When it comes to eating, most of us don’t have to go very far. But for many bird species, finding food may mean traveling hundreds of thousands of kilometers.

A team of researchers from institutions in the UK and Ireland spent five years tracking (追踪) four species of seabird to monitor their travel patterns. It was discovered that over the five years, the species covered an area of 1.5 million square kilometers when hunting for food-almost four times the size of Japan.

The findings were published recently in the journal Ecological Applications. As part of the study, over 1,300 birds were fitted with GPS tags to track their movements. It was discovered that most of them search for fish in the same place-waters off the coast of Scotland.

As a result of this, organizations such as the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) will spend more time trying to preserve coastal Scotland.

“For the first time, this study provides us with a full map for each breeding colony (繁殖群体) of the feeding areas for some of our most important seabird species,” wrote the study’s lead author Ewan Wakefield, from the University of Glasgow.

“That means we can now protect the places these birds catch the fish they need to feed their hungry chicks.”

The findings could also affect the future building of offshore wind turbines (满轮机). Although wind turbines help to fight climate change by providing a green source of energy, their huge blades (刀片) are blamed for the deaths of thousands of birds each year, as they often fly into them.

Stuart Housden, director of RSPB Scotland, said in a news release that although climate change is a huge threat to both humans and nature alike, we should “invest in an energy system that works for both people and our natural heritage.”

To protect both nature and the environment, the RSPB supports the building of turbines in areas that won’t have “significant adverse (不利的) impacts on important bird populations or their habitats,” it wrote on its website.

Habitat loss, hunting, logging and climate change have put many large species on the planet at risk. A new study has found that not only are larger plants and animals at higher risk of extinction, but their loss would fundamentally affect life on earth.

Results showed that the continued loss of large animals alone would lead to a 44% reduction in the total amount of wild animal biomass on the planet. It would also lead to a 92% reduction in soil fertility (肥沃), which supports the ability of the earth to grow plants and sustain life.

“This research shows there are fundamental scientific principles that explain why large animals and trees matter for the health and integrity of all life on Earth,” said lead author Brian Enquist. “Protecting large species does have an umbrella effect to protect the wider ecosystem.”

A key reason for these results lies with the transport of nutrients(养分). When large animals eat in one location and defecate(排便)in another, they transport nutrients, often moving them from nutrient-rich areas to other, less fertile parts of the land and oceans. Similarly, the largest trees are the most productive, and contain more nutrients and carbon.

“Ecosystems with larger trees and animals are also more productive and provide more vital ecological services,” Enquist said. “The largest banks and corporations in the economy are the most productive and have the most impact on the economy. If they failed, they would have a big negative impact on economy. It’s a similar principle with large species across ecosystems.”

Unfortunately, these large organisms are more likely to be harmed by human pressures and climate change and take longer to recover from shocks, making them endangered species.

The findings help to answer an ongoing debate about where to channel limited conservation resources. While some species such as the tiger or redwood tree have historically been most appealing and therefore effective at pulling in donations, some scientists worry that the focus on a certain species could be coming at the cost of protecting other, less well-loved species.

“Our findings instead point to the importance of policies that emphasize the promotion of all large trees and animals, as such policies will have a great impact on biodiversity and ecosystem processes,” Enquist said.

Microsoft plans to erase its entire carbon footprint since its foundation in 1975. Microsoft aims to accomplish "carbon negative" by 2030, meaning that it will erase more carbon from the environment than it emits(排放). The company will minimize carbon emissions across its entire supply chain to zero. And the following step is to clean up all the carbon emissions it has produced since 1975, when it was founded. What the company further proposed was that it would try to push for policies to price carbon and help clean energy technology develop faster. It is among the companies that approve of carbon tax.

More attention has been drawn to removing carbon from the atmosphere. There are a variety of methods toward that, including nature-based ones, like planting trees, and technological ones, like capturing carbon directly from the air.

“Microsoft will initially focus on nature-based methods like restoring degraded forests and planting new trees, ”said Lucas Joppa, the company's Chief Environmental Officer. An investment of one billion dollars will also be provided for the development of carbon removal and reduction technology. Microsoft's decision of counting its supply chain's emissions is an extension of its previous commitment to run data centers mainly on the renewable energy.

The company's intention to promote low-carbon policies was highly recognized by environmentalist. “A company's most powerful tool for fighting climate change is its political influence, and we're eager to see Microsoft use it, ”Elizabeth Sturcken, Managing Director of EDF+Business said.

Other industries are also encouraged to follow Microsoft's example. But none of them has such a commitment, according to Gary Cook, senior analyst of Greenpeace. Nevertheless, Cook, together with some other environmentalists, criticized Microsoft for continuously cooperating with oil and gas companies. Amazon's AWS service has faced the same criticism for working with fossil fuel clients.“There's a real disconnection between what they're doing within their own company and their empowering of dirty energy, ” Cook said.