No, this isn’t a very good photo, is it? That’s probably because it’s an insanely good photo! Take a deep breath…and fall into White Sands National Monument in New Mexico, courtesy of Lightchaser/Flicker and shared through The Nature Conservancy’s Flickr Group.

Check out all The Nature Conservancy’s featured daily nature images, submitted to the Conservancy’s Flickr group by people like you — at my.nature.org.

Yes, I’m an avid birder and professional bird conservationist — but that doesn’t mean I don’t take time for other flying things…like hundreds of thousands of bats.

I took a few days off in late August and went down to visit Carlsbad Caverns National Park in southeastern New Mexico, an easy drive for me from my home in Albuquerque. The main reason to go there in late summer and early fall is to see the evening bat flight. Carlsbad Caverns harbors a maternity colony of Mexican free-tailed bats and, in the late summer, the evening flight is especially large since the young bats are out flying and feeding, along with the adults.

Evening bat flights are amazing — something everyone interested in nature should experience. Carlsbad Caverns is certainly not the biggest U.S. bat colony (that distinction belongs to Bracken Cave, Texas, about 20 million bats) nor the most famous (that distinction belongs to the Congress Avenue Bridge in Austin, Texas, about 1.5 million bats), but it is very accessible in a natural setting with some 400,000 bats.  You can watch the show from the bat amphitheater while listening to an informative bat talk from the park rangers and buy bat memorabilia at the souvenir stand.

I had a spectacular visit to the Carlsbad Caverns bat flight: several hundred thousand bats, rainbows, a beautiful sunset over the Chihuahuan Desert, and many interesting birds (Cave Swallow, Canyon Wren, and the Rufous-crowned Sparrow).

It’s truly a multi-sensory experience: you see thousands of bats literally wafting over the desert landscape; hear the wind from their wings (and the bird songs); and smell the aroma of guano from the cave — nothing like it, I guarantee.  There is plenty of other stuff to see there, too. For example, I saw a ring-tailed cat on the drive home after the bat flight. There’s plenty of good birding in the area, especially at the Rattlesnake Springs Picnic Area (which is also partly a Nature Conservancy preserve). And rumor has it there is a large cave system to be visited, too.

(Image: Mexican free-tailed bats flying out of Carlsbad Caverns. Credit: Toika Rover/Flickr through a Creative Commons license.)

Indigenous Aboriginal ranger Romeo Lane points out an ancient painting of a six-legged goanna lizard to the curious crowd of media and visitors — myself included — that surrounds him.

The painting is just one of thousands that scatter the escarpments of Arnhem Land in the very northern tip of Australia’s vast tropical savanna. This rich cultural heritage belonging to Australia’s first inhabitants is in an important part of why so many of us have travelled thousands of kilometres for what is a momentous day in Australia’s history.

Last week, the Australian Federal Government and traditional Indigenous landowners achieved a major milestone for conservation in Australia: the signing of agreements establishing two immense and globally significant conservation reserves on indigenous lands in the Northern Territory of Australia.

Known as the Djelk and Warddeken Indigenous Protected Areas, the reserves are located in Western and Central Arnhem Land about 300 miles from Darwin, and span 7,889 square miles — more than twice the size of Yellowstone National Park in the United States.

The reserves stretch from the high country of the Western Arnhem Land Plateau to the islands off the Northern Territory coast and include sandstone gorges, pristine rivers, tropical savanna and coastal wetlands. The area is of global significance for its natural and cultural values.  

Under the new agreements, traditional landowners will continue to manage the reserves and will be assisted by the indigenous ranger organisations, Djelk Rangers and the Warddeken Manwurrk Rangers. The declaration follows several years of consultation with members of more than 137 indigenous clans in the region and the development of detailed management plans. 

A core part of these plans is the reintroduction of traditional burning practices that have been found to cut greenhouse gas emissions by preventing large uncontrolled bushfires. Other management approaches include control of feral animals, particularly buffalo, which cause serious damage to the region’s wetlands.

The Nature Conservancy has been working with both ranger groups in the lead up to the declaration of these protected areas and is honored to support the landowners and the Djelk and Warddeken rangers in their management of the new reserves.

The Conservancy will continue to work with the groups in securing long-term funding from private investment to ensure these extraordinary areas can be managed effectively into the future.

(Image 1: Indigenous dancers celebrate at the official declaration of new conservation lands. Image 2: Warddeken Manwurrk Ranger carries out fire control. Source: Peter Eves.)

1. That story about a Nepalese student making a solar panel from human hair? Turns out it’s bogus, reports Bright Green Blog — although much of the green blogosphere was taken in by the fable.
2. We missed this on Friday: Uganda will now track gorillas online in an effort to attract additional conservation funds, reports Green Inc. (You’ll also be able to friend gorillas by Facebook and Twitter, too. No word on whether they’ll spam you back.)
3. RIP Dr. Norman Borlaug, father of the Green Revolution that revolutionized high-yield agriculture for the developing world — Sustainablog says he likely “saved more human lives than any other person in history.”
4. The loss of rainfall and vegetation in subtropical parts of the world because of global warming could set the stage for increased desertification, reports a new study in Geophysical Research Letters. (Hat tip: Journal Watch Online.)
5. India and China are usually said to have low per-capita greenhouse gas emissions compared with Western countries — but Environmental Capital reports that Lord Nichols Stern (of the famous Stern Report on climate change) says parts of China have per-capital emissions levels similar to some richer countries in Europe.

Renewable energy is poised to be the wave of the future, but what impact will it have on landscapes and wildlife?

In the United States, at least 67 million acres will be developed for new energy projects by 2030. While these projects — including wind, solar and biofuels — will help reduce carbon emissions and energy use, they will require a lot of land that is currently open or undeveloped — land that wildlife depend on.

So how can we develop new energy projects that don’t harm nature or wildlife? One key aspect is proper siting of projects, says Nature Conservancy scientist Rob McDonald. He co-authored a new study published in today’s PLoS One online journal that examines the impacts of “energy sprawl” — and says we need to start thinking about it now to ensure that new energy doesn’t harm nature and wildlife.

We sat down with Rob to find out more about the study and its findings:

Q. First of all, can you explain exactly what “energy sprawl” is and why it matters now?

Rob McDonald: “Energy sprawl” is our term for the amount of space it takes to produce energy, and the general tendency for energy production to take more space over time. Energy development can, if improperly sited, impact natural habitats and the wildlife that depend upon them, so The Nature Conservancy is concerned about energy sprawl’s potential impact.

We initiated the current study because it’s a moment of unprecedented change in the energy sector. As Congress considers ways to reign in U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, there will be a switch to more renewable energy technologies that will need more space. In this study we wanted to quantify the potential future scope of these energy sprawl impacts.

Q. What did you find out — will new energy production in the United States have significant impacts on nature?

Rob McDonald: U.S. energy policy picks which technologies are winners and losers, and in the process picks which habitats will be impacted and which won’t.

For instance, if carbon capture and storage becomes available for coal-burning power plants — which would require significant government subsidy to spur its development and implementation — then coal mining has to continue to feed those power plants, with impacts on specific habitats.

On the other hand, since the United States can meet some of its energy needs through the use of coal, the availability of carbon capture and storage for coal means that there would be relatively less growth in the wind power industry, limiting the impact from that technology in windy parts of the country.

But there is a potential for a fairly large amount of energy sprawl, with or without action by the U.S. Congress on a cap-and-trade bill. It turns out that the majority of the land-use impacts for producing energy will come from growing biomass for liquid fuels like ethanol, as mandated by the renewable fuel standard and other laws. Those laws are already in place, so whatever Congress does with climate change policy will not affect their energy sprawl impact.

Q. Were you able to identify what types of new energy projects will have the most impact on nature? The least?

Rob McDonald: It’s important to remember that energy sprawl concerns are only one of several ways to evaluate different energy production techniques, including climate change implications, cost efficiency, job creation, and issues of energy independence. Moreover, the environmental impact of much energy sprawl could be limited with proper siting, a philosophy The Nature Conservancy calls Energy By Design.

From the perspective of The Nature Conservancy, any new energy project that helps reduce U.S. emissions of greenhouse gases while avoiding impacts to sensitive species is a good project. We are not specifically advocating for any one energy production technology, just serious consideration of the potential environmental impacts of energy sprawl.

Q. So how do we proceed with energy development on a mass scale — 67 million acres — in a way that also takes into account impacts to nature and wildlife?

Rob McDonald: There are three things that conservationists can advocate for to avoid impacts to nature, or minimize them:

• Maximize energy conservation and energy efficiency as much as possible. Saving energy saves land by avoiding energy development.
• Build incentives for the use of abandoned or degraded land. Particularly for biomass growth for liquid fuels or for electricity, natural habitat impacts could be minimized if the clearing of natural habitat was avoided.
• Where possible, site new energy development only where sensitive species will not be impacted.

Q. But how can we make sure that policymakers are taking into account the potential impact of energy development on lands and wildlife?

Rob McDonald: The Nature Conservancy is talking with policymakers on Capitol Hill all the time to make sure that energy sprawl concerns are one of the issues that are on the table as energy policy is discussed. It’s been difficult, because we want to stress our strong support for climate change legislation while describing how the details of the legislation can be altered to minimize energy sprawl.

The same kinds of discussions are taking place in many states where the Conservancy works, as several state legislatures consider their own energy policy. Members of the Conservancy who feel passionate about this issue should contact their local office to find ways to get involved.

Q. Finally, biofuels — good or bad?

Rob McDonald: I’m not interested in labeling any technology as either good or bad. Biomass production for biofuels or for electricity will be one important part of a new energy system that avoids catastrophic climate change, and should be. Biomass production can create jobs, promote energy independence, and in some cases limit carbon dioxide emissions, and those benefits need to be compared to the potential negative impacts of energy sprawl.

Sadly, it is getting hard to have a rational, scientific debate about those pluses and minuses, because there is a lot of rhetoric out there from both sides that makes simplistic arguments about the worth of biofuels and attacks all data that isn’t consistent with their preconceived conclusions

So, I think the good versus bad debate is a bit of a distraction, and has sadly led to people not discussing siting issues or energy efficiency issues as much as they should.

(Image: Antelope grazing near wind turbines. Source: Carl Stone/istockphoto.com.)

1. 350 vs. 450? The head of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Rajenda Pachauri, has come down “as a human being” for a carbon dioxide atmospheric concentration of 350 parts per million as a target for Planet Earth. (Our concentration is now at 387.)
2. Why not just put up a bunch of solar panels in the Sahara Desert to power Europe? Some are trying, but Reuters says there are obstacles — not least of which is terrorism. (Hat tip: The Vine.)
3. Watermelon: the next biofuel source? 60-Second Science says one in every five is left to rot in the field, but the USDA is looking at them as fuel.
4. More than 20,000 orangutans have been poached, slaughtered or sold into the pet trade over the last decade, says a new report from Nature Alert Ltd. and the Center for Orangutan Protection — yet no one in Indonesia has been prosecuted for these acts. (Hat tip: 60-Second Science.)
5. The world’s largest fruit bat — the flying fox — flies between countries like a migratory bird, reports a new study in the Journal of Applied Ecology. But it’s being hunted legally and could be extinct within decades, reports DotEarth.

Here’s an update on the whereabouts of the Long-billed Curlews that were tagged in Montana this past May, the 7 birds seemed to have temporarily settled down. We’ll see if they stay there or continue to move as fall draws nearer.

Of the 7 birds, 3 are now in the southern United States and 4 are in northern Mexico. Two U.S. birds are in Texas (1 in west Texas, the other in the panhandle, not too far from Amarillo) and one in New Mexico (southeast, east of Roswell).  The 4 Mexican birds are widely scattered, from 1 in northwestern Chihuahua in the west to 1 in northeastern Tamaulipas (just south of the Rio Grande) in the east. Interestingly, the other 2 birds are right about in between in the same area near the border of Durango, Chihuahua, and Coahuila.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has just issued a Status Assessment and Conservation Plan for the curlew — a must read for all you curlew fans!  You can find it by clicking here.  In the meantime, stay tuned for more updates on the whereabouts of this fascinating species.

(Image: Long-billed curlews. Credit: mikebaird through a Creative Commons license.)

Start with a sea turtle, throw in $2.4 billion, add a little psychotherapy and you’ve got a recipe for the coolest green links of the day.

1. Who doesn’t love sea turtles? So why would you want to harm them by eating fish like black sea bass or Atlantic flouder? The Daily Green offers up a list of the top six fish you should avoid if you don’t want to hurt loggerhead turtles.
2. Yesterday, President Obama announced $2.4 billion in grants to help spur the development of greener cars, mostly through advanced batteries for electric cars. The program aims to help the environment and create jobs in the United States.
3. Therapists can help people sort out lots of problems, but is climate change one of them? A new report from the American Psychological Association tries to get at the heart of why we behave the way we do when it comes to climate change – and how to change those behaviors.
4. A new study says rising ocean temperatures might not be the only reason why corals are bleaching – human-based activities, like nutrient run-off, might play a role, too. The study found that increased bleaching was correlated with population growth.
5. Could unique desert wildlife like the fringe-toed lizard stop the development of solar power in the Mojave? Green Inc. reports on the debate between environmentalists and a solar company.

(Image: a loggerhead turtle. Source: jdebner via a Creative Commons license.)

I admit it: I could spend all day staring this image shot by tguttilla of a morning at Great Sand Dunes National Park in Colorado. Check out all The Nature Conservancy’s featured daily nature images, submitted to the Conservancy’s Flickr group by people like you — at my.nature.org. And don’t forget to enter your best nature images in our 2009 Nature Photo Contest!

There’s nothing better in a southern Arizona summer than spending a morning on the San Pedro River — the last free-flowing river in Arizona — after a gentle cooling rain. The air is fresh, the dappled leaves of the giant cottonwoods are reflected in the shimmering water. And the birds are warming up for their morning arias. It’s 6:30 a.m. and I and my hiking partners are walking in water.

Which is a good thing. At this time of year, the surrounding desert can hover around 100 degrees. But this morning stays in the 70s. We don’t even break a sweat until around noon.

One hundred years ago, we would have been sweating regardless of temperature. We’re near the once rowdy, historic town of Tombstone. During this town’s heyday, Wyatt Earp and his brothers battled marauding gangs and waged shoot-outs at the OK Corral. Gold miners, trappers, outlaws and cowboys prowled the surrounding desert. They all carried guns and the one thing they all needed was water.

The very water we’re walking in. It’s like a gold vein running through these desert hills. Then and now, it is a life or death commodity – for the wildlife, and for us humans and our growing communities.

That is why we’re here today. We are among more than 100 volunteers, scientists and conservationists who have taken to the river today – in June, the driest time of the year — to find out where there is surface water and where there isn’t. Armed with hand-held GPS units, we are spread out across 170 miles of the San Pedro and its major tributaries. The effort even extends this year south of the border, where mappers covered 30 miles of the river in Mexico.

Why do it? One reason: Because the San Pedro is a river of hemispheric importance — supporting nearly one-half of the bird diversity in North America. It is a flyway and stopover point for millions of birds and butterflies that migrate north from the tropics.

This is the 11th year of the river-mapping effort — and mapping it over time will provide insight into what might be the causes of the San Pedro’s fluctuation in flows — climate change, drought, or groundwater or surface withdrawals.

The San Pedro originates in Sonora, Mexico and flows north through Arizona to its confluence with the Gila River. Along the way, human demands and drought have certainly drawn down the river. Last year, we found that only 36 percent of the San Pedro was “wet” in late June. (This year’s mapping results will soon be posted on nature.org/arizona.)

Some people have volunteered many years running, including our team leader for the “Tombstone” stretch, Ted Mouras. He’s a member of Friends of the San Pedro and loves this river — and our trek doesn’t disappoint. Ted, an avid birder, is the first to spot the red flash of a vermilion flycatcher and many of the other birds we see: soaring gray hawks, turkey vultures, summer tanagers and Mexican mallards. Other teams reported seeing great horned owls, Bell’s vireos, and an irritated pair of Harris hawks defending their nest.

The river’s no slouch for other wildlife, either. On a northern stretch of river, along the Conservancy’s San Pedro River Preserve, mappers photographed a large bear track. Other mappers spotted a Mohave rattlesnake, turtles, toads, deer and longfin dace, a native fish. Last year, mappers spotted coatimundi, leopard frogs, bobcat, gray fox, lizards and mountain lion tracks. Even the elusive jaguar has wandered through this region.

All this is why the Conservancy has made the San Pedro a conservation priority, and has worked with local landowners and communities to conserve its precious waters and protect the watershed.

One big success is along the middle San Pedro, where the Conservancy has purchased land, retired the irrigation and returned water to the river. The river and water running through that land — the 3 Links Farm — is bouncing back. There’s even sign of beavers. (The San Pedro was formerly known as Beaver River, before beavers were all trapped out. They were reintroduced here in the 1990s, but many migrated to Mexico.)

Holly Richter, the Conservancy’s Upper San Pedro River project director, rode horseback through some spectacular country on the Babocomari River, a major tributary of the San Pedro. She rode with Mike Hayhurst, a rancher who has lived on the river his whole life.

“He’s seen the pools in the river that have dried up, pools where he used to swim,” says Holly. “He’s sad because he can’t share that with his grandkids. He wants to see this river continue to flow.”

Read more about the committed cadre of San Pedro lovers who come out year after year to walk the river — and how their efforts are helping conservation planners know more about the river’s health.

Tana Kappel is a Tucson-based marketing specialist/writer for the Conservancy’s Marketing Resource Center West. Previously, she was the communications director for The Nature Conservancy in Montana.

(Image: Holly Richter, the Conservancy’s Upper San Pedro River program director, uses a GPS unit to map a stretch of river, her trusty horse Macky provides the transport. Credit: Holly Richter/TNC.)