Astronaut photos reveal the dramatic transformation of Madagascar’s largest estuary, the Betsiboka, over decades. Deforestation and agriculture have caused severe erosion, changing the delta’s landscape, forming new islands, and expanding mangroves significantly since 1984.
An astronaut aboard the International Space Station (ISS) captured this image of Madagascar’s largest estuary. Today, more than half of the estuary is filled by the growing delta of the Betsiboka River, which flows northwest toward the Mozambique Channel. The port city of Mahajanga is located along the coast in the top left of the image. Rice is the primary crop cultivated in and around the delta region.
In the past 50 years, large areas of forest have been cleared for logging and the expansion of agricultural land to accommodate Madagascar’s rapidly increasing population. This deforestation has caused significant soil erosion from the hillsides within the Betsiboka watershed and other regions across the Madagascar. The eroded soil is carried into the Betsiboka River and transported downstream. After decades of accelerated erosion, the delta has expanded to about 35 kilometers (22 miles) in length, filling much of the estuary, which was navigable by ships less than a century ago.
Dynamic Delta Development
The delta, centered in this image, is a network of distributary channels between larger and smaller “tear-drop” islands. The iron-rich soils color the water in the distributaries a red-orange hue. Several islands appear dark green where forests have colonized the newly deposited land. Today, the delta and neighboring shorelines are home to the largest area of mangrove forests in Madagascar.
Comparison and Changes Over Time
Compared with an astronaut photo taken 40 years ago (1984 inset), the 2024 photograph illustrates how the delta has continued to grow towards the Mozambique Channel. Sand banks that were covered by water at high tide have expanded and grown upward to become vegetated islands. Since 1984, two new vegetated islands have formed on either side of island “A,” one downstream of islands “B” and “C,” and three downstream of island “D.” A yet unvegetated sand bar is also visible downstream of island “D.”
Astronaut photograph ISS071-E-111691 was acquired on May 23, 2024, with a Nikon Z9 digital camera using a focal length of 210 millimeters. It is provided by the ISS Crew Earth Observations Facility and the Earth Science and Remote Sensing Unit, Johnson Space Center. The image was taken by a member of the Expedition 71 crew. The image has been cropped and enhanced to improve contrast, and lens artifacts have been removed. The International Space Station Program supports the laboratory as part of the ISS National Lab to help astronauts take pictures of Earth that will be of the greatest value to scientists and the public, and to make those images freely available on the Internet.
Never miss a breakthrough: Join the SciTechDaily newsletter.
Follow us on Google and Google News.
1 Comment
Topology spin creates all things. Topology spin creates the world.
Please the researchers to think deeply:
1. Where does the richness and diversity of nature come from?
2. Is spin related to topological vortices in nature?
3. Are the hypothetical particles (including so-called Quantum ) high-dimensional spacetime matter or low dimensional spacetime matter?
4. Is topological vortex high-dimensional spacetime matter or low dimensional spacetime matter?
5. Can low dimensional spacetime matter be the understructure of high-dimensional spacetime matter?
6. Which is easier to understand, topological materials or so-called quantum materials?
7. Is quantum material a topological material?
8. How do you understand the cat in quantum mechanics that is both dead and alive?
9. Is the topological vortex left-handed or right-handed?
10. Is the spacetime vortex a fact?
11. Which is easier to understand, topological vortex gravity or quantum gravity?
12. Doesn’t physics want a unified standard for basic materials?
and so on.
Scientific research guided by correct theories can help people avoid detours, failures, and exaggeration. The physical phenomena observed by researchers in experiments are always appearances, never the natural essence of things. The natural essence of things needs to be extracted and sublimated based on mathematical theories via appearances , rather than being imagined arbitrarily.
Everytime scientific revolution, the scientific research space brought by the new paradigm expands exponentially. Physics should not ignore the analyzable physical properties of topological vortices.
(1) Traditional physics: based on mathematical formalism, experimental verification and arbitrary imagination.
(2) Topological Vortex Theory (TVT): Although also based on mathematics (such as topology), it focuses more on non intuitive geometry and topological structures, challenging traditional physical intuition.
Topological Vortex Theory (TVT) points out the limitations of the Standard Model in describing the large-scale structure of the universe, proposes the need to consider non-standard model components such as dark matter and dark energy, and suggests that topological vortex fields may be key to understanding these phenomena. Topological vortex theory (TVT) heralds innovative technologies such as topological electronics, topological smart batteries, topological quantum computing, etc., which may bring low-energy electronic components, almost inexhaustible currents, and revolutionary computing platforms, etc.
Topology tells us that topological vortices and antivortices can form new spacetime structures via the synchronous effect of superposition, deflection, or twisting of them. Mathematics does not tell us that there must be God particles, ghost particles, fermions, or bosons present. When physics and mathematics diverge, arbitrary imagination will make physics no different from theology. Topological vortex research reflections on the philosophy and methodology of science help us understand the nature essence of science and the limitations of scientific methods. This not only has guiding significance for scientific research itself, but also has important implications for science education and popularization.
All things follow certain laws, which can be revealed through observation and research ( such as topological structures ). Today, so-called official (such as PRL, Nature, Science, PNAS, etc.) in physics stubbornly believes that two sets of cobalt-60 rotating in opposite directions can become two sets of objects that mirror each other, is a typical case that pseudoscience is rampant and domineering.
Please witness the exemplary collaboration between theoretical physicists and experimentalists (https://scitechdaily.com/microscope-spacecrafts-most-precise-test-of-key-component-of-the-theory-of-general-relativity/#comment-854286). It is normal to make mistakes in scientific research, but what is abnormal is to stubbornly adhere to erroneous positions and not repent.
Let us continue to witness via facts the dirtiest and ugliest era in the history of sciences and humanities in human society. The laws of nature will not change due to misleading of certain so-called academic publications or endorsements from certain so-called scientific awards.
As some comments have stated ( https://scitechdaily.com/super-photons-unveiled-sculpting-light-into-unbreakable-communication-networks/#comment-861546 ): Fortunately, we have enough pieces to put the puzzle together properly, and there are folks who have chosen to forego today’s societal structures in order to do exactly that.
Additionally, some comments have stated ( https://scitechdaily.com/science-made-simple-what-is-nuclear-fission/#comment-862083 ): You have been spewing this type of nonsensical word salad for several years now. Outrage doesn’t equal competence. If anything, your inability to convince anyone is a sign of your incompetence. Ask the commenter：Today, so-called official (such as PRL, Nature, Science, PNAS, etc.) in physics stubbornly believes that two sets of cobalt-60 rotating in opposite directions can become two sets of objects that mirror each other, and it even won awards. These so-called academic publications blatantly talk nonsense, which is a public humiliation of the normal intellectual level of the public. Do you think this is human misfortune or personal misfortune?
Isn’t this the evil consequence of the Physics Review family misleading science? Academic circle is not Entertainment industry. Have some people really never know what shame is?