A 30-year “snapshot study” of birds in the Pacific Northwest is showing their surprising resilience in the face of climate change. The project started when School of Biological Sciences Assistant Professor Benjamin Freeman found a study by Louise Waterhouse detailing birds in the mountains near Vancouver three decades ago. What followed was an ecological scavenger hunt: Freeman revisited each of the old field sites, navigating using his local knowledge and Waterhouse’s hand-drawn maps.

Freeman, who grew up in Seattle, mainly studies the ecology of tropical birds — but the discovery of Waterhouse’s paper made him curious about research closer to home. The results were surprising: over the last three decades, most of the bird populations in the region were stable and had been increasing in abundance at higher elevations.

The study, “Pacific Northwest birds have shifted their abundances upslope in response to 30 years of warming temperatures” was published in the journal Ecology this fall. In addition to lead author Freeman, the team also included Harold Eyster (The Nature Conservancy), Julian Heavyside (University of British Columbia), Daniel Yip (Canadian Wildlife Service), Monica Mather (British Columbia Ministry of Water, Lands and Resource Stewardship), and Waterhouse (British Columbia Ministry of Forests, Coast Area Research).

“It is great news that most birds in the region are resilient, and by doing this work, we can focus on the species that do need help, like the Canada Jay, which is struggling in this region,” Freeman says. “Studies like this help us focus resources and effort.”

Songbirds and snow

Conducting the fieldwork was a detective game, Freeman says. Each day, he would wake up at four in the morning to locate and visit the research areas — often navigating trails, open forest, and rough terrain on foot.

This area of the Pacific Northwest is punctuated with old-growth stands of trees — sections of forest that have never been logged or altered. “These areas feel like islands,” Freeman shares. “They feel ancient and untouched, but even in pristine habitats, birds are still responding to climate change.”

Most of the work was conducted during the birds’ breeding season, from late May into June. This is when the birds are most vocal, which is ideal for surveys, Freeman says. The downside? Even in June, there is often snow in the mountains. “I was out at dawn, hiking through snow in the freezing cold, wondering why I didn’t stay in bed,” he recalls. “But then I’d hear birds singing all around me and realize it was all worth it.”

Upward expansion — and resilience

By comparing the two “snapshots,” the team showed that while temperatures have increased over the last 30 years, most bird populations in the region haven’t declined — but they have become more abundant at higher elevations. “It’s encouraging,” Freeman says. “Thirty years of warming has led to changes, but for the most part, these bird populations are mostly stable or improving.”

One reason for this resilience could be the stability that old growth forests provide, and Freeman suggests that conserving wide swaths of mountain habitat might help birds thrive as they continue to adapt, while still supporting populations at lower elevations. The study also helps identify which bird species need additional support, like the Canada Jay — a gray and white bird known for following hikers in pursuit of dropped snacks.

It’s just one piece of Freeman’s larger research goal — he aims to do this type of snapshot research in many different places to identify general patterns, especially differences in temperate versus tropical environments.

“In the tropics, most bird species are vulnerable, with only a few resilient species. In the Pacific Northwest, we saw the opposite,” he says. “A pattern is emerging: temperate zones show more resilience, tropics more vulnerability.” 

Freeman is also conducting research with a group of students in Northern Georgia. “We predict that these Appalachian birds will be resilient as well,” he says, “but we need to study and understand what’s happening in nature — not just make predictions.”

 

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/ecy.70193

Funding: Packard Foundation

Cryptocurrency continues to reshape the financial landscape. As cryptocurrency moves from niche to mainstream, companies are grappling with how to account for these volatile digital assets. New research from Scheller College of Business accounting professor Robbie Moon, and his co-authors Chelsea M. Anderson, Vivian W. Fang, and Jonathan E. Shipman, sheds light on how U.S. public companies have navigated crypto holdings and accounting practices over the past decade.
 

ASU 2023-08, the Financial Accounting Standards Board’s (FASB) newly enacted rule, aims to bring clarity and consistency to crypto asset reporting with the mandate for fair value reporting. Moon’s research, which examined a comprehensive set of companies from 2013 to 2022, looks at the exponential rise in corporate crypto investments and the diverse, and often inconsistent, ways firms have reported them.

In “Accounting for Cryptocurrencies,” Moon and his co-authors work to better understand this pivotal point in financial reporting with research that dives into why firms hold crypto – whether for mining, payment acceptance, or investment – and how reporting practices have evolved to meet this current moment.

Keep reading to learn more about Moon’s research and why it matters right now.

Why do companies hold cryptocurrencies, and how has this changed over time?

Companies hold cryptocurrency for three main reasons: they mine it, they accept it as payment, or they consider it an investment. Early on, most businesses kept crypto because customers used it to pay for goods and services. Around 2017, that trend declined, and more companies began mining crypto themselves. Today, mining accounts for about half of corporate crypto holdings, while payment acceptance and investment make up the rest.

What were the main challenges companies face when trying to report cryptocurrency holdings in their financial statements?

Until the end of 2023, there were no official rules on how companies should report cryptocurrency on their financial statements. Back in 2018, the Big Four accounting firms (Deloitte, PwC, EY, and KPMG) stepped in with guidance, suggesting that crypto be treated like intangible assets, similar to things like patents or trademarks. This is known as the impairment model.

What is the difference between the “fair value model” and the “impairment model” for accounting crypto assets, and why does it matter?

The two accounting methods differ in how they handle changes in crypto value. The fair value model updates the value of a company’s crypto to match current market prices every reporting period. If the price goes up or down, the change shows up on the company’s income statement as a gain or loss.

The impairment model only lets companies record losses when the value drops below what they paid. If the price goes up, they can’t record the increase.

The difference in the two approaches can best be seen when crypto prices rise. Under the impairment model, companies’ balance sheets understate the true value of the crypto since the gains cannot be recorded. The fair value model allows companies to adjust the balance sheet value of crypto as market prices change.

What factors led ASU 2023-08 to favor fair value reporting?

When the FASB was trying to decide if they should add crypto accounting to their standard setting agenda, they reached out to the public for feedback. The response was overwhelming and most practitioners and firms called for the use of the fair value model. 

How do big accounting firms, like Deloitte or PwC, influence how companies report their crypto holdings?

When there aren’t official rules for complex issues like crypto accounting, the Big Four firms often step in to guide companies. In 2018, they recommended using the impairment model, which they viewed as most appropriate based on existing standards. After that, most companies switched from fair value reporting to the impairment approach.

Their guidance in 2018 was based on what was allowed under the standards at that time. With the new rule in place, the firms will likely help clients manage the transition.

Does using fair value accounting for crypto make a company’s stock price more volatile or its earnings reports more useful to investors?

The primary downside of using a fair value model for a risky asset like crypto is how volatility affects earnings.  Moon’s research suggests that stock price volatility increases for firms using the fair value model, and it doesn’t appear the model makes earnings more useful for investors. That said, the results should be viewed cautiously because the study’s sample largely consisted of smaller companies.

Why does this research matter right now?

This research matters because more companies are investing in cryptocurrency. That trend is only expected to grow. This research looks at how businesses handled crypto before official rules came out in 2023, showing that many treated it like traditional investments. This provides a baseline against which future research can evaluate the new rule. The research also warns that the fair value approach could make stock prices more volatile without necessarily making earnings reports more useful for investors.
 
Read More: Accounting for Cryptocurrencies

When Maia Barrow was in sixth grade, a close relative was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis (MS). Seeing their cognitive decline sparked her interest in neuroscience. She chose to study at Georgia Tech so she could not only take classes in neuroscience but also do research in it. 

“I realized from the International Baccalaureate program in high school that I really liked research and writing about my findings, so I wanted to hit the ground running,” Barrow said. “A couple of the other schools I considered didn’t have as fully developed a program as Georgia Tech.”

Since her first year at the Institute, Barrow has worked in School of Psychology Professor Eric Schumacher’s cognitive neuroscience lab, where she is now the lab manager. Her experience enabled her to work in three other labs over three summers. These research opportunities prepared Barrow, now in her final semester, to apply for neuroscience Ph.D. programs. She hopes to study computational psychiatry, which applies basic neuroscience concepts to computational modeling, enabling better predictions and diagnoses of neurodegenerative disorders, like MS, and clinical disorders.

Barrow is one of more than 100 Georgia Tech undergraduates who conduct neuroscience research every year. They lend their perspective to nearly 70 labs across campus, which are often led by faculty in the Institute for Neuroscience, Neurotechnology, and Society (INNS).

Connecting Across Campus

Students work in labs in almost all seven of the Institute’s Colleges, but they can also conduct research at places like Emory University or the Shepherd Center. 

“Having the chance to engage in hands-on scientific discovery in a research laboratory is often a richer, deeper experience than a classroom,” said Schumacher, who also directs the undergraduate neuroscience program. “Making those discoveries is why scientists are interested in science, so giving undergraduates an opportunity to do that is critical for a successful program.”

Finding the right lab is paramount in this process. As director of undergraduate research in neuroscience, Katharine McCann helps connect students to the right research opportunities, whether by emailing labs to see if there are openings or coordinating a networking night for students to meet researchers in labs.

“One of the reasons undergraduate neuroscience research is so robust at Georgia Tech is that there's neuroscience research happening in nearly every College on campus,” said McCann. “Most of our students are placed in the College of Sciences or the College of Engineering, but we have students who are in the College of Computing and the Ivan Allen College of Liberal Arts, too.” 

The undergraduate presence is just as much of a benefit to the lab, according to Schumacher. Often, these students bring a new outlook, as well as solid basic science skills that reinvigorate a lab’s energy. 

Embedding Research in Everything

Neuroscience is one of the most interdisciplinary majors on campus. Students take courses ranging from biology to computation, and because they gain both broad knowledge and deep research experience, neuroscience has become one of Georgia Tech’s fastest-growing majors. This combination prepares them for careers in science, technology, and even fields such as medicine and dentistry.

“For neuroscience, we require students to take chemistry, physics, math, and biology, so they’re well-rounded critical thinkers,” said Tim Cope, a professor in the School of Biological Sciences and Wallace H. Coulter Department of Biomedical Engineering. Cope previously ran the neuroscience undergraduate program and now directs the neuroscience and neurotechnology Ph.D. program. “Neuroscience is one of the most pressing societal topics right now. Not a day goes by in our lives that there's not something in the news about addiction, depression, or Parkinson’s, and these neuroscience students could be at the forefront of improving people’s lives.”

Building the Future of Neuroscience 

Fourth-year neuroscience student Lynn Kim joined biological sciences Professor Young-Hui Chang’s Comparative Neuromechanics Lab in her first year. She studied how the nervous system adapts to a novel gravity environment through a reduced gravity simulator that mirrors the body weight support system. For her thesis, she explored the role of vision in coordinating sense and motor function, analyzing changes in movements, muscle activity, and cognitive perception of gravity.

“I believe my projects will provide valuable insights to both neuroscience research and applied rehabilitation science, while preparing me to pursue a career dedicated to improving patient outcomes through research,” Kim said.

Georgia Tech leads in neuroscience research at every level. From students who are performing their first experiments to interdisciplinary institutes like INNS, Georgia Tech is building a neuroscience pipeline that starts early and runs deep.

If you know what diatoms are, it’s probably for their beauty. These single-celled algae found on the ocean floor have ornate glassy shells that shine like jewels under the microscope.

Their pristine geometry has inspired art, but diatoms also play a key role in ocean chemistry and ecology. While they are alive, these algae contribute to the climate by drawing down carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and releasing oxygen through photosynthesis, while fueling marine food webs.

Now, a team led by Georgia Tech scientists has revealed that diatoms leave a chemical fingerprint long after they die, playing an even more dynamic role in regulating Earth’s climate than once thought. 

In a study published in Science Advances, the researchers found that diatoms’ intricate, silica-based skeletons transform into clay minerals in as little as 40 days. Until the 1990s, scientists believed that this enigmatic process took hundreds to thousands of years. Recent studies whittled it down to single-digit years.

“We’ve known that reverse weathering shapes ocean chemistry, but no one expected that it happens this fast,” said Yuanzhi Tang, professor in the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences and senior author of the study. “This shows that the molecular-scale reactions can reverberate all the way up to influence ocean carbon cycling and, ultimately, climate.” 

From Glass to Clay

When a diatom dies, most of its silica skeleton dissolves on the seafloor, returning silica to the seawater. The rest can undergo reverse weathering — a process that transforms the silica into new clay minerals containing trace metals, while turning naturally sequestered carbon back to the atmosphere as sediments react with seawater. This recycling links silicon, carbon, and trace-metal cycles, influencing ocean chemistry and stabilizing the planet’s climate over time. 

Tang and her team set out to uncover how, and how quickly, reverse weathering happens. Using a custom-built, two-chamber reactor, they recreated seafloor conditions in the lab. One chamber held diatom silica, while the other contained iron and aluminum minerals. A thin membrane allowed dissolved elements to mix while keeping the solids separate.

Using advanced microscopy, spectroscopy, and chemical analyses, the researchers tracked the full transformation from the dissolution of diatom shells to the formation of new clays. 

The results were striking. Within just 40 days, the diatom silica became iron-rich clay minerals — the same minerals naturally found in marine sediments. 

Tang noted that this rapid transformation means that reverse weathering isn’t a slow background process, but rather an active part of the modern ocean’s chemistry. It can control how much silica stays available for diatoms to grow, how much carbon dioxide is released or stored, and how trace metals and nutrients are recycled in marine ecosystems.

“It was remarkable to see how quickly diatom skeletons could turn into completely new minerals and to decipher the mechanisms behind this process,” said Simin Zhao, the paper’s first author and a former Ph.D. student in Tang’s lab. 

 “These transformations are small in size but are enormous in their implications for global elemental cycles and climate,” she added. 

The results suggest that the influence of reverse weathering on the coupled silicon-carbon cycles may also respond on far shorter timescales, making the ocean’s chemistry more dynamic — and potentially more sensitive to modern environmental changes.

“Diatoms are central to marine ecosystems and the global carbon pump,” said Jeffrey Krause, co-author and oceanographer at the Dauphin Island Sea Lab and the University of South Alabama. “We already knew their importance to ocean processes while living.  Now we know that even after they die, diatoms’ remains continue to shape ocean chemistry in ways that affect carbon and nutrient cycling. That’s a game-changer for how we think about these processes.” 

The discovery also helps solve a long-standing mystery about what happens to silica in the ocean, Tang says. 

Scientists have long known that more silica enters the ocean than gets buried on the seafloor. The findings suggest that rapid reverse weathering transforms much of it into new minerals instead, keeping ocean chemistry in balance.

From Atoms to Earth Systems and Beyond

The findings offer new data for climate modelers studying how the ocean regulates atmospheric carbon. The research also lays the groundwork for improving models of ocean alkalinity and coastal acidification — key tools for predicting how the planet will respond to climate change. “This study changes how scientists think about the seafloor, not as a passive burial ground, but as a dynamic chemical engine,” Tang said. 

Tang sees the study as a powerful reminder of why basic research matters. “This is where chemistry meets Earth systems,” she said. “By understanding how minerals form and exchange elements at the atomic level, we can see how the ocean shapes global cycles of carbon, silicon, and metals. Even molecular-scale reactions within hair-sized organisms can ripple outward to shape planet-level dynamics.” 

The team’s next steps are to explore how environmental factors such as water chemistry influence these transformations. They also plan to use samples from coastal and deep-sea sites to see how these lab discoveries translate to natural environments.

“It’s easy to overlook what’s happening quietly in marine sediments,” Tang said. “But these subtle mineral reactions are part of the machinery that regulates Earth’s climate, and they’re faster and more beautiful than we ever imagined.”

 

Citation: Simin Zhao et al., Rapid transformation of biogenic silica to authigenic clay: Mechanisms and geochemical constraints. Sci. Adv. 11, eadt3374 (2025).

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.adt3374

Funding: National Science Foundation (OCE-1559087; OCE-1558957)