesn't have to be this way. Advertisement Researchers have found a mouthwash — a natural one, at that — that seems to kill off nasty germs while nurturing friendly microbes. IC Production – Researchers have found a mouthwash — a natural one, at that — that seems to kill off nasty germs while nurturing friendly microbes. 'It's a paradigm shift,' Georgios Kotsakis, assistant dean for clinical research at Rutgers School of Dental Medicine, said in a press release. Advertisement 'We're moving from eradicating all bacteria to focusing on selectivity. We want to keep the good bacteria alive while targeting the bad.' Researchers pitted a natural rinse called StellaLife VEGA Oral Care against two common mouthwashes — prescription-strength chlorhexidine and Listerine Cool Mint. The herbal option slashed levels of harmful bacteria like Fusobacterium nucleatum and Porphyromonas gingivalis, but spared helpful microbes such as Streptococcus oralis and Veillonella parvula. 'These good bacteria have important functions,' Kotsakis said. 'They synergize with your tissues. They actually kill some of the bad bacteria themselves.' Advertisement Researchers pitted a natural rinse called StellaLife VEGA Oral Care against two common mouthwashes — prescription-strength chlorhexidine and Listerine Cool Mint. StellaLife In contrast, both Listerine and chlorhexidine nuked all of the bacteria, with chlorhexidine decimating some beneficial bacteria by a staggering million-fold. Kotsakis said next steps would involve moving to clinical trials. Advertisement The findings are refreshing in light of the fact that mouthwash has become a somewhat contentious topic, with even experts disagreeing on how beneficial — or necessary — it is. Kotsakis himself has a pretty balanced perspective on the issue. 'If you're brushing and flossing like a dentist — regularly and perfectly — you may not need a mouthwash, but in reality, even the best of us can miss some surfaces during cleaning at home.' While the Mayo Clinic recommends using mouthwash after brushing and flossing, UK dental surgeon Shaadi Manouchehri suggests doing it the other way around. 'I used to use mouthwash after I brushed my teeth, and this is the worst thing you can do,' she said in a TikTok video that launched quite a debate. 'If you use mouthwash straight after, that's rinsing away the protective fluoride layer [the toothpaste provides], and it's going to make your teeth more susceptible to getting cavities.'
Gizmodo
24-06-2025
- Gizmodo
How Prehistoric Mammoth Tusks Could Help Bust Modern-Day Ivory Smugglers
Selling elephant ivory—a hard white material from elephant tusks, for which elephants are often killed—is illegal. Selling ivory collected from the remains of extinct Mammoths, however, is—somehow—not. Because the two are hard to tell apart, illegal traders are slipping under the radar by mixing elephant ivory with legally traded mammoth ivory. A new forensic tool, however, might soon put an end to this nefarious trick. Wildlife forensic scientists in China suggest that authorities can differentiate elephant ivory from mammoth ivory by analyzing stable isotopes (forms of an element that don't break down over time). If this approach becomes widely adopted, it could serve as a quick sample screening before the application of more expensive and time-consuming methods. 'Mammoth ivory costs a fraction of the price of elephant ivory, but the two are considered completely different materials by carvers and experts, because mammoth ivory usually lacks the deep, creamy white color of elephant ivory,' Pavel Toropov, a University of Hong Kong researcher and a co-author of the study published today in the journal Frontiers, said in a Frontiers statement. 'One trader compared them to a 'Lamborghini and a Ford.' Mammoth ivory cannot be a real substitute for elephant ivory, but its value may lie in providing a legal cover for elephant ivory.' Currently, the most accurate way to tell the two ivories apart is via molecular analysis (studying molecules) or radiocarbon dating (a technique to date organic material), both of which are expensive and time consuming. Isotope ratios vary depending on factors like environment. Since Ice Age mammoths preserved in high-latitude Siberian permafrost lived in a completely different habitat from today's tropical elephants, the isotope ratios in their tusks should be different. Within this context, Toropov and his team decided to investigate whether analyzing these differences could provide a better method to distinguish between the two types of ivory. The team conducted stable isotope analyses on 44 pieces of elephant ivory and 35 pieces of mammoth ivory, specifically studying the stable isotope ratios of carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen, and sulfur. While this approach revealed notable overlap for carbon, nitrogen, and sulfur isotope ratios between the two ivories, the researchers documented very little overlap in the elephant and mammoth isotope ratios for oxygen and none for hydrogen. 'This is because the elements of water drunk by mammoths in high-latitude regions such as Siberia have distinct isotope signatures compared to the elements of the water ingested by elephants in tropical latitudes,' explained first author Maria Santos, also a researcher from the University of Hong Kong. Simply put, analyzing the stable isotope ratios of oxygen and hydrogen in a suspected ivory object is an effective way to determine whether it came from an elephant or a mammoth. While more research is needed before this approach can be used in a court case, 'we hope that the protocol described in our study will be applied to screen large batches of supposedly mammoth ivory objects,' Santos added. 'Samples that have an isotopic signature of elephant ivory can then be tested with more expensive and time-consuming methods, such as radiocarbon dating. This could help combat the illegal ivory trade more effectively and close the potential laundering loophole.' The way I see it, there's an even simpler solution: Make all ivory illegal.
Yahoo
20-06-2025
- Yahoo
These AI chatbot questions cause most carbon emissions, scientists find
Queries requiring AI chatbots like OpenAI's ChatGPT to think logically and reason produce more carbon emissions than other types of questions, according to a new study. Every query typed into a large language model like ChatGPT requires energy and leads to carbon dioxide emissions. The emission levels depend on the chatbot, the user, and the subject matter, researchers at Germany's Hochschule München University of Applied Sciences say. The study, published in the journal Frontiers, compares 14 AI models and finds that answers requiring complex reasoning cause more carbon emissions than simple answers. Queries needing lengthy reasoning, like abstract algebra or philosophy, cause up to six times greater emissions than more straightforward subjects like high school history. Researchers recommend that frequent users of AI chatbots adjust the kind of questions they pose to limit carbon emissions. The study assesses as many as 14 LLMs on 1,000 standardised questions across subjects to compare their carbon emissions. 'The environmental impact of questioning trained LLMs is strongly determined by their reasoning approach, with explicit reasoning processes significantly driving up energy consumption and carbon emissions," study author Maximilian Dauner says. 'We found that reasoning-enabled models produced up to 50 times more carbon dioxide emissions than concise response models.' When a user puts a question to an AI chatbot, words or parts of words in the query are converted into a string of numbers and processed by the model. This conversion and other computing processes of the AI produce carbon emissions. The study notes that reasoning models on average create 543.5 tokens per question while concise models require only 40. 'A higher token footprint always means higher CO2 emissions,' it says. For instance, one of the most accurate models is Cogito which reaches about 85 per cent accuracy. It produces three times more carbon emissions than similarly sized models that provide concise answers. "Currently, we see a clear accuracy-sustainability trade-off inherent in LLM technologies," Dr Dauner says. "None of the models that kept emissions below 500 grams of carbon dioxide equivalent achieved higher than 80 per cent accuracy on answering the 1,000 questions correctly.' Carbon dioxide equivalent is a unit for measuring the climate change impact of various greenhouse gases. Researchers hope the new findings will cause people to make more informed decisions about their AI use. Citing an example, researchers say queries seeking DeepSeek R1 chatbot to answer 600,000 questions may create carbon emissions equal to a round-trip flight from London to New York. In comparison, Alibaba Cloud's Qwen 2.5 can answer more than three times as many questions with similar accuracy rates while generating the same emissions. "Users can significantly reduce emissions by prompting AI to generate concise answers or limiting the use of high-capacity models to tasks that genuinely require that power," Dr Dauner says. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data
