As you move from the poles richness increases. It’s a pattern that’s been termed the ‘latitudinal biodiversity gradient’ by ecologists, and Victorian naturalist Alfred Russel Wallace was a pioneer in recognising and attempting to explain it. Wallace attributed this abundance to time: specifically that land closer to the equator was the earliest formed and hadn’t been disturbed by glacial activity at higher latitudes. He theorised that the relative stability of the tropical climate through the year, and through the ages, allowed species to accumulate here. How do animals near the equator survive the tropics? The ingenious survival tactics rainforest creatures use, including homemade sunscreen. Candy-coloured kingfishers and pheasants in regal hues – discover the 10 most colourful birds Almost 150 years later, understanding patterns of species richness is critical given today’s global biodiversity crisis, and theories are hotly debated. One avenue of research claims the larger amount of solar energy at the equator is responsible for increased productivity, meaning a greater abundance of resources and more opportunity to adapt and specialise. Another argues that the lack of ‘catastrophic mortality’ from climate events (particularly winter freezes) means species focus on competition for resources, resulting in faster evolutionary responses. Other experts contest...

YouTube video by Wild Little Monsters

This story was originally published by Vox and is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration. When millions of voters fill out their ballots in November, they won’t just be choosing elected representatives. Many states are offering the chance to impact conservation and wildlife as well, through ballot measures focused on things like dedicating more money to habitat protection or mitigating the impacts of climate change. One could even reshape wildlife management in one of the country’s most picturesque mountain states—and also lead to the indiscriminate deaths of all kinds of wild animals. And while ballot measures might seem like small potatoes in the grand scheme of electoral politics, they could have an outsized impact this year. The Trump administration has been systematically rolling back protections for endangered species, taking a hammer to longstanding pillars of climate regulation, and cutting funding to agencies like the National Park Service and National Forest Service, both of which oversee vast stretches of wildlife habitats. In many cases, states have had to step up, putting more resources into conserving the habitats and species within their borders, and ballot measures can help shape those decisions. Here are the seven ballot measures that could...

“if we truly care about biodiversity, we should not be tempted to monetize our relatives nor ecosystem services like carbon sequestration, because they have inherent value that cannot be reduced to a dollar amount. These market-based schemes are false solutions that exacerbate the polycrises we are facing. Not only are these schemes sacrilegious, but they also lead to net loss of biodiversity, to ecocide and to degradation of the very systems that support life on Mother Earth, including all of us. There can be no sacrifice zones, no trade-offs and no offsets if we want life on Mother Earth to survive for generations to come.” “Using Indigenous Peoples’ territories and sacred animal relatives for biodiversity and carbon credits violates the Sacred. In particular, we categorically reject buffalo credits. Buffalo, which the White Man’s slaughter reduced from 60-70 million in 1853 to just a few thousand in the 1880s, are now being hailed as ‘carbon storing machines,’ and turned into soil carbon credits, so polluters can continue to pollute. Our buffalo, Tanka Oyate, are part of our genesis, not ‘bison bonds.’ Carbon trading is an offensive scam that threatens the future of humanity. Bring back the buffalo, not colonialism!”...

This story was originally published by Vox and is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration. When millions of voters fill out their ballots in November, they won’t just be choosing elected representatives. Many states are offering the chance to impact conservation and wildlife as well, through ballot measures focused on things like dedicating more money to habitat protection or mitigating the impacts of climate change. One could even reshape wildlife management in one of the country’s most picturesque mountain states—and also lead to the indiscriminate deaths of all kinds of wild animals. And while ballot measures might seem like small potatoes in the grand scheme of electoral politics, they could have an outsized impact this year. The Trump administration has been systematically rolling back protections for endangered species, taking a hammer to longstanding pillars of climate regulation, and cutting funding to agencies like the National Park Service and National Forest Service, both of which oversee vast stretches of wildlife habitats. In many cases, states have had to step up, putting more resources into conserving the habitats and species within their borders, and ballot measures can help shape those decisions. Here are the seven ballot measures that could...

“if we truly care about biodiversity, we should not be tempted to monetize our relatives nor ecosystem services like carbon sequestration, because they have inherent value that cannot be reduced to a dollar amount. These market-based schemes are false solutions that exacerbate the polycrises we are facing. Not only are these schemes sacrilegious, but they also lead to net loss of biodiversity, to ecocide and to degradation of the very systems that support life on Mother Earth, including all of us. There can be no sacrifice zones, no trade-offs and no offsets if we want life on Mother Earth to survive for generations to come.” “Using Indigenous Peoples’ territories and sacred animal relatives for biodiversity and carbon credits violates the Sacred. In particular, we categorically reject buffalo credits. Buffalo, which the White Man’s slaughter reduced from 60-70 million in 1853 to just a few thousand in the 1880s, are now being hailed as ‘carbon storing machines,’ and turned into soil carbon credits, so polluters can continue to pollute. Our buffalo, Tanka Oyate, are part of our genesis, not ‘bison bonds.’ Carbon trading is an offensive scam that threatens the future of humanity. Bring back the buffalo, not colonialism!”...

Wild animals taken from their natural habitats, community dogs and free-ranging cats could be used in laboratory experiments under India's proposed animal experimentation rules, according to a warning by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) India. The organisation said the draft Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Control and Supervision of Experiment, Breeding and Trading of Laboratory Animals) Rules, 2026, could weaken existing animal welfare safeguards and allow animals to be subjected to electric shocks, induced tumours and other forms of physical suffering. In a statement, PETA India described the proposed changes as regressive at a time when several countries are moving towards non-animal research methods, and called for the draft rules to be withdrawn. According to PETA India, Rule 5 of the draft provides exceptions that could allow animals protected under the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, to be captured and used in experiments, subject to scientific justification and legal permissions. The rules also set out conditions for exceptions involving endangered species. “Rule 5(2)(c) even allows authorities to exempt researchers from taking measures to minimise the suffering of wild animals found injured or unwell during or after capture,” the organisation said. PETA India further said that although Rule 5(3)...

When an Amur tiger recently killed a man at Yorkshire Wildlife Park in northern England, the park announced that the tiger would not be killed. Days later, a 71-year-old fisherman was killed by an alligator in Florida in the US. This time, the animal was captured and killed. Two fatal attacks, but two very different responses. The distinction is not simply between a tiger in captivity and an alligator in the wild. It is about whether killing an animal can prevent further harm. Sometimes removing a dangerous animal is necessary to protect human life. More surprisingly, it can also protect other wildlife, by preventing people retaliating against animals who weren’t involved in the original attack. A tiger attacking someone who enters its enclosure is behaving like a tiger, and killing it would achieve nothing. Removing an animal posing an ongoing threat is different. But in Yorkshire, the tiger remains behind barriers designed to keep people safe. The fatal encounter needs investigating, but the problem was that a person got in, not that a tiger got out. Killing the tiger would not address any potential failures in enclosure security. When killing is justified The Florida alligator presents a different problem. There...

Wild animals are not passive bystanders to climate change but active players in regulating it, according to a peer-reviewed article published this week in Global Change Biology – lending yet more scientific weight to a global consensus already endorsed by over 350 scientists worldwide. The article builds on the Scientific Consensus on Wildlife and Climate, launched in June, which recognises the positive role wild animals play in climate change mitigation and calls on governments to explicitly incorporate wildlife and their ecological roles into climate policy. Across the world, trillions of wild animals support ecosystem functioning every day through their natural behaviours – from dugongs recycling nutrients and dispersing seeds through seagrass meadows, to Asian tigers regulating herbivore populations in ways that cascade through forest carbon storage. Titled “Wildlife and Climate” scientific consensus on the roles of wild animals in the global carbon cycle and natural climate solutions, the manuscript was co-authored by 13 scientists who collectively drafted the original consensus wording. Published on 25 September 2026 in the journal’s ‘Science behind the news’ section, it examines how wild animals drive ecosystem processes that regulate carbon storage and greenhouse gas flux, and urges policymakers to close the gap between scientific understanding...