A new study of our two closest living relatives finds that, at least in zoos, bonobos may not be more peaceful than chimpanzees.

Bonobos (Pan paniscus) are only found south of the Congo River in the Democratic Republic of Congo, where food is abundant and evenly distributed. Chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) range across West, Central and East Africa, where food can be variable and patchy.

Different environmental pressures may have contributed to divergent social behavior between the closely related species. Chimpanzee societies are male-dominant, territorial, and marked by frequent aggression toward other groups. In bonobo societies, females often equal or outrank males, and they have a reputation for more peaceful intergroup relations. Bonobo females form coalitions to suppress male aggression.

However, new findings are adding nuance: One recent comparative analysis challenged bonobos’ “hippy” image; and another recent paper documents the first known death of an infant bonobo resulting from an intergroup encounter.

Building on this framework, Emile Bryon of Utrecht University in the Netherlands led a group of researchers in comparing aggression between chimpanzees and bonobos in zoos, where environmental conditions are more controlled.

Their findings, published in Science Advances, compared behaviors such as chasing, hitting, wrestling and biting in nine groups of chimpanzees and 13 groups of bonobos housed in 16 European zoos.

They found no difference in rates of overall aggression, or more severe contact aggression, between zoo-housed chimpanzees and bonobos.

However, they did find species-level differences in who used aggression. Male chimpanzees were more aggressive than females, while bonobo males and females showed similar levels of aggressive behaviors.

“Overall, our research paints a picture that matches the socio-ecology of both species; chimpanzee males are aggressive against all, whereas all bonobos are aggressive, but target mainly the males,” Bryon said in an email to Mongabay.

“We also found it interesting that female-to-female aggression is generally low in both species. Because female bonobos dominate, and dominant individuals compete amongst each other for resources, one could expect aggression among bonobo females. But our study says otherwise,” Bryon said.

Regardless of species, some zoo-housed groups were more aggressive than others, raising the question of why.

Takeshi Furuichi, who wasn’t involved with this study, is an emeritus professor at Kyoto University and author of another recent paper comparing aggression within groups of wild male chimpanzees and bonobos. He told Mongabay by email that “This study provides valuable comparative data on aggression in chimpanzees and bonobos under controlled conditions.”

However, Furuichi suggested the findings should be interpreted with caution. He noted that the “present study is limited to behavior within single zoo groups” and that “a key basis for the view that chimpanzees are more aggressive than bonobos lies in intergroup male aggression, which is frequently observed in chimpanzees and can sometimes be lethal.”

Banner image: Aggressive behavior by bonobos. Image by Nicky Staes (CC BY-SA 4.0).

Founder’s Briefs: An occasional series where Mongabay founder Rhett Ayers Butler shares analysis, perspectives and story summaries.

On the docks of Port Orford, a small fishing town on the southern coast of the U.S. state of Oregon, Aaron Longton runs a modest seafood business out of a garage converted into a processing room.

On a recent morning, he lifted a redbanded rockfish from a sink full of ice water and passed it to Brian Morrissey, who works beside a cutting table turning the fish into tidy fillets. That day’s catch included hundreds of kilograms of rockfish (Sebastes babcocki) and lingcod (Ophiodon elongatus). Two decades ago, such abundance would have been difficult to imagine, reports contributor Jules Struck for Mongabay.

The West Coast groundfish fishery, which spans more than 90 species living along the Pacific seabed from Washington state to California, once teetered near collapse. By 2000, federal authorities declared the industry a disaster. Stocks had been depleted by years of heavy fishing. Regulators responded with severe restrictions. Large sections of ocean were closed to trawling, quotas were slashed, and Congress funded a buyout that removed dozens of vessels from the fleet. Many fishers left the industry.

Those who remained entered a very different system. The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act required catch limits tied closely to scientific advice. A catch-share program introduced in 2010 allocated individual quotas to permit holders, allowing them to harvest fish throughout the year instead of racing one another at the start of the season. Monitoring also became far stricter. Trawlers were required to carry observers who documented each haul.

The measures were contentious. Many fishers feared the new rules would make their businesses unviable. Yet the biological results have been striking. In October 2025, officials announced that yelloweye rockfish (Sebastes ruberrimus), the final species previously classified as overfished, had recovered to “healthy” levels. Some scientists had once expected the rebound to take decades longer.

Today, most of the waters once closed to trawling have reopened. Advances in gear design are also reducing ecological harm. Modified nets, sensors and lighting systems help avoid unwanted catch, while semi-pelagic trawls keep heavy equipment off the seafloor.

Economic gains have not followed at the same pace. Monitoring systems, insurance and fuel costs weigh heavily on fishers, and demand for several species remains modest. The industry now faces a familiar question.

Conservation has restored the resource. The challenge ahead is making the fishery prosper without repeating the mistakes that nearly erased it.

Read the full story by Jules Struck here.

Banner image: A federal fisheries observer sorts fish and collects data to inform fisheries management aboard the Cassandra Anne, an Oregon-based groundfish trawler, in 2023. Image by Chris Peterson/Action Works Photography/Oregon Sea Grant via Flickr (CC BY-NC-SA 2.0).

The recent discovery of an injured proboscis monkey near a railway track in Thailand points to the likelihood of cross-border trafficking in the endangered species, reports Mongabay contributor Ana Norman Bermudez.

Proboscis monkeys (Nasalis larvatus), known for their distinctive long noses, are found only on the island of Borneo. The species is legally protected in all three countries that share the island: Malaysia, Brunei and Indonesia. It’s also listed under Appendix I of CITES, the global wildlife trade treaty, meaning its international commercial trade is prohibited except for specific research or conservation breeding purposes.

Bermudez reported that local residents found the injured animal in Thailand’s Samut Sakhon province in January and later brought it to a nearby clinic. That’s when clinicians identified it as a “foreign monkey” and transferred it to the Ban Pong wildlife rescue center run by Thailand’s Department of National Parks, Wildlife and Plant Conservation (DNP).

The monkey had suffered serious injuries, requiring the amputation of a finger and part of its tail. It’s currently recovering at Ban Pong, and while it can’t be returned to the wild, discussions about repatriating it to Borneo once it’s stable are being considered.

“I believe this monkey was brought illegally, because there are no records of it in the CITES database,” Kanpicha Han-Asa, a veterinarian with DNP, told Mongabay.

At least one other proboscis monkey lives in a private zoo in Thailand; Mongabay confirmed its presence at the zoo during a visit in March.

“Where did these animals come from? How did they get there? These are questions the authorities in Thailand need to explore,” Chris Shepherd, a senior conservation advocate at the Center for Biological Diversity, told Mongabay.

A recent study shows a worrying increase in the proboscis monkey trade since 2016. This is despite the species being difficult to keep in captivity due to a specialized diet of mostly leaves.

A proboscis monkey was also intercepted at an airport in India in 2024.

While the number of such trafficking cases is still low, Shepherd said the event “is still of great concern.” Proboscis monkeys are already under pressure from habitat loss, and he warned “an increase in international trade will only further threaten these imperiled animals.”

Conservationists are calling for stricter enforcement at airports and a ban on private ownership of primates to protect species like the proboscis monkey.

Read the full story by Ana Norman Bermúdez here.

Banner image: The rescued proboscis monkey at Thailand’s Ban Pong wildlife rescue center, where it’s recovering from its injuries. Image by Ana Norman Bermúdez for Mongabay.

Indonesia is moving to rezone Way Kambas National Park, transforming the Sumatran sanctuary from a “cost center” into a “profit center.”

As Mongabay’s Hans Nicholas Jong reports, the government has framed the initiative as a carbon-trading and luxury-tourism initiative to fund conservation for ecosystem restoration.

The proposed land reclassification would cut the park’s strictly protected core area in half, from roughly 60,000 to 27,661 hectares (148,100 to 68,352 acres) while expanding nearly tenfold the area that can be used for carbon trading and development. The move has sparked criticism from environmental experts and activists.

“If the reason for reducing the core zone is to increase the utilization zone for business, that’s not appropriate,” Indonesian ecologist Wishnu Sukmantoro, a member of the Asian Elephant Specialist Group at the IUCN, the global wildlife conservation authority, told Mongabay.

Counterintuitively, restoration and tree-planting projects can sometimes damage wildlife habitat. Carbon projects often prioritize high-density tree planting to maximize credits, but Sumatran elephants in Way Kambas rely on open grasslands for food. Replacing grass with dense forest could drive elephants into human settlements, increasing human-wildlife conflict, according to Irfan Tri Musri, director of the Lampung chapter of the Indonesian Forum for the Environment (Walhi), the country’s largest environmental advocacy group.

Aida Greenbury, a sustainability expert with the advisory board of the World Bioeconomy Forum, also raised questions about the level of engagement with local communities and the process of free, prior, and informed consent.

“Proper FPIC is essential for a high-integrity carbon project,” said Greenbury, who also sits on Mongabay’s advisory council.

An investigation by Indonesian publication Tempo found that the Way Kambas carbon and tourism projects will be led by former U.S. diplomat Karen Brooks. Brooks personally met Indonesian President Prabowo Subianto and lobbied to legalize carbon trading and rezone parts of the national park.

The high-end tourism component has also faced scrutiny. Conservationists say the shift toward luxury tourism (up to $14,000 a night) will exclude local residents and the general public from national assets.

“Conservation will only be able to be accessed by the wealthy,” Walhi’s Irfan said.

However, Forestry Minister Raja Juli Antoni said national parks have become an expense instead of a profit generator. He told journalists that this proposal will seek “innovative and sustainable funding,” including private sector involvement, to make the country’s national parks “world-class.”

Still, conservationists warn of habitat fragmentation and the risks of prioritizing tourism and carbon credits over biodiversity.

Conservation scientists have also raised concerns regarding the role of foreign lobbyists and the lack of clarity on where carbon revenue will actually go.

“We need to be careful here — Way Kambas is a national asset,” Greenbury said. “Significant portions of carbon project funding are reportedly consumed by intermediary developers and transaction costs rather than benefiting forests and local communities. This cannot happen.”

Read the full story here.

Banner image: Sumatran elephants in Way Kambas National Park. Image by Mustiadewi via Wikimedia Commons (CC BY-SA 4.0).

The organizers of a campaign against shark finning in the European Union have filed a formal complaint against the EU Commission, accusing it of mishandling their case and missing deadlines.

The European Citizens’ Initiative (ECI) is an EU tool that allow citizens to participate in policy-making. The ECI known as “Stop Finning – Stop the Trade” calls for legislative action by the European Commission to completely ban the shark fin trade in the EU.

“The Commission made concrete commitments in July 2023 — including launching an impact assessment by year-end — and then simply stopped communicating,” Katharina Loupal, an organizer of the initiative, told Mongabay via email.

In 2023, the EU banned shark finning for all EU- flagged vessels and all vessels in EU waters. However, loose shark fins can still be legally traded — imported, exported or transited — in European countries.

Worldwide, shark populations have plummeted since the 1970s and they continue to be among the most threatened species on the planet.

Shark fins are in high demand in China and other Asian markets, often passing through transit hubs first. Despite international protections for several species, illegal trade is rife, often involving organized crime. However, there is also a thriving legal trade in shark fins.

The EU is a major fin exporter and transit hub, with Spanish and Portuguese fleets most commonly fishing for sharks in international waters. According to a 2022 International Foundation for Animal Welfare report, 45% of shark fin-related products imported into Hong Kong, Singapore and Taiwan in 2020 originated from EU member states.

In 2022, the ECI collected more than 1.1 million signatures from EU residents, meeting the 1 million threshold necessary to trigger legislative action.

A July 2023 letter from the European Commission stated that that it would “launch, by the end of 2023, an impact assessment on the environmental, social and economic consequences of applying the ‘fins naturally attached’ policy to the placement on the market of sharks in the EU.”

Loupal said the impact assessment was initiated but the follow-up process has been slow and unclear. She added that the EU Commission failed to adhere to the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and the ECI regulation, which requires the body to “act within a reasonable timeframe and to keep organizers transparently informed.”

Once a complaint with the European Ombudsman, the EU’s accountability mechanism, has been accepted, the body assesses whether an EU institution has acted unlawfully and can open a formal inquiry.

A European Commission spokesperson told Mongabay via email that the impact assessment is expected to be finalized by the end of 2026. She said the commission is committed to “improving statistics on shark trade, stepping up the enforcement of EU traceability measures and engaging with international partners.“

Mongabay has reported on a similar situation in Brazil where the environment ministry has banned export of shark fins detached from the carcass; however, industry groups indicated they would challenge the new rule._

 Banner image: Shark fins and a dead hammerhead shark. Image courtesy of Earth League International (ELI).

WASHINGTON (AP) — March’s persistent unseasonable heat was so intense that the continental United States registered its most abnormally hot month in 132 years of records, according to federal weather data. And the next year or so looks to turn the dial up on global warmth even more, as some forecasts predict a brewing El Nino will reach superstrength.

Not only was it the hottest March on record for the U.S., but the amount it was above normal beat any other month in history for the Lower 48 states. March’s average temperature of 50.85 degrees Fahrenheit (10.47 degrees Celsius) was 9.35 F (5.19 C) above the 20th century normal for March. That easily passed the old record of 8.9 F (4.9 C) set in March 2012 as the most abnormally hot month on record — regardless of the month of the year — according to records released Wednesday by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

The average maximum temperature for March was especially high at 11.4 F (6.3 C) above the 20th century average and was almost a degree warmer than the average daytime high for April, NOAA said.

Six of the nation’s top 10 most abnormally hot months have been in the last 10 years. This February, which was 6.57 F (3.65 C) above 20th century normal, was the tenth highest above normal.

“What we experienced in March across the United States was unprecedented,” said Climate Central meteorologist Shel Winkley. “One reason that’s so concerning is just the sheer volume of records, all-time records that were set and broken during that time period. But also this is coming on the heels of what was the worst snow year. And the hottest winter of record. So we’re seeing this continuation of extraordinary heat that took place during the winter months, continuing into the spring months as well. That’s where it’s really concerning, it’s just the duration of this heat.”

More than 19,800 daily temperature records were broken for heat across the country, according to meteorologist Guy Walton, who analyzes NOAA data.

By Seth Borenstein, Associated Press

Banner image: Juan Olmedo, left, and his wife Alejandra Delgado use an umbrella to shield from the sun while on a walk at Shoreline Park in Mountain View, Calif., March 16, 2026. Photo by Godofredo A. Vásquez via Associated Press