Research roundup: 6 cool science stories we almost missed

aaki

Smack-Fu Master, in training
47
"applying water around one mushroom increased electrical activity (and hence the flow of information), while applying water across a larger area reduced electrical activity. Applying urine to just one mushroom also reduced information flow. "

but, why did they fail to also try applying urine across a larger area? ^^ Or was the "44-year-old male without any chronic disease" who supplied the urine not up to the task?
 
Upvote
30 (30 / 0)

KChat

Ars Scholae Palatinae
816
Subscriptor
Maybe I just need more coffee, but are these numbers presented backwards? Or are they older, not younger than previously thought?
Thanks to microscopic fossils, the Melbourne researchers found that the formation is younger than previously thought: 8.6 to 14 million years old, compared to the previous estimate of 7 to 14 million years.
ETA: the more I think about this, they almost have to be backwards - with finding a fossil 7M years old expanding the date range.

Edit 2: it seems they dated the lowest? layers, which constrained the formation to be older, not younger.
  1. Shallow shelf conditions after ca 12.6 Ma led to the deposition of the youngest carbonate unit in the region, the yellow Port Campbell Limestones with similar conditions persisting until at least 8.6 Ma. The brittle cemented yellow Port Campbell Limestone prevails in the upper half of most cliff sections and in the upper part of most sea stacks of the Twelve Apostles.
  2. Uplift, karstification and erosion, terminated Port Campbell Limestone deposition after 8.6 Ma. Northwest–southeast compression formed broad open anticlines and synclines with minor thrust faulting.
And the pillars themselves were created due to erosion in the last few thousand years:
The present cliffs and sea stacks in the Port Campbell region were created since the Last Glacial Maximum (23 000–20 000 year ago) as the sea-level rose 125 m forming the present shoreline. In the last few thousand years, the sea has eroded the brittle Port Campbell Limestone forming cliffs and promontories. Arches formed where the sea undermined promontories, and these continuously collapse forming sea stacks. Therefore, while the layers of the Twelve Apostles record millions of years of Earth history, the sea stacks and cliffs represent a relatively short and ephemeral part of that history.


**Looks like the disconnect is that the original estimate was 7-15 million years ago, & it has been constrained to 8.6-14M years ago. So the oldest part of the formation is younger, while the youngest parts are older than originally thought.
 
Last edited:
Upvote
39 (39 / 0)

nahlers

Seniorius Lurkius
32
Subscriptor++
Who doesn’t love to watch those YouTube videos of people using hydraulics to crush a variety of objects?Y

Yes, we all do, which is why I was disappointed when the graphic with this section was just a still image and not the satisfying video of that can getting crushed that, we just agreed, we were all craving.

Edit:

Oh man, I just found the video in the study's "Supplementary information" section and now I'm even more disappointed because it's so much cooler than I pictured it being.

Supplementary Video (download AVI)
 
Last edited:
Upvote
32 (32 / 0)
Maybe I just need more coffee, but are these numbers presented backwards? Or are they older, not younger than previously thought?

ETA: the more I think about this, they almost have to be backwards - with finding a fossil 7M years old expanding the date range.
I'm still confused how a date range that ends at 14mya can be conclusively stated to be younger than another date range that ends at 14mya.

That said, it's cool to read about the 12 Apostles and think "Hey! I took some good photos of those!" I'd love to spend more time in Australia.
 
Upvote
4 (4 / 0)

nahlers

Seniorius Lurkius
32
Subscriptor++
Maybe I just need more coffee, but are these numbers presented backwards? Or are they older, not younger than previously thought?

ETA: the more I think about this, they almost have to be backwards - with finding a fossil 7M years old expanding the date range.

I too puzzled over this for longer than I feel comfortable admitting, but if the formation is indeed younger than previously thought, then the author has the old and new ranges reversed. As the dates are given, the formation is now older than previously thought.


Edit:

I don't think the study itself ever mentions either age range, but the lead author, Stephen Gallagher, did say this in the University of Melbourne media release: "Early preliminary research indicated the ancient limestone layers ranged between 7 to 15 million years old, but we discovered microscopic fossils that more accurately dated the layers as 8.6 to 14 million years old,"

Source: University of Melbourne media release

So the formation is now believed to be younger, and the typo was in the original estimate of the age range.
 
Last edited:
Upvote
11 (11 / 0)
Post content hidden for low score. Show…

Fred Duck

Ars Tribunus Angusticlavius
7,304
If I remember the story from the Christian Torah properly, there will eventually only be one apostle left standing.

I see a few sites refer to the Mycelium Network as "Earth's Natural Internet"* which of course makes me wonder if mushrooms share cat pictures.

* So it's a series of tubes.
 
Upvote
4 (9 / -5)

KChat

Ars Scholae Palatinae
816
Subscriptor
The AI is painfully obvious in some of these articles. I guess Ars never said anything about promoting OTHERS AI bullcrap.
So are you accusing the researchers of using AI when writing their original papers? I'm confuzzled.

Regardless, it's a bold accusation with zero facts asserted to bolster your position. So I'm just gonna assume you're full of shit.
 
Upvote
42 (43 / -1)
The AI is painfully obvious in some of these articles. I guess Ars never said anything about promoting OTHERS AI bullcrap.
The only thing more tiresome than AI-generated crap is baseless human-generated crap accusations of things being AI-generated crap.
 
Upvote
45 (45 / 0)

KChat

Ars Scholae Palatinae
816
Subscriptor
I too puzzled over this for longer than I feel comfortable admitting, but if the formation is indeed younger than previously thought, then the author has the old and new ranges reversed. As the dates are given, the formation is now older than previously thought.


Edit:

I don't think the study itself ever mentions either age range, but the lead author, Stephen Gallagher, did say this in the University of Melbourne media release: "Early preliminary research indicated the ancient limestone layers ranged between 7 to 15 million years old, but we discovered microscopic fossils that more accurately dated the layers as 8.6 to 14 million years old,"

Source: University of Melbourne media release

So the formation is now believed to be younger, and the typo was in the original estimate of the age range.
Per your edit: but that would make it older, not younger... right? Tell me I'm not taking crazy pills here...

ETA: I guess the fact that they contracted the oldest age makes it younger & takes precedence over the youngest age now being further back. IDK. My brain hurts...
 
Last edited:
Upvote
3 (3 / 0)

swrobel

Ars Centurion
204
Subscriptor++
Can someone ELI5 this one to me? 😬 Wouldn’t that make it older than previously thought?
Thanks to microscopic fossils, the Melbourne researchers found that the formation is younger than previously thought: 8.6 to 14 million years old, compared to the previous estimate of 7 to 14 million years.
 
Upvote
1 (2 / -1)

Chuckstar

Ars Legatus Legionis
37,346
Subscriptor
Seems like the shipwreck data could be telling us some mix of where the pitch had been produced and where it had been applied. Ships needed a lot of pitch, and there were well developed trade networks in the region moving commodities around.

It does seem unlikely that a ship engaged in regular service between a handful of ports would end up incorporating pitch from a wide variety of locations, it’s just that we have to be careful about assuming such commodities were only consumed local to where they were produced.
 
Upvote
15 (16 / -1)

PicoG

Seniorius Lurkius
21
Subscriptor++
But the entrapped pollen and other contaminants would indicate where the pitch was applied?
I think you may be missing the possibility that the pollen and other contaminants were present in the pitch when and where it was produced, which may be far removed (time-wise and geographically) from where it was applied.
 
Upvote
5 (5 / 0)
It’s well known that mushrooms have a vast, interconnected underground network by which they can communicate; it’s the main body of the mushroom, in fact, rather than what we see growing on the surface. But little is known about how, exactly, information spreads across these mycelial networks.

So the enshitification of the internet started far earlier than Cory Doctorow imagines (since we're talking about mushrooms).
 
Upvote
3 (4 / -1)
Its interesting to think that trees communicate through their roots and these fungal networks about all sorts of things... But its also mildly disconcerting to consider that if a bear defecates in the woods (or you for that matter), the whole forest may be gossiping about it...
If a tree falls in the forest and there is nobody there to ... there is always something there to observe and gossip about it.
 
Upvote
5 (5 / 0)

taxythingy

Ars Praetorian
588
Subscriptor
"applying water around one mushroom increased electrical activity (and hence the flow of information), while applying water across a larger area reduced electrical activity. Applying urine to just one mushroom also reduced information flow. "

but, why did they fail to also try applying urine across a larger area? ^^ Or was the "44-year-old male without any chronic disease" who supplied the urine not up to the task?
It can be done.

Source: Its a few years ago now, but i had the bucket chemistry job of making up nearly four tonnes of artificial cow urine for a field trial, then organising application of it with watering cans.
 
Upvote
9 (9 / 0)

RZetopan

Ars Tribunus Angusticlavius
8,089
The shipwreck article title had me going "Huh"? Shipwreck repairs? Who is breaking the shipwrecks, and why? I like my shipwrecks intact!
As far as I can tell, US English was actually designed to be close to achieving maximal ambiguity.
“I read that book”
“At the Bank of the river”
“I saw the person with a telescope”
And even in at least one of the articles:
"... videos of people using hydraulics to crush a variety of objects? That includes physicists at the University of Manchester"
etc.
 
Last edited:
Upvote
-1 (1 / -2)