Let’s take a moment to marvel at this colorful jellyfish. Flickr user steffro1 did a wonderful job photographing such a fascinating creature. Thanks for sharing it through The Nature Conservancy’s Flickr group!

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

And get inspired to take your own great nature shots—check out our favorite nature photography features, including amazing slideshows and tips from the pros.

1. Don’t forget, a “ring of fire” solar eclipse will be visible in parts of the U.S. on Sunday. (National Geographic)
2. Apple is making a major green change in the U.S. this year. (Scientific American)
3. Photos: One of the largest male stars on the planet is helping one of the smallest primates. (Mongabay)
4. The remains of a turtle the size of a car have been discovered in a coal mine. (Discovery News)
5. Scientists can’t solve the mystery of the rocks that ignited in a woman’s pocket. (L.A. Times)

Kerry Crisley is an Associate Director of Strategic Communications at The Nature Conservancy with a focus on our marine work.

My aunts Lorraine and Helen. My childhood friend, Amy. My grandfather. My neighbor, Bill. My colleague. All of these people near and dear to my heart have battled cancer, some successfully, some not.

And it’s not just me. We all have someone close to us who have gone through this terrible disease. We walk, run, bike and swim at events in their honor to support efforts to find a cure. And we should; it’s that important.

There’s something else we can do that can help preserve the building blocks of new, and potentially life-saving, medicines. We can save our coral reefs.

May is National Cancer Research Month, and much of the research that sustains our hope for a cure begins in our oceans.

Why? Reefs have an incredible diversity of life – from plants, animals and fungi down to the tiniest micro-organism. And this diversity holds so much potential for medical research. In fact, we are 3 to 4 hundred times more likely to find that next big medical breakthrough in our reefs than on land.

The drug Ara-C, for example, has helped save the lives of millions of people with leukemia, such as Boston’s Arden O’Conner. Ara-C was derived from a compound discovered in a Caribbean sea sponge. And today, women battling breast cancer have a new weapon in Halavan, a drug derived from a sponge off the coast of Japan.

These medicines are now created synthetically in a lab, so we don’t need to keep going back to the reefs to maintain our supply of it. The important thing was that the sponge was there for us to study in the first place.

We’ve only scratched the surface of what our reefs can offer medically. As Dr. Bruce Chabner, director of clinical research for the cancer center at Massachusetts General Hospital put it: “The sea could very well hold the building blocks of drugs that could treat, or even cure, cancer. We don’t know. But if we lose the reefs, we’ll never find out.”

The bad news is that our reefs right now are not healthy. Most of them – 75% in fact – are in serious trouble from things like overfishing, coastal development and climate change.

“If you look at a really healthy reef, it’s chaotic,” said Stephanie Wear, director of the Conservancy’s coral reef conservation program. “There are vivid colors – pinks, purples, reds and oranges – and fish are literally everywhere. If you’re snorkeling and only see a few fish, that’s not a healthy reef.”

The good news is that we can give our coral reefs a fighting chance. Wear is part of a global Conservancy team working to keep the healthiest reefs in good, stable condition and to figure out where and how degraded ones can be brought back to life. And she shares this science and methods in trainings with reef managers around the world.

It’s a big challenge. There’s no one silver bullet that can turn the fortunes around for an entire habitat. But if we all pitch in – from personal actions like adopting a reef, choosing sustainably-caught seafood to international collaboration on reef management and carbon emissions – our reefs will survive, and our own future will be better for it.

[Top image: Coral reef off Fiji islands in the Pacific Ocean. Source: Daniel & Robbie Wisdom. Bottom images: Kerry Crisley and her childhood pal, Amy in kindergarten... and 37 years later, after beating breast cancer; Kerry's Aunt Helen plays with Kerry's daughter about seven months before she lost her battle with cancer. Source: Kerry Crisley/TNC]

1. Hawaii is the first to have a statewide ban on plastic bags — but there are some loopholes. (Treehugger)
2. The first underpass for elephants will hopefully reunite herds in Kenya. (National Geographic)
3. The very cool Map of Life reflects the distribution of all plant and animal life on Earth — you can search by species (and maybe see those Kenyan elephants!). (Green)
4. If the Internet were a country, it would be the fifth biggest consumer of electricity in the world, according to Greenpeace. (Christian Science Monitor)
5. Need weekend plans? A dazzling solar eclipse will occur this Sunday! (Discovery News)

1. Do you buy cage-free eggs? Free-range? Pastured? This video will help you determine the difference. (Grist)
2. Now that you’ve eaten, time to get dressed. Why not choose a pair of sustainable jeans? (Treehugger)
3. Is genetically-engineered corn what’s killing honey bees in the corn belt? (Huff Post Green)
4. 14 miles of Hawaiian beaches have disappeared over the last century. What gives? (Green)
5. Now that’s sustainable: Shredded U.S. currency is being used in cars and trucks. (Environmental News Science)

Take PVC pipe. Attach to a home water pump. Add water.

It’s a simple recipe, but one that might be enough to help move millions of the migratory fish species known as Alabama shad over dams, so they can spawn in rivers throughout the southeastern United States. For millions of dollars less than conventional methods. With potentially big gains for sport fisheries in those rivers.

“It’s low cost, low risk and low tech,” says Steve Herrington, director of freshwater conservation for The Nature Conservancy in Florida. “You can buy any of the basic equipment at Home Depot. And we have the science to back it up.”

The Nature Conservancy and partners are leading a research effort to determine if simple, inexpensive techniques can pay big dividends for migratory fish populations. The initial results are promising.

An Amazing Fish Story

Getting fish over dams typically costs huge sums. A fish ladder for even a small dam can run $2 to $4 million. Proposed fish ladders for Pacific salmon on four dams on the Klamath River were estimated to costs $250 million.

But you don’t hear about a dime for Alabama shad. Why? After all, the closely related American shad used to be as American as apple pie, the source of a major American canning industry in the American colonies, as covered in John McPhee’s excellent book, The Founding Fish. (Even George Washington had a cannery).

But today: “Most people don’t even know what a shad is,” says Herrington — even though some biologists think restoring the fish to the upper reaches of southeastern rivers could boost bass fishing there.

“We need to take what we know about the species and find cheap methods to help them migrate,” he says.

The Conservancy is working with partners from the Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service to assemble a more complete picture of the shad — its life history, its migration patterns, its population status.

I recently joined Herrington, Auburn University research assistant Chase Katechis and Georgia DNR biologist Travis Ingram to catch and tag Alabama shad in the Apalachicola River, one of the largest rivers in the region.

As the team netted shad, I was able to see them up close: A plate-sized silvery fish that looks like it belongs in the ocean — and indeed, for much of its life it lives somewhere in the Gulf of Mexico (even scientists don’t know exactly where). In saltwater, it bulks up on other fish, but little else is known.

Come spring, shad surge up rivers like the Apalachicola. They don’t feed, instead putting their energy into reaching suitable spawning areas, where they lay eggs and (scientists think) die. The young shad migrate back to the ocean, continuing the cycle.

It’s a journey fraught with peril, as the fish I held so dramatically attested: Nearly every shad contained gashes on its side — the work of the longnose gar, a somewhat unsettling predatory fish with a protruding snout full of sharp teeth.

Overhead, ospreys carried other fish off in their talons.

But those perils are nothing compared to the biggest obstacle: a large dam that sat just upstream of our anchored boat.

In a Lock, the Key to Solving the Shad’s Problem

The dam’s exact effect on shad population declines wasn’t well known: little documentation exists for historic shad runs. But one thing was clear: shad weren’t getting past the dam, at least not in numbers that mattered. Fisheries surveys in the 1990’s noted few if any shad above the dam.

“The dam isn’t going away. It provides power for thousands of people,” says Herrington. “Given that, how can we work with it? How can we get fish over it without any money?”

There seemed to be a ready-made solution: A boat lock.

It operates as any lock does. A boat enters the lock at the bottom of the dam, as a door closes behind it. The lock fills with water (six million gallons in this case), raising the boat to the level of the impoundment behind the dam. A door opens and the boat exits above the dam.

Why not move fish the same way?

The problem was, fish didn’t know how to enter the lock.

Dams can be noisy places. As we captured fish, it was easy to ignore the background hum of a dam in operation: machines running, electric lines buzzing, the clanking of metal. For fish, though, it’s downright disorienting. How could they possibly figure out where to enter a lock?

Shad, it turns out, orient themselves on their migration through audible cues as well as river currents. The sound of running water is the sound of home. They instinctively follow that. There’s no sound of running water in a lock, especially when the door is open, at least not until now.

Enter the PVC pipe and water pump: the conservation equipment available for purchase at a home supply store near you.

The generator pumps water through the pipe, which is located above the lock. The water coursing through there sends a stream of water cascading into the lock below. It creates a loud splash. To fish, it’s like a road sign, or perhaps an old familiar song on the radio that takes you back to your youth.

The fish enter the lock, the water is raised, and they’ve successfully negotiated the dam.

Biologists like Herrington know this because they are catching fish and fitting them with radio transmitters, then tracking their movements. The fish are definitely entering the lock.

But there’s one other problem. “This is a very low use lock,” says Herrington. “Barges used to go through here regularly, but now there may be one or two  a year.”

There are recreational boaters and anglers moving through the locks, but even then it may only be a couple of dozen lock passages a month—not enough to ensure consistent passage for fish.

Fortunately, the Army Corps of Engineers staff — who operate the lock — have agreed to run water and operate the lock twice per day when the fish are making their spring migration. Due to radio tracking, biologists know when the shad are most likely to be gathering at the dam ready to move (early morning and early afternoon), and that’s when they are lured into the lock.

It takes a little time from the dam operators, but very little money or water.

And the fish are moving.

The average population of shad from 2005 through 2009 was about 10,000, with low water levels likely affecting the spawning run despite conservation locking efforts. In 2010, with more water in the system, the fish populations was estimated at 98,000. Due to low water last year, 25,000 fish were estimated. This year, preliminary analysis estimates the population between 60,000 to 75,000. While numbers may fluctuate, these trends hold promise.

“We should know this year or next what the real potential is,” says Herrington. “Right now, we hypothesize the river could support a run of 500,000 or 600,000 shad, and possibly quite a bit more.”

Initially, some thought that even if shad could get over the dam, they couldn’t negotiate the reservoir and get to suitable spawning habitat.

They could.

More Shad, Bigger Bass?

Researchers are still filling in a lot of blanks on what remains a largely unknown fish.

For instance, some fisheries biologists believe that young shad may be an important food source for largemouth bass. In this part of the country, bass fishing is often mentioned—with no tongue in cheek—in the same sentence as religion. There are bass fishing clubs, bass fishing tournaments, bass fishing super-stores.

“Shad are off everybody’s radar. This fish was never a cultural or economic resource,” says Herrington. “But if you mention that shad might be an important food for largemouth bass, and could mean much larger bass, then it gets peoples’ attention. This restoration could have tremendous impacts on the sport fishery.”

Could more attention mean the shad join the salmon as an esteemed and valued migratory fish? That remains to be seen.

In the meantime, it’s PVC pipe conservation that’s shaping a hopeful future for the fish.

“We’ve taken the science we have on this little-known species, and used that to make conservation more successful,” says Herrington. “Right now, it looks like we are improving our fisheries, with little more cost than the gas that it takes to run a small generator.”

[Image: Auburn University research assistant Chase Katechis examines an Alabama shad on the Apalachicola River, Florida. Image source: Matt Miller/TNC]

1. Bummer: The list of the top 10 endangered rivers in America is out, and #1 isn’t far from our headquarters. (Discovery News)
2. It turns out that the unpopular and controversial catch limits on fish are working — 6 populations have rebounded. (Green)
3. Yet another reason to love wildlife, especially elephants: They may hold vigil at your funeral. (Grist)
4. A Greenpeace study has found that some American car manufacturers are linked to Amazon deforestation. (Mongabay)
5. 76 percent of Americans want clean energy instead of coal, nuclear and natural gas. (Clean Technica)

The following is a guest post written by Bronson Griscom, Ph.D., director of Forest Carbon Science for The Nature Conservancy.

Can tropical forests be logged sustainably and still maintain their incredibly rich biodiversity — and benefits to people? A new study published in the journal Conservation Letters provides evidence that, with smart forest management, the answer can be “yes.”

As a forest scientist and a co-author on this article, I believe our findings confirm a critical middle way forward in protecting tropical forests: maintaining the diversity of tropical forest plants and animals, reducing carbon pollution, securing economic opportunities for local communities, and recognizing that the world’s growing population will continue to have significant needs for timber.

Why a “middle way”? Why not just focus on halting logging of these forests wherever possible?

After all, our article does find that fully protected forests are often better at conserving more plants and animals than forests managed for timber. Also, cutting trees in the tropics generates as much carbon pollution as all the cars, planes, boats, and trains in the world. That’s why a lot of organizations like The Nature Conservancy, where I work, see protecting tropical forests as a powerful part of the solution to climate change.

But what happens when tropical forest logging is halted?

For one thing, what happens to the people in tropical forest regions who depend upon logging to put bread or rice on the table for their families? Getting rid of logging jobs may backfire as a conservation goal if the alternative livelihoods involve forest conversion. (We’ve seen this in Borneo, where villages face the option of engaging timber companies or oil palm companies…or attempting to refuse both and relying on subsistence agriculture.) Another problem: some builders might replace wood with another material like steel or cement, and the process of making those other materials generates more carbon pollution than wood. Furthermore, in some places loggers are a stronger force for forest protection than national parks. This dynamic has been demonstrated in community-managed forests of Mexico and Guatemala.

These are reasons why we considered the implications of a “middle way” in tropical forest conservation: a path that integrates logging and conservation. Our study reviews over 100 scientific papers and concludes that, in places with improved forest management practices, selectively logged tropical forests[1] retain the lion’s share of their plants and animals (85-100%) and carbon (roughly 75%). Not only that: timber yields can be sustained, albeit at a lower timber volume than the first cut.

In other words, tropical forests are surprisingly resilient to damage, as long as they are not completely cleared for another land use.

The challenge is to strike the right balance between striving for full protection for forests that have the highest conservation value and promoting good forest management where protection is not feasible or optimal. Certification standards like the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) are important tools to achieve this, yet less than 1% of tropical forests have been certified as “well managed.”

Our continuing research on the island of Borneo in Southeast Asia is showing that nearly half of the impacts from logging operations can be avoided through better forest management. For example, we can replace bulldozers — which require wide logging roads in the forests and knock over all sorts of non-commercial trees as they do their logging work — with much smaller winching machines that slide logs out on narrow trails.

But reduced-impact logging techniques are a controversial idea in the conservation community because they mean approaching logging companies as potential allies in forest conservation.

We need to remember this: established logging companies are usually the only major industry touching these remote landscapes that share one fundamental interest with conservationists: keeping forests as forests. As such, logging companies, including everything from multinational corporations to community-based logging, can be a powerful ally for conservation. What’s more, they have legal tenure over nearly a quarter of the world’s tropical forests — substantially more area than all the tropical protected areas on Earth.

Still, we should not forget that logging is a violent act. I am thinking of my first trip to Borneo. I was up at dawn to hear the raucous hoots of gibbons — acrobats of the ape family. The morning mists lifted off the jungle mountainside to reveal blotches of bare red earth, like shrapnel wounds in the green patchwork of canopies. These were gaps in the trees revealing bulldozer roads carved into the mountainside. Many of these wounds can be avoided with improved logging practices, but some are unavoidable.

I should be more thrifty in my use of wood products, so I hold that image of the red scars beneath the mists of Borneo close to heart as a reminder of the price that is paid. Even so, in places like these where we are unable to ensure total protection, our study shows that native tropical forests can produce timber, provide local jobs and store carbon — all while supporting the lion’s share of biodiversity. Conservation needs to move past ideology to constructive action. The astonishing diversity of tropical forests, the people who live in and near them, and our climate all depend upon it.

Say you’re a conservation scientist and you’ve been working for years—perhaps decades—to protect specific species and habitats from the traditional evils: development, poaching, pollution, invasives, etc.

Along comes a new threat: climate change. Is all your work for naught? What’s the best way to include this new threat into your existing conservation strategies? And how do you take into account the uncertainties of climate change, such as how high temperatures and sea levels will rise?

A team of Nature Conservancy scientists and outside researchers set about answering these questions in a new article published in the journal Biodiversity and Conservation. They assessed 5 possible methods for incorporating climate change into existing or new conservation plans—everything from focusing on a diversity of landscapes (but not species) to making sure that habitats are linked so species can migrate (known as “connectivity”) to embracing strategies aimed at mitigating climate change’s impacts (like REDD).

And the winner is…

(You didn’t really think it would be that simple, did you?)

It turns out every option has trade-offs and assumptions. For instance, while protecting “climate refugia” (the term for those areas least likely to undergo rapid change) is one option with many positives—these areas often have high species richness already—it relies heavily on projecting future climate conditions…which can be a dicey business when you’re talking hyperlocal.

But while there isn’t a clear winner, all of the methods provide solutions that would be good for biodiversity regardless of future climates.

“Perhaps the biggest challenge in implementing climate adaptation strategies is dealing with various kinds of uncertainty,” says Craig Groves, lead author of the study and director of the Conservancy’s methods and learning team. “All 5 of the approaches we outline are fairly robust to these uncertainties, making them ‘no regret’ approaches.”

Groves and his coauthors conclude that regardless of methodology, it’s imperative for conservationists to start planning for climate change adaptation.

“The conservation community has collectively spent billions of dollars in recent decades to conserve biodiversity at real places on the ground and in the water—and we stand to lose a lot on our investment if we don’t start accommodating climate change,” warns Groves.

Download a PDF of the report here.

(Image: Researchers study transplanted staghorn corals, which have been hit hard by coral bleaching due to climate change. Image source: Tim Calver.)

1. Our president/CEO Mark Tercek identifies corporate sustainability officers as “unsung heroes.”  (Huffington Post)
2. Watch out for superweeds!  (Grist)
3. How much more are you willing to pay for clean energy?  (Green)
4. Business is booming for the makers of hybrid vehicles.  (CleanTechnica)
5. Last month’s rainy weather brought respite from the “prolonged airborne particle pollution” that affected the UK earlier this year.  (Guardian)