These Crabs Can Grow Up To 3 Feet And Hunt Birds, A Biologist's Video Proves

Agencies
November 13, 2017

Nov 13: There's a theory that giant crabs overwhelmed Amelia Earhart, dismembered her and carried her bones underground.

Speculative, at best. Sounds crazy, we know.

But so has almost every other horrifying rumor about the so-called coconut crabs - until science inevitably proves them true.

They grow to the size of dogs. They climb trees, and tear through solid matter with claws nearly as strong as a lion's jaws.

And now, finally, we have video evidence that the crabs - thousands strong on one island - can scale trees and hunt full-grown birds in their nests.

"It would at first be thought quite impossible for a crab to open a strong cocoa-nut," Charles Darwin once wrote, as that father of evolutionary biology recounted stories of a "monstrous" arthropod said to roam an island in the Indian Ocean.

"The crab begins by tearing the husk, fibre by fibre, and always from that end under which the three eye-holes are situated," Darwin wrote. "When this is completed, the crab commences hammering with its heavy claws on one of the eye-holes till an opening is made."

But Darwin would go no further than that. The genius who championed life's endless forms gave no credence to reports that these fierce giant crabs could also climb trees.

In the decades to come, of course, coconut crabs would be photographed not only climbing trees but hanging from them like enormous hard-shell spiders. Researchers in our own century once left them a small pig carcass to see what would happen, Smithsonian Magazine wrote.

The crabs quickly disappeared the pig.

Now we know they are the largest invertebrate to walk the earth - more than three feet long, pincer to pincer, with claws so strong that a researcher once tried to measure the force, and described it as "eternal hell" after a coconut crab caught his hand.

But what, wondered Mark Laidre, do they eat?

"Few studies of this remarkable animal's behavior have been undertaken since Darwin's Beagle voyage," the Dartmouth College biologist wrote in a paper published this month.

That they ate coconuts had been established long ago, of course. And like other crabs, Laidre wrote, they were known to scavenge off corpses (leaving aside whether Amelia Earhart was one of them.)

But what else did they eat? Laidre was fascinated by a story told to him by a witness in 2014, from the Chagos Archipelago in the middle of the Indian Ocean.

"An adult red-footed booby had landed near the entrance to a coconut crab's burrow," Laidre recounted. "As the bird stood there, the crab slowly emerged from its underground lair, approaching the bird from behind. The crab then grabbed the bird by one leg and dragged it, struggling, back into its burrow."

The witness never saw the bird again.

In all his years of research, Laidre wrote, he had never seen a crab prey on any animal besides - rarely - another crab. So two years after the reported disappearance of the booby, the biologist set off for the Chagos to find out if giant crabs really stalked birds.

The archipelago's largest island is ring-shaped, and three smaller, uninhabited islands sit in its mouth. Laidre carefully surveyed each one.

Dozens of birds took flight the moment he stepped onto one of the smaller islands, he wrote, and "continued circling overhead as I undertook my transect along the island's length."

Nests and eggs covered the rocky beach of this island - and there was not a single giant crab in sight.

But on the other two small islands, Laidre wrote, he saw dozens of coconut crabs and few nests. He wrote in his paper of an evolutionary theory called "landscapes of fear" - that few animals will dare make homes in places dominated by predators.

When he surveyed the fourth island, Laidre wondered if the crabs simply ruled it.

"I counted over 1,000 coconut crabs in single [9-mile] transects but did not observe even one ground-nesting bird," Laidre wrote. All the nests were high up in the trees, and cracked coconuts littered the ground.

After about a month on the island, in February of 2016, he investigated a giant crab's underground lair.

"Deep inside the crab's burrow was the carcass of a nearly full-grown red-footed booby," he wrote.

This was Laidre's first sign that the stories might be true, that giant crabs really were hunting birds.

He had his proof a month later.

"In the middle of the night," Laidre wrote, "I observed a coconut crab attack and kill an adult red-footed booby."

"The booby had been sleeping on a low-lying branch, less than a meter up the tree," he wrote. "The crab slowly climbed up."

He watched the crab take the bird's wing in its great claws. He watched it break the bones beneath the feathers.

Then bird fell to the ground, Laidre wrote, and the crab descended in pursuit.

About 90 seconds of what happened next is now documented in the researcher's video, if you care to watch.

The booby pecks twice at the crab, and might as well have hit hardwood. Futile.

It makes a sort of squawking, croaking sound, over and over, at least a dozen times. Then its head rolls back and the bird simply breaths, unprotesting, as the crab's claws sink into its down.

"Five more coconut crabs came to the site within 20 minutes, likely cueing in on the blood," Laidre wrote. They tore it to pieces and took it away, and now yet one more thing is known about the giant coconut crabs of the Indian and Pacific oceans.

That the crabs cannot swim well, Laidre wrote, may be why one of the four islands still belonged to the birds.

But the biologist wondered what would happen if just one crab were taken there, in the interests of science.

A juvenile would probably be overwhelmed and eaten by birds, he wrote. But "an adult crab may wreak havoc."

"Further research could experimentally test these ideas, although important ethical considerations would obviously arise," Laidre wrote. "The birds would need to be protected."

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
Agencies
January 3,2020

Giving each and every app access to personal information stored on Android smartphones such as your contacts, call history, SMS and photos may put you in trouble as bad actors can easily use these access to spy on you, send spam messages and make calls anywhere at your expense or even sign you up for a premium "service", researchers from cybersecurity firm Kaspersky have warned.

But one can restrict access to such information as Android lets you configure app permissions. 

Giving an app any of these permissions generally means that from now on it can obtain information of this type and upload it to the Cloud without asking your explicit consent for whatever it intends to do with your data.

Therefore, security researchers recommend one should think twice before granting permissions to apps, especially if they are not needed for the app to work. 

For example, most games have no need to access your contacts or camera, messengers do not really need to know your location, and some trendy filter for the camera can probably survive without your call history, Kaspersky said. 

While decision to give permission is yours, the fewer access you hand out, the more intact your data will be.

Here's what you should know to protect your data.

SMS: An app with permission to send and receive SMS, MMS, and WAP (Wireless Application Protocol) push messages, as well as view messages in the smartphone memory will be able to read all of your SMS correspondence, including messages with one-time codes for online banking and confirming transactions.

Using this permission, the app can also send spam messages in your name (and at your expense) to all your friends. Or sign you up for a premium "service." You can see and conrol which apps have these rights by going to the settings of your phone.

Calendar: With permission to view, delete, modify, and add events in the calendar, prying eyes can find out what you have done and what you are doing today and in the future. Spyware loves this permission.

Camera: Permission to access the camera is necessary for the app to take photos and record video. But apps with this permission can take a photo or record a video at any moment and without warning. Attackers armed with embarrassing images and other dirt on you can make life a misery, according to Kaspersky.

Contacts: With permission to read, change, and add contacts in your address book, and access the list of accounts registered in the smartphone, an app can send your entire address book to its server. Even legitimate services have been found to abuse this permission, never mind scammers and spammers, for whom it is a windfall.

This permission also grants access to the list of app accounts on the device, including Google, Facebook, and many other services.

Phone: Giving access to your phone means permission to view and modify call history, obtain your phone number, cellular network data, and the status of outgoing calls, add voicemail, access IP telephony services, view numbers being called with the ability to end the call or redirect it to another number and call any number.

This permission basically lets the app do anything it likes with voice communication. It can find out who you called and when or prevent you from making calls (to a particular number or in general) by constantly terminating calls. 

It can eavesdrop on your conversations or, of course, make calls anywhere at your expense, including to pay-through-the-nose numbers, Kaspersky warned.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
April 17,2020

Paris, Apr 17: Even as virologists zero in on the virus that causes COVID-19, a very basic question remains unanswered: do those who recover from the disease have immunity?

There is no clear answer to this question, experts say, even if many have assumed that contracting the potentially deadly disease confers immunity, at least for a while.

"Being immunised means that you have developed an immune response against a virus such that you can repulse it," explained Eric Vivier, a professor of immunology in the public hospital system in Marseilles.

"Our immune systems remember, which normally prevents you from being infected by the same virus later on."

For some viral diseases such a measles, overcoming the sickness confers immunity for life.

But for RNA-based viruses such as Sars-Cov-2 -- the scientific name for the bug that causes the COVID-19 disease -- it takes about three weeks to build up a sufficient quantity of antibodies, and even then they may provide protection for only a few months, Vivier told AFP.

At least that is the theory. In reality, the new coronavirus has thrown up one surprise after another, to the point where virologists and epidemiologists are sure of very little.

"We do not have the answers to that -- it's an unknown," Michael Ryan, executive director of the World Health Organization's Emergencies Programme said in a press conference this week when asked how long a recovered COVID-19 patient would have immunity.

"We would expect that to be a reasonable period of protection, but it is very difficult to say with a new virus -- we can only extrapolate from other coronaviruses, and even that data is quite limited."

For SARS, which killed about 800 people across the world in 2002 and 2003, recovered patients remained protected "for about three years, on average," Francois Balloux director of the Genetics Institute at University College London, said.

"One can certainly get reinfected, but after how much time? We'll only know retroactively."

A recent study from China that has not gone through peer review reported on rhesus monkeys that recovered from Sars-Cov-2 and did not get reinfected when exposed once again to the virus.

"But that doesn't really reveal anything," said Pasteur Institute researcher Frederic Tangy, noting that the experiment unfolded over only a month.

Indeed,several cases from South Korea -- one of the first countries hit by the new coronavirus -- found that patients who recovered from COVID-19 later tested positive for the virus.

But there are several ways to explain that outcome, scientists cautioned.

While it is not impossible that these individuals became infected a second time, there is little evidence this is what happened.

More likely, said Balloux, is that the virus never completely disappeared in the first place and remains -- dormant and asymptomatic -- as a "chronic infection", like herpes.

As tests for live virus and antibodies have not yet been perfected, it is also possible that these patients at some point tested "false negative" when in fact they had not rid themselves of the pathogen.

"That suggests that people remain infected for a long time -- several weeks," Balloux added. "That is not ideal."

Another pre-publication study that looked at 175 recovered patients in Shanghai showed different concentrations of protective antibodies 10 to 15 days after the onset of symptoms.

"But whether that antibody response actually means immunity is a separate question," commented Maria Van Kerhove, Technical Lead of the WHO Emergencies Programme.

"That's something we really need to better understand -- what does that antibody response look like in terms of immunity."

Indeed, a host of questions remain.

"We are at the stage of asking whether someone who has overcome COVID-19 is really that protected," said Jean-Francois Delfraissy, president of France's official science advisory board.

For Tangy, an even grimmer reality cannot be excluded.

"It is possible that the antibodies that someone develops against the virus could actually increase the risk of the disease becoming worse," he said, noting that the most serious symptoms come later, after the patient had formed antibodies.

For the moment, it is also unclear whose antibodies are more potent in beating back the disease: someone who nearly died, or someone with only light symptoms or even no symptoms at all. And does age make a difference?

Faced with all these uncertainties, some experts have doubts about the wisdom of persuing a "herd immunity" strategy such that the virus -- unable to find new victims -- peters out by itself when a majority of the population is immune.

"The only real solution for now is a vaccine," Archie Clements, a professor at Curtin University in Perth Australia, told AFP.

At the same time, laboratories are developing a slew of antibody tests to see what proportion of the population in different countries and regions have been contaminated.

Such an approach has been favoured in Britain and Finland, while in Germany some experts have floated the idea of an "immunity passport" that would allow people to go back to work.

"It's too premature at this point," said Saad Omer, a professor of infectious diseases at the Yale School of Medicine.

"We should be able to get clearer data very quickly -- in a couple of months -- when there will be reliable antibody tests with sensitivity and specificity."

One concern is "false positives" caused by the tests detecting antibodies unrelated to COVID-19.

The idea of immunity passports or certificates also raises ethical questions, researchers say.

"People who absolutely need to work -- to feed their families, for example -- could try to get infected," Balloux.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
June 18,2020

Beijing, Jun 18:  Besides washing hands and wearing masks, it is also important to close the toilet lid before flushing to contain the spread of COVID-19, as per a new study.

According to a new study cited by The Washington Post, scientists who simulated toilet water and airflows, have found that flushing a toilet can generate a plume of virus-containing aerosol particles that is widespread and can linger in the air long enough to be inhaled by others. The novel coronavirus has been found in the faeces of COVID-19 patients, but it remains unknown whether such clouds could contain enough virus to infect a person.

"Flushing will lift the virus up from the toilet bowl," co-author Ji-Xiang Wang, who researches fluids at Yangzhou University in Yangzhou, China, said in an email. Wang stressed that bathroom users "need to close the lid first and then trigger the flushing process" and wash hands properly if the closure is not possible. As one flushes the toilet with the lids open, bits of faecal matter swish around so violently that they can be propelled into the air, become aerosolised and then settle on the surroundings.

Experts call it the "toilet plume".Age-old studies have been made to understand the potential for airborne transmission of infectious disease via sewage, and the toilet plume's role. Scientists who have seeded toilet bowls with bacteria and viruses have found contamination of seats, flush handles, bathroom floors and nearby surfaces. This is one reason we are told to wash our hands after visiting the toilet. Public bathrooms are well known to contribute to the spread of viruses that transmit via ingestion, such as the noroviruses that haunt cruise ships. However, their role in the transmission of respiratory viruses has not been established, said Charles P Gerba, a microbiologist at the University of Arizona."The risk is not zero, but how great a risk it is, we do not know. The big unknown is how much virus is infectious in the toilet when you flush it ... and how much virus does it take to cause an infection," said Gerba, who has studied the intersection of toilets and infectious disease for 45 years.

A study published in March in the journal Gastroenterology found significant amounts of coronavirus in the stool of patients and determined that viral RNA lasted in faeces even after the virus cleared from the patients` respiratory tracts. While another study in the journal Lancet found coronavirus in faeces up to a month after the illness had passed.

Scientists around the world are now studying sewage to track the spread of the virus. According to the researchers, the presence of the virus in excrement and the gastrointestinal tract raises the prospect of transmission via toilets, because many COVID-19 patients experience diarrhoea or vomiting.

A study of air samples in two hospitals in Wuhan, China found that although coronavirus aerosols in isolation wards and ventilated patient rooms were very low, "it was higher in the toilet areas used by the patients".The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) says it remains "unclear whether the virus found in faeces may be capable of causing COVID-19," and "there has not been any confirmed report of the virus spreading from faeces to a person".For now, the CDC characterises the risk as low based on observations from previous outbreaks of other coronaviruses such as severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) and the Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS). Wang decided to use computer models to simulate toilet plumes while isolating at home, as per Chinese government orders and thinking about how a fluids researcher "could contribute to the global fight against the virus".

Published in the journal Physics of Fluids, the study found that flushing of both single-inlet toilets, which push water into the bowl from one port, and annular-inlet toilets, which pour water into the bowl from the rim's surrounding edge with even greater energy, results in "massive upward transport of virus".

Particles can reach heights of more than three feet and float in the air for more than a minute, it found. The paper recommends not just lid-closing and hand-washing, it urges manufacturers to produce toilets that close and self-clean automatically. It also suggests that toilet-users should wipe down the seat. Gerba, however, said seats should not be a major concern.

Research has found that public and household toilet seats are typically the cleanest surfaces in restrooms, he said, probably because so many people already wipe them off before using them. Also, he said of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, "I don't think it's butt-borne, so I don`t think you have to worry."Gerba, who has been studying coronavirus transmission for two decades to investigate the role of a toilet flushing in a SARS outbreak stresses "flush and run" when using a public toilet without a lid. Gerba also said that people should wash hands well post-flushing and use hand sanitiser after leaving the restroom. "Choose well-ventilated bathrooms if possible and do not hang around the restroom in any case," added Gerba.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.