Sydney’s popular Coogee beach has been closed until further notice after hundreds of strange black balls washed up on the shoreline.

The balls were discovered on Tuesday afternoon. The local authority, Randwick City Council, says samples have been collected for testing, and the incident has been reported to the Environment Protection Authority and Beachwatch NSW.

A council spokesperson said the debris may be “tar balls” formed when oil comes into contact with debris and water – typically the result of oil spills or seepage.

I am a senior research scientist at CSIRO, specialising in environmental toxicity. While the objects could be tar balls, in my view, it is also possible they are something else. But in any case, the debris poses a potential risk to marine life and the public, and authorities were right to close the beach.

What are tar balls?

Tar balls are typically dark, sticky blobs found on beaches after an oil spill. They occur when oil comes into contact with the ocean’s surface and becomes weathered by wind and waves. This breaks the oil patches into smaller pieces.

Tar balls usually form in a variety of shapes and sizes – ranging from big, flat pancakes to tiny spheres. The image below shows a typically irregular tar ball that washed up on an island in the United States.

On this basis, I am not certain the pieces of debris found at Coogee are tar balls. They certainly might be. I haven’t seen them in person, but from the publicly available images, the objects appear to be relatively uniform, perfectly round shapes. That would be very unusual for tar balls – but not impossible.

The balls could be plastic debris washed off a container ship, such as squash balls or plastic used in manufacturing. But obviously, we have to wait until tests have been conducted on the objects before we can determine their origin and composition.

And finally, the balls appear to have washed up only at Coogee beach. It would be uncommon for oil spill remnants to drift to a single location unless the spill happened very close to shore.

What are the potential harms?

Whatever the objects are, they could pose a hazard to marine life.

If the objects are sticky or oily, they may coat animals that come into contact with them. An animal that ate the objects may also be harmed. The balls would be difficult to digest and might stay in the animal’s stomach for a long time, preventing it from eating other food.

If the objects are in fact tar balls, this is dangerous to animals because oil can be carcinogenic.

What should be done?

Every precaution should be taken until we know exactly what these mysterious objects are.

Authorities are doing the right thing in keeping people away from the beach as the cleanup and testing continue. The public should heed official advice not to enter the beach and especially, not to touch the spheres.

At this stage, it appears no other beach is affected, so there are plenty of other nearby options for beach-lovers.

In the meantime, we should let the forensic scientists and other experts do their job.

Sharon Hook, Principal Research Scientist, CSIRO

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

The Australian government has committed A$95 million to fight a virulent strain of bird flu wreaking havoc globally.

With the arrival of millions of migratory birds this spring, there is an increased risk of a deadly strain arriving in Australia, known as highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) H5N1.

Australia is the only continent free of this rapidly spreading strain. Overseas, HPAI H5N1 has been detected in poultry, wild birds and a wide range of mammals, including humans. But our reprieve will likely not last forever.

As Environment Minister Tanya Plibersek warned on Monday, “the awful reality of this disease is that – like the rest of the world – we will not be able to prevent its arrival”. HPAI H5N1 is like nothing we’ve seen in Australia. The extra funding, which is in addition to Australia’s current biosecurity budget, will help us prepare and respond.

A trail of destruction

Avian influenza is a virus that infects birds, but can infect other animals.

In Australia we have various strains of avian influenza that don’t cause disease, referred to as low pathogenic avian influenza. While these viruses occur naturally Australian wild birds, it is the disease-causing strains, such as HPAI H5N1 and HPAI H7 we are worried about. These HPAI strains have enormous consequences for wild birds, domestic animals, and animal producers and workers.

HPAI H5N1 first emerged in Asia in 1996, and has been circulating in Asian poultry for decades. Following genetic changes in the virus, it repeatedly jumped into wild birds in 2014, 2016 and again in 2020, after which it caused an animal pandemic, or panzootic.

Starting in 2021, the virus rapidly spread. First, from Europe to North America in 2021. Then into South America in 2022. There, in South America, the virus caused the death of more than 500,000 wild birds and 30,000 marine mammals.

While we had seen large outbreaks in wild birds globally, the huge outbreaks in seals and sea lions in South America was unprecedented. With this came substantial concern that the virus was spreading from mammal to mammal, rather than just bird to bird or bird to mammal, as was happening elsewhere.

About a year after arriving in South America, the virus was detected in the sub-Antarctic, and a few months later, on the Antarctic Peninsula.

Australia and New Zealand are still free of the virus, for now.

The rising death toll

Beyond wildlife, HPAI H5N1 is having a huge impact on poultry.

In 2022 alone, it caused 131 million poultry across 67 countries to die of the illness or be euthanased because they were infected.

In contrast, earlier this year Australia’s biggest avian influenza outbreak to date – caused by a different strain, HPAI H7 – caused the death or destruction of 1.5 million chickens. That’s a drop in the bucket compared to what is occurring globally.

Concerningly, in the United States, the virus has jumped into dairy cattle and so far has affected more than 200 dairy herds in 14 states. It has also jumping into humans: in the past ten days alone, six human cases have occurred – all in dairy workers in California.

Given HPAI H5N1 has spread around the globe, the risk of the virus entering Australia has increased.

In a recent risk assessment, my colleague and I identified two main pathways for H5N1 into Australia.

The most likely route is that H5N1 is brought in from Asia by long-distance migratory birds. Birds such as shorebirds and seabirds arrive in the millions each spring from Asia (and in some cases as far away as Alaska).

A second route is with ducks. If the virus spreads across the Wallace Line (a biogeographical boundary that runs through Indonesia), it will come into contact with endemic Australian duck species.

Unlike shorebirds and seabirds, ducks are not long-distance migrants, and don’t migrate between Asia and Australia. That endemic Australian ducks are not exposed to this virus because they don’t migrate to Asia may be one of the reasons why H5N1 has not yet arrived in Australia.

So, what’s the plan?

The Australian government’s new $95 million funding commitment is a crucial response to the heightened level of risk, and the dire consequences if H5N1 entered the country.

The funding is divided between environment, agriculture and human health – the three pillars of the “One Health” approach.

Broadly, the money will be spent on:

• enhancing surveillance to ensure timely detection and response if the disease enters and spreads in animals within Australia

• strengthening preparedness and response capability to reduce harm to the production sector and native wildlife

• supporting a nationally coordinated approach to response and communications

• taking proactive measures to protect threatened iconic species from extinction

• investing in more pre-pandemic vaccines to protect human health.

Importantly, the funding covers preparedness, surveillance and response.

Preparedness includes proactive measures to protect threatened birds – for example, vaccination or reducing other threats to these species and improving biosecurity.

Surveillance is essential to catch the virus as soon as it arrives and track its spread. Australia already has a wild bird surveillance program which, among other things, investigates sick and dead wildlife as well as sampling “healthy” wild birds. The additional commitment will bolster these activities.

Response will include things like better and faster tests. It will also include funding for practical on-ground actions to limit the spread and impacts of HPAI H5N1 for susceptible wildlife. This might include a vaccination program for vulnerable threatened species, as an example.

Work has already begun

This funding is a long-term investment, and mostly allocated to future activities. In the short term, my colleagues and I have already begun our spring surveillance program.

We aim to test about 1,000 long-distance migratory birds arriving in Australia for avian influenza. Based on our risk assessments, we are focusing on long-distance migratory seabirds such as the short-tailed shearwater, and various shorebirds including red-necked stints, arriving from breeding areas in Siberia.

This surveillance program is supported by, and contributes to, the national surveillance program managed by Wildlife Health Australia

In addition to our active surveillance, we need your help! If you see sick or dead wild birds or marine mammals, call the Emergency Animal Disease Watch Hotline on 1800 675 888.

In addition, the Wildlife Health Australia website offers current advice for:

• people who encounter sick or dead wild birds

• vets and other animal health professionals

• bird banders, wildlife rangers and researchers

• wildlife managers and wildlife care providers, who can access risk mitigation toolboxes.

For more information, visit birdflu.gov.au or Wildlife Health Australia’s avian influenza page

Michelle Wille, Senior research fellow, The University of Melbourne

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

First Peoples’ names for animals and plants undeniably enrich Australian culture. But to date, few names taken from a language of Australia’s First Peoples have been widely applied to birds.

About 2,000 Australian bird species and subspecies occur in Australia and its territories. However, just 35 of these have common names taken directly from First Peoples’ languages. These names are variations of just a handful of First Peoples words: galah, gang-gang, budgerigar, currawong, brolga, kookaburra, chowchilla, Kalkadoon and mukarrthippi.

By contrast, many more bird names promote colonial power, by memorialising (mostly male) foreign explorers, naturalists, administrators or royalty – some of whom never even visited Australia.

There is growing interest in the use of First Peoples’ words, as a global movement to decolonise the common names of species gathers pace. But as we and our colleagues explain in a paper published today, the practice is far more complex, and sometimes contentious, than it might appear.

A bird by many names

In Aoteoroa/New Zealand, many birds are known by their Māori names. Kiwis have never been known by any other name, and nor have kākāpō or kākā.

It seems natural to assume using Indigenous names for our flora would help recognise First Peoples’ rights and knowledge, and their important role in Australian bird conservation.

But we should proceed with both caution and respect.

More than 250 First Peoples languages exist in Australia. This is unlike New Zealand where there is one Māori language (though many dialects).

Most Australian birds occur on Country of more than one First Peoples’ group, and each group is likely to have at least one name for each species.

The galah is a good example. For the first 100 years after Europeans arrived, naturalists most commonly used the name rose-breasted cockatoo.

Gradually, however, the name used by the Yuwaarlaraay of north-western New South Wales – gilaa – took hold. In 1926, the Royal Australasian Ornithologists Union, now BirdLife Australia, adopted a variant of this, galah, as the official Australian name for the species.

Since then, galahs have become deeply embedded into the national psyche. When Home and Away character Alf Stewart calls someone a “flamin’ galah” most Australians knows he is being uncomplimentary.

Similarly, there could be no mistaking which species a survey respondent was referring to when they stated their favourite bird was a “glar”.

But in the Kimberley region, the Gooniyandi peoples call galahs girlinygirliny. In the NSW Riverina, the Wemba-Wemba name is wilek-wilek.

Likewise, the white-throated grasswren is known by the name yirlinkirrkkirr or yirrindjirrin in the Kunwinjku dialect. It’s also known as djirnidjirnirrinjken in the Kune dialect, from the Bininj Kunwok language group. The Jawoyn name for the same species is nyirrnyirr.

The situation is even more complicated for birds shared with other countries.

These multiple words for a species mean governments and other organisations could be seen as favouring one group over another if they recognise a particular First Peoples’ name.

So sometimes it’s best to keep the English name, even though First Peoples’ names exist. This was the case with the endangered golden-shouldered parrot, known by Queensland’s Olkola people as alwal.

The bird is highly significant in the Olkola creation story. However, a team working on the species’ recovery, chaired by an Olkola representative, decided to stick with the English name because neighbouring language groups refer to the bird by other names.

Sadly, the parrots themselves no longer occur on the Country of some First Peoples, and only the name of the bird remains.

Protecting the secret and sacred

The words First Peoples use to describe species may have special cultural significance.

First Peoples’ names for birds, and other species, are often built around the birds’ relationships with people, kin and with Country. For example, the name may describe:

• a connection between a person and a species
• a group of people’s relationship with each other which is related to a shared ancestor
• relationships between people and a sacred site or Dreaming track.

Sometimes the names have sacred or secret meanings – and these can change with the place or with the speaker.

For these reasons, First Peoples may not want names from their language to be publicly available or used in official documents without their consent.

Permission is key

There are cases where English names should and can be replaced by a First Peoples’ name.

For example, in 2020 the bird now known as the mukarrthippi grasswren was recognised as a separate subspecies and needed its own common name. Australia’s rarest bird, it is known from just a few sand dunes on Country of the Ngiyampaa people in western New South Wales.

Ngiyampaa elders together settled on the name mukarrthippi. It is a combination of Ngiyampaa words – mukarr or spinifex (the spiny grass in which the grasswrens live) and thippi which means little bird.

Across Australia, 14 other bird subspecies have only ever been known from Country of a single First Peoples group. This means conversations with elders could be had about ascribing a First Peoples’ name to these birds.

In other cases, language users from multiple First Peoples groups could decide together on a name.

Where First Peoples offer alternative names for animal and plant species, governments should embrace the change. But no new First Peoples’ names should be adopted for species without explicit permission of the speakers of the language.

Stephen Garnett, Professor of Conservation and Sustainable Livelihoods, Charles Darwin University and Sophie Gilbey, Research Projects Officer, Environment Research Unit, CSIRO

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Bottlenose dolphins in Sarasota Bay in Florida and Barataria Bay in Louisiana are exhaling microplastic fibers, according to our new research published in the journal PLOS One.

Tiny plastic pieces have spread all over the planet – on land, in the air and even in clouds. An estimated 170 trillion bits of microplastic are estimated to be in the oceans alone. Across the globe, research has found people and wildlife are exposed to microplastics mainly through eating and drinking, but also through breathing.

Our study found the microplastic particles exhaled by bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) are similar in chemical composition to those identified in human lungs. Whether dolphins are exposed to more of these pollutants than people are is not yet known.

Why it matters

In humans, inhaled microplastics can cause lung inflammation, which can lead to problems including tissue damage, excess mucus, pneumonia, bronchitis, scarring and possibly cancer. Since dolphins and humans inhale similar plastic particles, dolphins may be at risk for the same lung problems.

Research also shows plastics contain chemicals that, in humans, can affect reproduction, cardiovascular health and neurological function. Since dolphins are mammals, microplastics may well pose these health risks for them, too.

As top predators with decades-long life spans, bottlenose dolphins help scientists understand the impacts of pollutants on marine ecosystems – and the related health risks for people living near coasts. This research is important because more than 41% of the world’s human population lives within 62 miles (100 km) of a coast.

What still isn’t known

Scientists estimate the oceans contain many trillions of plastic particles, which get there through runoff, wastewater or settling from the air. Ocean waves can release these particles into the air.

In fact, bubble bursts caused by wave energy can release 100,000 metric tons of microplastics into the atmosphere each year. Since dolphins and other marine mammals breathe at the water’s surface, they may be especially vulnerable to exposure.

Where there are more people, there is usually more plastic. But for the tiny plastic particles floating in the air, this connection isn’t always true. Airborne microplastics are not limited to heavily populated areas; they pollute undeveloped regions, too.

Our research found microplastics in the breath of dolphins living in both urban and rural estuaries, but we don’t yet know whether there are major differences in amounts or types of plastic particles between the two habitats.

How we do our work

Breath samples for our study were collected from wild bottlenose dolphins during catch-and-release health assessments conducted in partnership with the Brookfield Zoo Chicago, Sarasota Dolphin Research Program, National Marine Mammal Foundation and Fundación Oceanogràfic.

During these brief permitted health assessments, we held a petri dish or a customized spirometer – a device that measures lung function – above the dolphin’s blowhole to collect samples of the animals’ exhaled breath. Using a microscope in our colleague’s lab, we checked for tiny particles that looked like plastic, such as pieces with smooth surfaces, bright colors or a fibrous shape.

Since plastic melts when heated, we used a soldering needle to test whether these suspected pieces were plastic. To confirm they were indeed plastic, our colleague used a specialized method called Raman spectroscopy, which uses a laser to create a structural fingerprint that can be matched to a specific chemical.

Our study highlights how extensive plastic pollution is – and how other living things, including dolphins, are exposed. While the impacts of plastic inhalation on dolphins’ lungs are not yet known, people can help address the microplastic pollution problem by reducing plastic use and working to prevent more plastic from polluting the oceans.

Leslie Hart, Associate Professor of Public Health, College of Charleston and Miranda Dziobak, Instructor in Public Health, College of Charleston

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

If you notice a tiny, strikingly coloured spider performing an elaborate courtship dance, you may have seen your first peacock spider.

New species of peacock spider are discovered every year; the tally is now 113. One newly discovered species, Maratus yanchep, is only known to exist in a small area of coastal dunes near Yanchep, north of Perth.

As Perth’s suburbs sprawl ever further north and south, it means one problem – the housing crisis – is worsening another, the extinction crisis.

The dunes which are home to Maratus yanchep are just 20 metres from land being cleared for large new estates.

If the species was formally listed as threatened, it could be protected. But the spider was only described in 2022 and has not been listed on state or federal threatened species lists. That means Maratus yanchep has no protection, according to the state government.

What’s so special about a spider?

Peacock spiders are tiny. Many have bodies just 4–5 mm across. The males only put on their mating displays during short periods of the year, typically August to September. Their size and habits also make it hard to learn about their populations and preferred habitats. This is partly why we’re only now realising how many peacock spider species there are.

Concerted effort by enthusiasts such as Jurgen Otto has greatly expanded our knowledge. Of the 113 described species, each has distinctive colouring and its own dances (males have the colour and the moves). But we know there are more species of peacock spider waiting to be recognised by western science.

Many species of peacock spider are only known from within a very small area of suitable habitat.

This puts the species at high risk of extinction because a single threat such as a large bushfire or a suburban development can destroy all their habitat at once.

How can this be allowed?

Before any native bushland is cleared in Australia, developers have to undertake an environmental impact survey to look for threatened species and assess what damage the development would do. If a threatened species is found, the development can be scaled back or denied.

The problem is, these surveys only look for species known to be in danger. If a species isn’t listed on Australia’s growing list of threatened species, it won’t be looked for.

But Maratus yanchep has not been assessed to see if it is threatened. This means it has no protection from development.

This points to a wider problem. Large, well-known Australian vertebrates such as koalas and platypuses tend to get more attention – and conservation efforts – than humble invertebrates. We face an uphill battle to conserve our wealth of invertebrates.

Worldwide, many invertebrates are in real danger of disappearing. Australia is home to at least 300,000 invertebrate species, dwarfing the 8,000-odd vertebrates – but only 101 are currently listed under the federal government’s laws protecting threatened species, the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Act. The problem here is we don’t have enough data to assess most invertebrate species for formal conservation listing and protection.

Data takes money

Listing a species as threatened requires a large amount of data on where the species is and isn’t found. This takes time and specialist knowledge. But funding is scarce.

As a result, our efforts to gather data on invertebrates often relies on passionate volunteers and enthusiasts, who may often pick one genus – say peacock spiders – and set out to expand our knowledge.

When clear and immediate threats do appear – such as clearing coastal dunes in Yanchep – we are again reliant on the unpaid work of volunteers to gather information.

The problem of sprawl

Perth is one of the longest cities in the world. Its suburbs sprawl for 150 kilometres, running from Two Rocks in the north to Dawesville in the south.

Many Perth residents want to live by the coast, driving demand for new housing on the city outskirts. This drives destruction of native bushland and pushes species towards extinction. Some species tolerate the change from bushland to suburbia, but these are a minority – less than 25%. Small, localised species are at highest risk of extinction.

Perth’s sprawl shows no sign of slowing. Land clearing for housing has contributed to the worsening plight of the Carnaby’s cockatoo. Fifty years ago, the iconic cockatoo flew over the city in flocks as large as 7,000. There’s nothing like that now.

What can we do?

Efforts are underway to protect Maratus yanchep. The not-for-profit charity Invertebrates Australia is working to nominate it for the International Union for Conservation of Nature’s Red List of Threatened Species. Greens MP Brad Pettitt raised the issue in Parliament in August.

The one thing peacock spiders have going for them is their looks. They are spectacularly beautiful. They’re also easily identified by the distinct patterns on the males – for most species you don’t need expert training to tell them apart, just decent eyesight.

As a result, peacock spiders have drawn attention from dozens of amateur arachnologists and photographers who collect and share information on where they can be found. This citizen science data is often able to be used as evidence in listing a species as threatened – and unlocking vital protection.

Images of these spiders also boosts their public profile and support for their protection.

Despite the recent groundswell of interest in saving this tiny spider, it may be too late. To avoid the mass extinction of iconic Australian species, we must find better ways of building without large-scale habitat clearing.

Lizzy Lowe, Vice Chancellor's Research Fellow in Ecology and Entomology, Edith Cowan University; Jess Marsh, Visiting researcher in ecology, University of Adelaide, and Leanda Denise Mason, Vice Chancellor Research Fellow in conservation ecology, Edith Cowan University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

The contest between truth and post-truth matters when trying to solve big public policy questions. One of these questions is how to sustainably manage water in Australia for the benefit of all.

Truths can be confirmed or, at the very least, can be proved false. Post-truths, however, are opinions that masquerade as facts and are not supported by verifiable evidence.

Post-truths muddy political and policy debates. They leave everyday people simply not knowing what to believe anymore. This prevents good policy being enacted.

As I outline in a speech to the National Press Club today, several post-truths, espoused by a wide range of people and organisations, are getting in the way of Australian water reforms. These reforms are essential to secure a better water future for the driest inhabitable continent.

Water policy in Australia is now at a crucial juncture. This year is the 20th anniversary of the National Water Initiative that was meant to lay the foundations for sustainable water management. The completion date of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan, accompanied by billions of dollars in funding, is just two years away.

Yet the so-called “water wars” are raging again. Here are five post-truth claims to watch out for.

1. Water buybacks to sustain rivers harm communities

The Australian government buys water rights from willing sellers to return water to the environment. These buybacks have been controversial and blamed, with little evidence, for causing many farmers to become distressed and bankrupt, and to leave farming.

It’s true some irrigators are opposed to buybacks and prefer subsidies to build more efficient irrigation infrastructure on their properties.

But converting state water licences to a system of tradeable water rights gifted irrigators rights now worth tens of billions of dollars. In return, the government was supposed to buy back enough water from willing sellers to return rivers to health.

But insufficient water has been bought back from irrigators, for a couple of reasons.

First, the federal budget for buybacks was much less than needed to reduce irrigators’ water use to sustainable levels.

Second, the Abbott government capped buybacks in 2015. Its justification was the post-truth claim, based on “low quality” consultant reports, that buybacks were “destroying” irrigation communities.

The truth is, buybacks from willing sellers are much more cost-effective than taxpayer-subsidised irrigation infrastructure. Research shows infrastructure subsidies give irrigators an incentive to use even more water.

And there is robust evidence that, overall, the net social and economic impacts of water buybacks are positive. They give sellers the flexibility to adjust their farming practices in ways that are best for them.

2. Efficient irrigation ‘saves’ water and increases stream flows

Australia’s irrigation industry, in general, uses water efficiently. It’s a result of many practices, ranging from drip irrigation to covered water channels to digital monitoring technology, among other things.

However, spending on irrigation efficiencies has not saved much water.

Landholders have been paid billions of dollars for efficiency improvements. These same taxpayer dollars, paradoxically, may have reduced stream flows in some of our largest rivers. That’s because more efficient irrigation can decrease the amount of water flowing from farmers’ fields to rivers and aquifers.

3. Australia has world-best water management

Australia has one of the world’s largest formal water markets. But that doesn’t mean everyone benefits.

For a start, the water markets are unjust. First Peoples, who were dispossessed of their land and water from 1788 onwards, still have only a tiny share of Australia’s water rights.

In key areas, Australian water management is also far from best practice. For example, building weirs and dams has partly or completely disconnected groundwater from surface water and prevented or restricted the water flows to floodplains and wetlands that keep them healthy.

Fish, bird and invertebrate habitats have been destroyed as a result. This must change if we are to avoid further degradation of river ecosystems.

There is no more obvious sign of the ongoing destruction of Australia’s waterways than the fish kills along the Baaka (Lower Darling River) at Menindee. This happened in 2018–19, during a drought, and again in early 2023, when there was no drought.

The New South Wales Office of the Chief Scientist and Engineer investigated the 2023 fish kill. Its report found:

Mass fish deaths are symptomatic of degradation of the broader river ecosystem over many years […] failure in policy implementation is the root cause of the decline in the river ecosystem and the consequent fish deaths.

4. All Australians have reliable access to good-quality water

It’s true that residents of Australia’s biggest cities and towns enjoy reliable, good-quality water supplies 24/7. But it’s also true that hundreds of thousands of Australians in rural and remote areas regularly face multiple drinking water threats.

These threats result in temporary public advice notices to boil water to remove microbiological pollution and health warnings about contaminants that boiling cannot remove, such as nitrates. A few dozen communities have elevated levels of the “forever chemicals”, PFAS, in their tap water.

5. Dams can ‘drought-proof’ Australia

It’s true that dams have helped Australia cope with variable rainfall from year to year. It’s also true, however, that despite building very large water storages in the 20th century, too much water is being diverted in multiple places. They include the Murray–Darling Basin, Australia’s “food bowl”.

Australia is over-extracting the available water in its dams. It’s happening in the northern Murray-Darling Basin, where there is little control over how much overflow from rivers onto floodplains can be taken.

Over-extraction is a big problem, especially during long droughts when there may be very little water to spare. It means the livelihoods of downstream irrigators with perennial plantings, such as grapes or fruit trees, are at stake. If their trees die, so do their businesses.

A sustainable future must be built on facts

Responding to Australia’s water crises is a huge challenge. It’s made even more difficult if we accept the post-truth claims, rather than verifiable facts about how we manage our waters.

Real reform is needed to secure a sustainable Australian water future. To achieve this, we must tell the truth, acknowledge what’s wrong and be clear about what works and what doesn’t.

Quentin Grafton, Australian Laureate Professor of Economics, Crawford School of Public Policy, Australian National University and John Williams, Adjunct Professor in Agriculture and Natural Resource Management, Charles Sturt University, and Adjunct Professor, Crawford School of Public Policy, Australian National University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

As humpback and southern right whales return to Antarctica at the tail end of their annual migration, east coast whale watchers may think the show will soon be over. But some whale species are still here, possibly year-round. And we need to find out more about them.

My team’s new research concerns one of these little-known species – the Bryde’s whale. You may have seen it feeding, breaching or surfing, without realising what it was.

My colleagues and I wanted to learn more about where Bryde’s whales can be found in Australian waters. So we tapped into observations shared on social media, including drone footage and photographs from whale-watching tours. We also gathered observations from scientists.

We discovered a wealth of information. It includes evidence of feeding and “surfing” behaviours possibly never documented before. Findings from this research will directly help inform conservation efforts to protect this species, which we still know so little about in Australian waters.

Observing whales through citizen science

Scientists can’t always be out in the field, or on the water. That’s why the data gathered by everyday people, known as “citizen scientists”, can be so useful. It captures valuable information about wildlife that can be used later by professional researchers.

Citizen science projects involving marine life have grown over recent years. They include people documenting humpback whale recovery by counting northward migrating humpback whales off Sydney, and people watching sharks off Bondi Beach via the @DroneSharkApp.

Hungry hungry whales

Like humpback whales, these giants are “baleen” whales, meaning they are toothless. But Bryde’s whales have a much pointier mouth and lack that famous hump.

A preference for warmer waters means Bryde’s whales are also known as tropical whales. They can be found in tropical or subtropical waters.

Around the world, Bryde’s whales have demonstrated interesting feeding behaviours, from high-speed seafloor chases to “pirouette feeding”.

Hanging out in shallow and deep waters

Our study documented Bryde’s whales feeding in both deep and shallow waters off the east coast of Australia, alone or sometimes with other whales.

We tapped into more than an hour of drone vision and more than 200 photos of Bryde’s whales shared by citizen scientists on social media platforms such as Facebook, Instagram and YouTube.

In offshore environments, Bryde’s whales were typically seen “side lunging” – where they propel themselves forward and turn onto their side then open their mouth to engulf their food. They also swam from below and scooped up their prey, much like humpback whales.

In shallow waters, Bryde’s whales were observed feeding directly within or behind the surf break.

We believe this is a new feeding behaviour for this species. We call it “shallow water surf feeding”.

Whales may be using the surf to assist with their feeding efforts, or, perhaps they are there because that’s where the bait fish are hanging out.

Regardless, it’s impressive to see such a large whale in the surf and in shallow waters.

Spotted: mums with their calves

We also documented mothers with calves. This indicates some parts of the Australian east coast could possibly serve as an important area for nursing mothers with their young. They could also be using these waters for calving.

We don’t yet fully understand the species’ movements around Australia, and whether they swim in New Zealand waters. For example, the world-famous white humpback whale Migaloo has been known to swim across the Tasman Sea.

Could these Bryde’s whales we see here in Australian waters be the same ones seen in New Zealand waters? Are they calving in New Zealand or Australia and moving between the two? If so, what does this mean for their protection?

Whales don’t recognise international boundaries. They go where they want, when they want. This is why collaborative research like this is important for our growing knowledge of this species.

The more we know, the better we can protect

This is the first dedicated paper on both the occurrence and feeding behaviour of Bryde’s whale in Australian waters.

As humans continue to expand our footprint in the ocean through activities such as offshore wind energy, shipping, fishing and tourism, knowledge of this species and others can help inform future decisions in our blue backyard.

Findings of this study will directly contribute to Australia’s efforts to protect whales. One immediate action will be contributing information to the federal review of Biological Important Areas for protected marine species. The more we know, the better we can target conservation efforts to provide for a species we know relatively little about in Australian waters.

And even though the humpbacks and southern rights are headed back south to Antarctica for the summer, it’s still worth keeping your eyes on the water. You might be the next person to spot a Bryde’s whale in Australian waters. Let us know if you do!

Vanessa Pirotta, Postdoctoral Researcher and Wildlife Scientist, Macquarie University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Queensland has joined Tasmania as the second Australian state or territory to offer a A$500 rebate for buyers of new e‑bikes. The pre-election announcement includes a smaller $200 rebate for e‑scooters.

The Queensland e‑mobility rebate scheme is first come, first served, until its $2 million budget ($1 million was added last week) is used up. The Tasmanian scheme has closed for this reason.

These schemes follow a trend of government incentives to buy e‑bikes in North America and Europe. The Australian schemes differ from most schemes overseas by including e‑scooters too.

It’s a welcome move to promote sustainable transport. These personal transport devices have smaller environmental footprints to produce and operate than electric cars. Owning e‑bikes or e‑scooters can enable people to drive less – reducing congestion and emissions – and avoid high fuel costs.

However, my research and other studies suggest ownership doesn’t guarantee much greater use. Additional measures will be needed to boost use of these sustainable transport modes.

Why own e-bikes or e-scooters when you can share?

The rebate is likely to boost retailers’ sales. More than 860 rebate applications were received within three days of the scheme starting on September 23.

And existing owners now have an incentive to upgrade or replace models. They might then sell their pre-loved e‑bikes or e‑scooters on the second-hand market. This means others could get them more cheaply.

Queensland was the first Australian state to legalise the use of e‑scooters in 2018, when Brisbane introduced shared e‑scooter operations. Regional cities such as Townsville and Cairns launched similar schemes. Dockless e‑bikes later replaced Brisbane’s initial CityCycle bike-sharing scheme.

I recently conducted research to understand why South-East Queensland residents want to own e‑scooters. The study methods were comparable to an earlier e‑bike user survey.

Both sets of owners cite replacing car use as their top reason for ownership. However, their motivations differ.

E‑scooter owners are mainly driven by the lower price and the fun factor of riding. E‑bike owners focus more on fitness and the health benefits of getting some exercise when riding. Australian regulations require e‑bikes to be pedal-assisted.

But does this mean people will ride more?

Since 2022, the Queensland government has offered a rebate of up to $6,000 for buying full-sized electric vehicles (that scheme closed last month). It now appears to have responded to calls to do the same for e‑bikes and e‑scooters.

Buyers certainly won’t mind freebies and rebates, but rebate-induced ownership might not increase overall use by much.

An Australia-wide survey in 2023 found 57% of respondents had access to at least one working bicycle at home and this proportion has been increasing. However, only 15% reported riding in the previous week. Only 36.7% had ridden in the past year.

Overall cycling participation has declined over the past decade, except during the COVID pandemic when work and travel patterns were more local. For all periods, men are significantly more likely to cycle than women.

The same 2023 survey revealed only about 2.1% own e‑bikes. The rebate will likely increase this rate in Queensland.

Some preliminary evidence suggests e‑bike users ride more often and further than those riding non-electric bikes. It also helps older people get into cycling. And it has the potential to replace car use even in rural areas.

Despite e‑bikes offering advantages over traditional bikes, riders of both face obstacles to greater use, such as road safety and poor cycling infrastructure.

What kinds of incentives do other countries offer?

Australian policymakers should consider offering incentives to ensure the new purchases are well used, not sitting idle most of the time.

The United Kingdom has a long-standing cycle-to-work scheme that offers commuters a tax exemption for buying bicycles or e‑bikes.

In the Netherlands, incentive schemes have used smartphone technology to track their mileage. For example, in the B-Riders scheme, riders earn €0.08–0.15 (A$0.13–0.21) per kilometre. There was a 68% increase in e‑bike use by former car commuters after one month and 73% increase after six months of participation.

Schemes in North America tend to be aimed at lower-income households. They are more likely to be involuntarily carless, so e‑bikes can improve their access to jobs, goods and services.

There are alternatives to rebates. North Vancouver, for example, is trialling e‑cargo bike lending to replace car shopping trips, as these bulky bikes are not practical for every household to own.

In France, residents can claim a bike or e‑bike subsidy of up to €2,000 (A$3,210). Second-hand devices sold by approved repairers are covered too, which is likely to help reduce e‑waste. Australian schemes so far only cover new purchases.

What more can be done?

For e‑bike and e‑scooter owners, the main barrier to riding more is the lack of safe and well-connected infrastructure. Numerous studies have connected rates of riding to the quality and quantity of infrastructure. Extensive, high-quality and safe cycling networks can deliver lasting shifts towards sustainable transport.

When the Spanish city of Seville built such networks, cycling rates surged 11-fold in a few years.

In the Netherlands, this infrastructure is so well-funded and extensive that it’s no surprise cycling is popular there.

Riders don’t just need bikeways. They also need end-of-trip facilities with secure parking (and maybe free charging too).

In Australia, cycling gets only around 2% of transport funding.

In Brisbane, despite not being anywhere close to the European level of cycling infrastructure, new “green bridges” and bikeways will be expanded to more areas of the city (and other Queensland venues). It’s part of preparations to host “climate-positive” Olympic and Paralympic Games in 2032. This year’s games host, Paris, successfully upgraded infrastructure and boosted cycling rates.

Another benefit of more riders on the streets is that it creates “safety in numbers”. Greater numbers would also help attract more funding for infrastructure that makes cycling and scooting safer and more attractive.

Both e‑bikes and e‑scooters are already worthwhile investments. Using them often would free yourself from car dependence – and that’s good for the planet and your wallet.

Abraham Leung, Senior Research Fellow, Cities Research Institute, Griffith University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Battery electric vehicle sales in Australia have flattened in recent months. The latest data reveal a sharp 27.2% year-on-year decline (overall new vehicle sales were down 9.7%) in September. Tesla Model Y and Model 3 cars had an even steeper drop of nearly 50%.

Sales also fell in August (by 18.5%) and July (1.5%). There’s a clear downward trend.

Before this downturn, electric vehicle sales had been rising steadily, supported by increased choices and government incentives. In early 2024, year-to-date sales continued to grow compared to the same period in 2023. Then, in April, electric vehicle sales fell for the first time in more than two years.

Australia isn’t simply mirroring a broader global trend. It’s true sales have slowed in parts of Europe and the United States — often due to reduced incentives. But strong sales growth continues in other regions, such as China and India.

A range of factors or combinations of them could help explain the trend in Australia. These include governments axing incentives, concerns about safety and depreciation, and misinformation.

Governments are cutting incentives

Electric vehicles typically cost more upfront. However, the flood of cheaper Chinese vehicles is lowering the cost barrier.

Federal, state and territory governments also provide financial incentives to buy electric vehicles. These have been among the main drivers of sales in Australia.

Nationally, incentives include a higher luxury car tax threshold and exemptions from fringe benefits tax and customs duty. But several states and territories have scaled back their rebate programs and tax exemptions in 2023 and 2024.

New South Wales and South Australia ended their $3,000 rebates on January 1 this year. At the same time, NSW ended a stamp duty refund for new and used zero-emission vehicles up to a value of $78,000. Both incentives had been offered since 2021.

Victoria ended its $3,000 rebate, also launched in 2021, in mid-2023.

In the ACT, the incentive of two years’ free registration closed on June 30 2024.

Queensland’s $6,000 electric vehicle rebate ended in September.

The market clearly responded to these changes. However, reduced financial incentives alone cannot explain the full picture. Despite several rounds of price cuts, sales of popular Tesla models are falling.

Buyers are increasingly opting for hybrid vehicles instead. In September, sales of hybrid and plug-in hybrid vehicles were up by 34.4% and 89.9%, respectively.

These sales trends reflect other consumer concerns beyond just the upfront cost.

Resale value worries buyers

One major issue for car buyers in Australia, and globally, is uncertainty about their resale value. Consumers are concerned electric vehicles depreciate faster than traditional cars.

These concerns are particularly tied to battery degradation, which affects a car’s range and performance over time. And batteries account for much of the vehicle’s total cost. Potential buyers worry about the long-term value of a used electric vehicle with an ageing battery.

For example, a 2021 Tesla Model 3 Standard Range Plus with nearly 85,000km currently lists for about $34,000. It has lost roughly half its value in just three years.

While Tesla offers transferable four-year warranties and software updates, the rapid evolution of EV technology also makes older second-hand models less desirable, further reducing their value.

Fires raise fears about safety

Electric vehicle fires have made headlines globally. This has created doubts among consumers about the risks of owning them.

In Korea, a high-profile battery fire in August 2024 led to a ban on certain electric vehicles from underground car parks. While similar bans are not common in Australia, some have been reported. These could have harmed local consumer confidence.

Incidents of electric vehicle fires have increased along with vehicle numbers. Statistically, these vehicles are not more prone to fires than conventional cars – in fact, the risk is clearly lower.

For example, analysis of publicly available statistics from South Korean government agencies, one of the early adopters of electric vehicles, show the number of fires per registered electric vehicle is steadily increasing. Fire risk remains lower than for traditional vehicles, although the gap is shrinking as the electric vehicle fleet ages. And the highly publicised nature of their fires is a source of growing buyer hesitancy.

Misinformation and politicisation are rampant

The full environmental benefits of electric vehicles depend on widespread adoption. However, there is a wide gap between early adopters’ experiences and potential buyers’ perceptions.

Persistent misconceptions include exaggerated concerns about battery life, charging infrastructure and safety. Myths and misinformation often fuel these concerns. Traditional vehicle and oil companies actively spread misinformation in campaigns much like those used against other green energy initiatives.

In response, coalitions such as Electric Vehicles UK have formed to combat these false narratives and promote accurate information.

The politicisation of green initiatives adds to the challenge. When electric vehicles become associated with a specific political ideology, it can alienate large parts of the population. Adoption then becomes slower and more divisive.

Green transition is a work in progress

The electric vehicle market in Australia is facing challenges, despite the growing variety of models and price cuts.

The EV sales trend signals deeper issues in the market. Broader trends, such as the dominance of SUVs and utes, underscore the fact that while the transition to greener vehicles is progressing, it remains uneven.

Further efforts will be needed to reduce misconceptions and misinformation, and bridge the gap between owners’ experience and potential buyers’ perceptions. Only then can Australia enjoy the environmental benefits of widespread EV adoption.

Milad Haghani, Senior Lecturer of Urban Analytics & Resilience, UNSW Sydney and Hadi Ghaderi, Professor in Supply Chain and Freight Innovation, Swinburne University of Technology

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Clusters of severe thunderstorms are expected to strike Australia’s southern regions over Thursday and Friday.

The Bureau of Meteorology has issued severe weather warnings and forecasts related to these unusually widespread stormy conditions as they move through South Australia today and into Victoria.

Some areas have already experienced golf ball-sized hail and intense winds.

While we might not always think of thunderstorms as a threat, severe storms can be surprisingly damaging. The enormous Sydney thunderstorm of 1999 dropped an estimated 500,000 tonnes of hail, causing widespread damage to cars and roofs. At the time, it was the most expensive natural disaster on record, overtaken only by the unprecedented 2022 floods across eastern Australia – which were themselves partly caused by severe thunderstorms in addition to other weather systems.

When severe thunderstorms bring torrential rain, they can often trigger flash flooding. This is because extreme rain from thunderstorms usually falls over a relatively short time – less than an hour or two in many cases. Lightning can also pose a threat.

In recent years, severe thunderstorms have also shown they can damage the power grid. In 2016, huge rotating supercell storms brought intense winds and at least seven tornadoes to South Australia, toppling transmission towers and causing a statewide blackout. Smaller thunderstorms caused major outages in Victoria in February this year after taking down six towers.

But what makes a thunderstorm “severe”?

The ingredients for a storm

What triggers thunderstorms? Climate scientists and meteorologists often talk about the ingredients necessary for thunderstorms.

To make a normal thunderstorm, you need to have a lot of moisture in the air. Then you need vertical instability in the atmosphere, meaning relatively warm moist air near the surface and very cold air above. You also need a mechanism to lift warmer surface air up to a level where the atmospheric instability can be released.

For a severe thunderstorm, you need all those ingredients and usually one more: vertical wind shear. This means that wind speeds and direction differ with height. For example, you might have strong northerly winds down low, and strong southerly winds up higher.

Vertical wind shear can make a run-of-the-mill thunderstorm much more intense, in a range of ways. For instance, wind shear can help warm updrafts stay separate from cold downdrafts and rainfall, which can help make the storm last longer.

If a thunderstorm has large hail, damaging wind gusts or could trigger a tornado or flash flooding, this makes it a severe thunderstorm, according to Bureau of Meteorology classification.

You might have also heard of supercell storms. These are convective thunderstorms, characterised by strong, rotating updrafts that last for a long time.

Forecasters can predict the potential for severe thunderstorms several days out by looking for moisture-laden air and winds. But predicting exactly where and when they might pop up is extremely challenging.

What’s unusual about these storms?

The storms this week are unusually widespread, with thunderstorms possible from Kalbarri in central Western Australia down through Esperance, across into South Australia, into Victoria and up through New South Wales and southern Queensland.

These conditions are due to a large-scale low pressure system moving west to east.

Ahead of the arrival of this low pressure system, winds from the north are bringing down moisture and instability and priming the system for thunderstorms. When air near the low pressure system begins to rise, energy from the warm, moisture-laden and unstable air can be released. This includes energy release due to condensation of water vapour. These rising air currents can travel several kilometres up into the atmosphere, even reaching the top of the troposphere, 10–15km up.

Severe thunderstorms in southern Australia are more likely in spring and summer. That’s because there’s plenty of moisture available from the tropics and the warm oceans around Australia, while low pressure systems and cold fronts can still emerge from the cold oceans to our south.

Thunderstorms, tornadoes and fire

Severe thunderstorms can also pack a hidden punch. They can trigger tornadoes in extreme cases.

In August, severe thunderstorms hit northern Victoria and triggered a tornado, a destructive whirling column of air that damaged houses and farms in the high country.

This surprised many people. It’s generally known that Australia has tropical cyclones in the north, intense tropical storms coming in off the sea, but not as well known to have tornadoes.

In fact, Australia does get tornadoes – an estimated 30–80 each year. In 2013, a total of 69 known tornadoes caused almost 150 injuries. Many of these tornadoes spin out of supercells.

In Australia’s hotter months, many fires burn around the country. Thunderstorms can make fires worse by bringing strong, warm northerly winds, often with rapid variations in speed and direction that can increase the rate of spread of a fire.

Firefighters and first responders dread these conditions. Australia’s most deadly bushfire was Black Saturday in 2009, which killed 173 people. One reason it was so dangerous was its suddenness. Intense northerly winds brought down powerlines and started fires, which were quickly whipped into intense firestorms, including thunderstorms generated in the fire plumes.

Will climate change bring more severe storms?

As the world heats up, more water is evaporating off warm sea surfaces and hanging in the air as water vapour. This means there’s more of this ingredient necessary to fuel severe thunderstorms and more intense rain from thunderstorms.

What we don’t know for certain yet is how prevailing air currents over Australia are changing. This could shift moisture to different regions, or affect other thunderstorm ingredients like vertical wind shear, instability, and lifting mechanisms. If circulation patterns do change, we could see severe storms develop in new areas, or different times of the year.

Andrew Brown, Research Fellow in Climate Science, The University of Melbourne and Andrew Dowdy, Principal Research Scientist in Extreme Weather, The University of Melbourne

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Islands have long intrigued explorers and scientists. These isolated environments serve as natural laboratories for understanding how species evolve and adapt.

Islands are also centres of species diversity. It has long been speculated that islands support exceptionally high amounts of global biodiversity, but the true extent was unknown until now.

In world-first research published in Nature today, my colleagues and I counted and mapped the diversity of plant life on Earth’s islands. We found 21% of the world’s total plant species are endemic to islands, meaning they occur nowhere else on the planet.

These findings are important. Island plants are at higher risk of extinction than those on mainlands. Detailed knowledge of plants species, and where they grow, is essential for monitoring and conserving them.

Mapping island floras worldwide

The study involved an international team of scientists. We developed an unprecedented database of vegetation information from more than 3,400 geographical regions worldwide, including about 2,000 islands.

The definition of an island is somewhat arbitrary. Conventionally, an island is a landmass entirely surrounded by water and smaller than a continent. This means Tasmania and New Guinea are islands, but mainland Australia – a continent in itself – is not. This is the definition we used.

We found 94,052 plant species, or 31% of the world’s total, are native to islands. Of these, 63,280 plant species, or 21%, only occur on islands.

Endemic species were concentrated on large tropical islands such as Madagascar, New Guinea and Borneo. On Madagascar alone, 9,318 plant species – 83% of its total flora – grow there and nowhere else.

Fewer plant species overall were found at ocean archipelagos such as Hawaii, the Canary Islands and the Mascarenes (east of Madagascar, including La Reunion and Mauritius). But a large share of their species were still unique to these islands.

Two palms are endemic to Australia’s Lord Howe Island – Howea forsteriana and H. belmoreana. They are one of the best-researched examples of “sympatric speciation”, or in other words, species that evolve from a common ancestor at the same location.

This mode of evolution has long been hypothesised to exist. But examples are rare, and highly useful for evolutionary research.

The Norfolk Island Pine (Araucaria heterophylla) is, of course, named after the tiny island where it is found. This species, while endangered in the wild, is now widely planted along Australia’s beaches where it is instantly recognisable to us.

Islands are of great conservation concern

Islands cover just 5.3% of the world’s land area, but contribute disproportionately to global biodiversity.

Island plants are at much greater risk of extinction than species found in mainland areas, for reasons such as:

• small population sizes
• unique evolutionary traits that make them vulnerable to invasive species such as herbivores
• specific habitat requirements
• habitat degradation
• threats from invasive plant and animal species
• climate change.

Some 57% of the island-endemic species we assessed are considered critically endangered, endangered, vulnerable, or near-threatened, according to the International Union for Conservation of Nature.

Alarmingly, 176 of plant species endemic to islands are already classified as extinct, accounting for 55% of all known extinct plant species globally. Among these is Hawaii’s vulcan palm (Brighamia insignis), which is now considered extinct in the wild. However, the species is popular as an ornamental plant and still survives in gardens.

Other species might be less lucky; extinction in the wild may mean being lost for ever.

So, assessing the conservation status of island floras is important. Under a globally agreed United Nations target, 30% of the world’s land and oceans should be protected by 2030. We calculated how much of global islands is conserved today. Disappointingly, only 6% of endemic plant species occur on islands that meet this target.

For instance, New Caledonia, Madagascar and New Guinea – known for their many endemic plant species – contain relatively low levels of protected areas.

Protecting our island plants

Urgent action is needed to protect island biodiversity. This includes expanding protected areas, prioritising regions with high numbers of endemic species, and implementing habitat restoration projects.

Without such measures, the unique floral diversity of islands may continue to decline, with potentially severe consequences for global biodiversity.

Much more research is needed to determined the best conservation strategies for all these plant species. Accurate data is vital to guide future conservation strategies and safeguard against further loss.

Our study also serves as a stark reminder of the urgent need for targeted plant conservation efforts on islands. Many species teeter on the brink of extinction, and time is running out to preserve this irreplaceable natural heritage.

Julian Schrader, Lecturer in Plant Ecology, Macquarie University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Nature loss directly threatens half the global economy. The rapid destruction of biodiversity should alarm the many Australian businesses dependent on nature, such as those in agriculture, tourism, construction and food manufacturing. Yet nature considerations are often ignored in business decision-making.

At the Global Nature Positive Summit in Sydney this week, scientists, politicians, conservationists and business leaders have gathered to discuss ways to help nature in Australia – not just by protecting it from damage, but improving it. Getting more businesses interested in – and taking positive action on – nature conservation is key to the talks.

Reducing the environmental impact of a business first requires measuring that impact. It might seem an impossibly difficult task. Nature is a diverse and intricate web of connections. How can we capture that in a number?

Nature is indeed complex – but measuring how a business intersects with it need not be.

Uncovering impacts on nature

The fishing industry depends directly on stocks of wild fish. And a housing developer has a direct impact on nature if they clear natural vegetation to build a new suburb.

Businesses interactions with nature can be indirect, too – for example, a margarine producer who uses canola oil from a grower who depends on bees for pollination. Builders might indirectly harm rainforests in Indonesia by buying timber grown there. A superannuation company investing in that developer is also having an indirect negative impact.

From next year, Australian companies will be required to measure and report their climate impacts. While businesses are not yet required to disclose their impacts on nature more broadly, many are moving in that direction – both in Australia and globally.

For example in 2022, more than 400 of the world’s largest corporations called for mandatory disclosure of nature impacts. They included Nestlé, Rio Tinto, L'Oréal, Sony and Volvo. And many early-adopter businesses have begun voluntary disclosures.

Guidelines are available to help businesses understand and measure their impacts, however progress is slow. This is partly due to a perception from business that the task is too complex.

Nature assessment is challenging. Unlike identifying a company’s contributions to climate change – by measuring tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions – there is no agreed single measure of impacts on nature.

What’s more, different people ascribe different values to aspects of nature. Rightly or wrongly, for instance, most people would probably value a koala over a mosquito.

Drawing on the expertise of ecologists

Despite the difficulties, gauging the extent to which a business affects the environment can be done. Essentially, it involves three steps:

1. understanding how a business broadly intersects with nature

2. evaluating how specific business activities intersect with and put pressure on nature

3. measuring and reporting the degree to which specific activities are impacting on the condition of nature. In other words, is the state of animals, plants and ecosystems improving or worsening?

Online tools such as ENCORE can get businesses started on the first step – understanding a business’ broad impacts and dependency on nature.

Many businesses are moving to the second stage - evaluating the specific business activities that put pressure on the environment, and determining the extent to which businesses depend on particular services ecosystems provide.

The pressure a business places on nature can be measured via specific metrics, such as the amount of water consumed, air pollutants emitted, waste generated or area of land changed. Again, a suite of online tools and metrics can help with this.

The next step is more complicated, yet essential. It requires businesses directly measuring their impacts on specific animals, plants and ecosystems. For this, we can turn to the expertise of ecologists.

Individuals of a species can be hard to count, and extinction risk can be hard to measure. So ecologists often describe and monitor a species’ habitat – the environments in which a species can survive and reproduce – as a proxy for the fate of the species itself.

Ecosystems – such as a rainforest, wetland or desert – can be described as being in good or poor condition. The rating depends on whether all the ecosystem’s plants, animals and other components are present, or whether unwanted components, such as weeds or invasive species, are found there.

In addition, maps, showing ecosystem condition and extent are available for much of Australia.

Habitat mapping is also available for most threatened animals and plants, and thousands of other species. And mapping exists for World Heritage areas, important wetlands, national parks, Indigenous Protected Areas and other environment types.

These resources are not difficult or expensive to access, and people and organisations with the skills to interpret and use such data are becoming more common.

Some businesses are attempting these measurements. For example, plantation forestry company Forico last year prepared a natural capital report on a range of nature metrics, including the extent of species habitats, and assessment of vegetation condition.

But many businesses are not yet grappling with this deeper nature analysis.

Looking ahead

We have the information and metrics to help businesses measure their impact on nature.

Collaboration is urgently needed between business and nature experts, so the data available can be tailored to the needs of businesses, and presented in a form they can use.

Governments can support this – for example by establishing accessible and practical online data platforms, and funding training for more nature experts who understand business.

A new federal government agency, Environment Information Australia, will also hopefully become an important hub for data and information.

By measuring what might seem immeasurable, businesses can become part of the solution to the nature crisis. There is cause for optimism – but no time to waste.

Brendan Wintle, Professor in Conservation Science, School of Ecosystem and Forest Science, The University of Melbourne; Sarah Bekessy, Professor in Sustainability and Urban Planning, Leader, Interdisciplinary Conservation Science Research Group (ICON Science), RMIT University; Simon O'Connor, Honorary Fellow, Melbourne Biodiversity Institute, The University of Melbourne, and William Geary, Lecturer in Quantitative Ecology & Biodiversity Conservation, The University of Melbourne

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

This week, Australia hosts the inaugural Global Nature Positive Summit in Sydney. It comes at a crucial time: biodiversity loss and ecosystem collapse is one of the biggest risks the world faces in the next decade.

The event, which begins tomorrow, brings together leaders from government, business, academia, environment groups and Indigenous Peoples. Together, they will seek ways to drive investment in nature and improve its protection and repair.

More than half the world’s economy directly depends on nature. Biodiversity loss threatens global financial stability, putting at least US$44 trillion (A$64 trillion) of economic value at risk.

Industries such as agriculture, fishing, forestry, tourism, water and resources rely heavily on nature. But ultimately, all of humanity depends on the natural world – for clean air, water, food, and a liveable climate.

In Australia significant investment is needed to reverse the decline in our natural environment. It will require action from governments, landholders and the private sector.

That’s why this week’s summit is so important. Nature conservation and restoration is expensive and often difficult. The task is beyond the capacity of governments alone.

What’s going on at the summit?

According to the World Economic Forum, “nature positive” is an economic worldview that goes beyond limiting environmental damage and aims to actually improve ecosystems.

Under the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, to which almost 200 countries have signed up, at least 30% of land and waters must be protected or restored by 2030. The summit is exploring ways to realise this global commitment, which is also known as the 30x30 target.

The federal and New South Wales governments are co-hosting the event.

Federal Environment Minister Tanya Plibersek will address the summit on day one, outlining her government’s Nature Positive Plan. It commits to the 30x30 target as well as “zero new extinctions”. Achieving these commitments involves environmental law reform, setting up a Nature Repair Market and establishing a national Environment Protection Agency.

Delegates are expected to demonstrate their commitment and progress towards the 30x30 goal. They will then turn to the main point of the summit: building consensus on the economic settings needed to increase private investment in nature.

Finance models and corporate partnerships are on the agenda, along with how to make this work, including how to measure, monitor and report on progress and manage risk.

Sessions will focus on specific sectors of the environment such as agriculture and farming, cities, oceans and forests. On Thursday, delegates will visit nature sites around Sydney.

Investing in a market for nature repair

Substantial co-investment from the private sector, including landholders, will be required to repair and protect nature at the scale required.

Market-based approaches can drive private investment in natural resources. But most existing environmental markets focus on water and carbon. A more holistic approach, including nature repair, is needed.

Australia’s Nature Positive Plan includes building a nature repair market. This world-first measure is a legislated, national, voluntary biodiversity market in which individuals and organisations undertake nature repair projects to generate a tradeable certificate. The certificate can be sold to generate income. Demand for certificates is expected to grow over time.

But the role the government will take remains unclear. For example, will the government both regulate market prices and decide what, in a scientific sense, amounts to repairing nature?

On day two, the summit explores how nature markets can unlock new sources of finance. We can expect this discussion to include ways carbon and biodiversity markets can work together: so-called “carbon-plus” outcomes.

For example, when landholders conserve vegetation, the plants can both draw carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and provide habitat for animals, preventing biodiversity loss. Markets could be designed so landholders are rewarded for achieving these dual results.

Significant economic returns

Under optimistic estimates, the global nature-positive transition will unlock business opportunities worth an estimated US$10 trillion (almost A$15 trillion) a year and create 395 million jobs by 2030.

The potential benefits for Australia are also substantial. They include benefits to nature such as restoring habitat for wildlife, while storing carbon. It can also provide returns for agriculture, by improving land value, yield and quality.

A strong nature-positive stance from Australia will also help safeguard our access to global markets. For example, the European Union has already established trade barriers to imports that damage forests. This could have serious consequences for the Australian beef industry.

So the potential benefits have to be weighed against the risks of not doing anything. The summit is a chance to get a wide range of people on board, working towards a shared vision of a more positive future.

It’s time for a nature-positive mindset

The Albanese Labor government came to power promising to overhaul Australia’s national environment laws, following a scathing independent review.

When the summit was conceived, the government may have envisaged having cause for celebration by now. But some proposed reforms stalled in the Senate.

Nonetheless, the Nature Repair Market, a significant government win, is taking shape.

This week’s summit offers Australia an opportunity to show the world we have embraced the nature-positive mindset. There really is no time to waste.

Australia, the sixth most biodiverse country in the world, has listed 2,224 species and ecological communities as threatened with extinction. These losses are predicted to escalate if we continue business as usual and allow continued decline of ecosystems.

Despite having pledged to end deforestation by 2030, Australia is the only deforestation hotspot among developed nations. Land clearing continues apace in northern Australia, often without being assessed under national environmental laws.

We desperately need to reverse the decline in nature, once and for all.

Andrew Lowe, Director, Environment Institute, University of Adelaide

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

You don’t have to look far to see what climate change is doing to the planet. The word “unprecedented” is everywhere this year.

We are seeing unprecedented rapidly intensifying tropical storms such as Hurricane Helene in the eastern United States and Super Typhoon Yagi in Vietnam. Unprecedented fires in Canada have destroyed towns. Unprecedented drought in Brazil has dried out enormous rivers and left swathes of empty river beds. At least 1,300 pilgrims died during this year’s Hajj in Mecca as temperatures passed 50°C.

Unfortunately, we are headed for far worse. The new 2024 State of the Climate report, produced by our team of international scientists, is yet another stark warning about the intensifying climate crisis. Even if governments meet their emissions goals, the world may hit 2.7°C of warming – nearly double the Paris Agreement goal of holding climate change to 1.5°C. Each year, we track 35 of the Earth’s vital signs, from sea ice extent to forests. This year, 25 are now at record levels, all trending in the wrong directions.

Humans are not used to these conditions. Human civilisation emerged over the last 10,000 years under benign conditions – not too hot, not too cold. But this liveable climate is now at risk. In your grandchild’s lifetime, climatic conditions will be more threatening than anything our prehistoric relatives would have faced.

Our report shows a continued rise in fossil fuel emissions, which remain at an all-time high. Despite years of warnings from scientists, fossil fuel consumption has actually increased, pushing the planet toward dangerous levels of warming. While wind and solar have grown rapidly, fossil fuel use is 14 times greater.

This year is also tracking for the hottest year on record, with global daily mean temperatures at record levels for nearly half of 2023 and much of 2024.

Next month, world leaders and diplomats will gather in Azerbaijan for the annual United Nations climate talks, COP 29. Leaders will have to redouble their efforts. Without much stronger policies, climate change will keep worsening, bringing with it more frequent and more extreme weather.

Bad news after bad news

We have still not solved the central problem: the routine burning of fossil fuels. Atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases – particularly methane and carbon dioxide – are still rising. Last September, carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere hit 418 parts per million (ppm). This September, they crossed 422 ppm. Methane, a highly potent greenhouse gas, has been increasing at an alarming rate despite global pledges to tackle it.

Compounding the problem is the recent decline in atmospheric aerosols from efforts to cut pollution. These small particles suspended in the air come from both natural and human processes, and have helped cool the planet. Without this cooling effect, the pace of global warming may accelerate. We don’t know for sure because aerosol properties are not yet measured well enough.

Other environmental issues are now feeding into climate change. Deforestation in critical areas such as the Amazon is reducing the planet’s capacity to absorb carbon naturally, driving additional warming. This creates a feedback loop, where warming causes trees to die which in turn amplifies global temperatures.

Loss of sea ice is another. As sea ice melts or fails to form, dark seawater is exposed. Ice reflects sunlight but seawater absorbs it. Scaled up, this changes the Earth’s albedo (how reflective the surface is) and accelerates warming further.

In coming decades, sea level rise will pose a growing threat to coastal communities, putting millions of people at risk of displacement.

Accelerate the solutions

Our report stresses the need for an immediate and comprehensive end to the routine use of fossil fuels.

It calls for a global carbon price, set high enough to drive down emissions, particularly from high-emitting wealthy countries.

Introducing effective policies to slash methane emissions is crucial, given methane’s high potency but short atmospheric lifetime. Rapidly cutting methane could slow the rate of warming in the short term.

Natural climate solutions such as reforestation and soil restoration should be rolled out to increase how much carbon is stored in wood and soil. These efforts must be accompanied by protective measures in wildfire and drought prone areas. There’s no point planting forests if they will burn.

Governments should introduce stricter land-use policies to slow down rates of land clearing and increase investment in forest management to cut the risk of large, devastating fires and encourage sustainable land use.

We cannot overlook climate justice. Less wealthy nations contribute least to global emissions but are often the worst affected by climate disasters.

Wealthier nations must provide financial and technical support to help these countries adapt to climate change while cutting emissions. This could include investing in renewable energy, improving infrastructure and funding disaster preparedness programs.

Internationally, our report urges stronger commitments from world leaders. Current global policies are insufficient to limit warming to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels.

Without drastic changes, the world is on track for approximately 2.7°C of warming this century. To avoid catastrophic tipping points, nations must strengthen their climate pledges, reduce dependence on fossil fuels, and accelerate the transition to renewable energy.

Immediate, transformative policy changes are now necessary if we are to avoid the worst effects of climate change.

Climate change is already here. But it could get much, much worse. By slashing emissions, boosting natural climate solutions and working towards climate justice, the global community can still fend off the worst version of our future.

Thomas Newsome, Associate Professor in Global Ecology, University of Sydney and William Ripple, Distinguished Professor and Director, Trophic Cascades Program, Oregon State University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Climate change is usually discussed in terms of rising temperatures.

But scientists often use a different measure, known as “equilibrium climate sensitivity”. This is defined as the global mean warming caused by a doubling of pre-industrial carbon dioxide (CO₂) levels in the atmosphere.

We use this measure to describe the range of potential temperature increases on longer timescales, and to compare how well climate models reproduce observed warming.

But the predicted range of rising temperature has remained stubbornly wide, somewhere between 2°C and 5.5°C of warming, as assessed in several generations of reports issued by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. This is despite concerted efforts to narrow it down.

Measuring long-term climate sensitivity is central to future predictions, but we are already seeing the effects of warming across the world with extremes in weather, even at the low end of the range. We argue efforts to boil down Earth’s response to climate change to one number may be unhelpful.

The continued uncertainty could be seen as a failure of climate models to converge on the correct value. Using equilibrium climate sensitivity as a metric for “precisely” predicting the amount of warming expected from a given amount of greenhouse gases is, at best, ambiguous.

History of climate sensitivity

About a century before the first computational estimates of Earth’s climate sensitivity were published in 1967, the Swedish physicist and 1903 Nobel laureate Svante August Arrhenius was the first to estimate values at 4-6°C.

Since the early efforts to model Earth systems, computer simulations have steadily increased in complexity. The first models only simulated the atmosphere, but they have evolved to include vegetation, processes in the ocean and sea ice.

While undoubtedly beneficial to the understanding of fundamental science, each of these added processes has introduced uncertainties in the models’ warming response.

Indeed, given the level of complexity (which differs between models) and resolution of some current models, it is not surprising the estimates of climate sensitivity differ so much.

Self-enforcing feedbacks

Climate feedbacks are central to our argument that equilibrium climate sensitivity is poorly defined. An example of this is the relationship between ice volume and reflectivity.

As highly reflective ice melts on land or sea, the underlying surface is exposed and less sunlight reflected back into space. This increases the amount of warming for a given amount of greenhouse gases. It’s what scientists refer to as a positive feedback loop.

Another such self-enforcing feedback concerns potentially large climate impacts from the release of methane from tropical wetlands and permafrost melt.

Atmosphere models can’t account for this alone, and when they are coupled with an ice-sheet or sea-ice model, the estimate of climate sensitivity changes.

Overheated arguments

It quickly became apparent when studying some recent climate model results that some simulations are producing equilibrium climate sensitivity ranges noticeably higher than before.

In some models, this has been linked to larger self-enhancing cloud feedbacks and how aerosols are represented.

There has been some hesitancy to trust the results produced by these models. They are considered “too hot”.

But we feel these high equilibrium simulations still have value. While we are not arguing they are correct, they force us to consider the what-if situation of very high climate sensitivity, where a doubling of CO₂ would result in warming of 5°C or higher. We know the impact on our environment would be devastating.

Some view high equilibrium climate sensitivity as more consistent with warmer climates in the past, but others have questioned this.

There are several reasons why past climate sensitivity may differ from modern conditions. We may be in a different phase of Earth’s orbital cycles or the balance between volcanism and weathering.

Of course, we should treat all scientific results with caution, but the potential insights gained for uncertain futures are of particular importance when climate change is already being felt across the globe.

Where to from here?

We are continually improving our understanding of the climate – how it has changed in the past and how we think it may change in the future. Equilibrium climate sensitivity has consequently become the single solution we are seeking from climate models, even though the precise value will arguably never be known.

Equilibrium climate sensitivity is undoubtedly a convenient way of distilling future projections. However, it is important not to over-rely on an idealised quantity, because its utility as a useful comparative measure of climate models can give the false impression of a lack of progress in understanding.

There is similarity with the common misconception of a 50% probability of rainfall in a weather forecast, which is often misinterpreted as forecasters not knowing whether it will rain or not.

Communicating uncertainty in projections of future climate conditions is a “wicked” problem. But we risk losing perspective of Earth’s system response by focusing on the effort to make climate models agree on one measure. This is not the answer future generations need.

Jonny Williams, Climate Scientist, University of Reading and Georgia Rose Grant, Postdoctoral Research Assistant in Paleontology, GNS Science

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Global warming has the potential to reshuffle the spaces used by life on Earth, across all ecosystems. And our new research shows whale sharks – the world’s largest fish – could be at risk, as warming oceans may force them into busy human shipping lanes.

More than 12,000 marine species are expected to redistribute in future as seas warm up. Those animals that are unable to move to remain within suitable environments risk being wiped out entirely.

But things are different for larger and highly mobile animals that can move freely to find conditions that suit their needs. For them, changing ocean conditions may not be such a huge threat in isolation, as they can migrate to cooler seas. Rather, shifting conditions may force species into new and more dangerous areas where they come into contact with ship propellers and other direct human threats.

We fear this will happen with whale sharks. These huge sharks can reach up to 18 metres – about four cars end to end – but despite their size and robust appearance, their numbers have already declined by over 50% in the last 75 years.

In previous research we discovered this decline may be partly due to collisions with large ships. Whale sharks are particularly vulnerable as they cruise around feeding on plankton and other tiny organisms, rarely needing to swim faster than human walking pace. While spending long periods moving slowly near the surface, they’re often struck by ships and killed.

Our new research builds on this previous work. We find that climate change will put these docile giants in even greater danger as their preferred habitats move in into new areas with heavy ship traffic.

An uncertain future

The research was carried out by an international team of over 50 scientists from 18 countries involved in the Global Shark Movement Project, using 15 years’ worth of satellite tracking data from almost 350 individually tagged whale sharks.

Movement tracks were matched to temperature, salinity and other environmental conditions at the time to determine what sort of habitat the sharks preferred. These relationships were then projected forward in time based on climate models (powerful computer programmes that simulate the climate) to reveal which parts of the ocean may in future have similar conditions to those used by the species today.

Our state-of-the-art approach uncovered totally new areas that may be able to support whale sharks in future, such as US waters in the Pacific in the region of the California bight, Japanese waters in the eastern China Sea and the Atlantic waters of many west African countries. We quickly realised that these regions are home to some of the world’s busiest sea ports and shipping highways, so we overlaid our maps of habitat preference with those of global shipping to determine sharks are expected to run into ships.

Through this we project that co-occurrence between sharks and ships will be be 15,000 times greater by the end of this century if we continue to rely heavily on fossil fuels, compared to only 20 times greater if we follow a sustainable development scenario.

This does not mean that collisions will increase by 15,000 times, or even by 20 times, as we can only predict where whale sharks will be in future and the precise number of ships will vary. However, if the sharks do move into these new areas and their busy shipping lanes, increased mortality is a very real possibility.

We’ve already recorded shark-attached satellite tags abruptly stopping transmissions in shipping lanes, with depth-recording tags showing the sharks slowly sinking – likely dead – to the seafloor.

Changing tack

Our results are alarming but highlight that we do have the capacity to change the population trajectory for whale sharks. In this case, through mitigating climate change, we can also indirectly ensure that the ocean is a safer place for some of its largest residents.

We already know which strategies to trial for limiting collisions between ships and sharks. In February 2024 a meeting of signatories to the UN’s convention on the conservation of migratory species put forward a series of recommendations with specific focus on whale sharks. These include slowing speeds and re-routing around key sites, and setting up a collision-reporting network. It is now up to individual governments to take action.

It’s possible that other species will experience similar pressures as a result of climate change. For example, heat waves in the oceans may force other sharks into cooler surface waters which are being exploited by longline fisheries, or into deeper depths where there is less oxygen.

It’s time to shift our focus on to these interacting stressors in future, so that we can start to quantify the mosaic of threats that marine animals must endure in the oceans of tomorrow and protect those most at risk.

Don’t have time to read about climate change as much as you’d like?
Get our award-winning weekly roundup in your inbox instead. Every Wednesday, The Conversation’s environment editor writes Imagine, a short email that goes a little deeper into just one climate issue. Join the 35,000+ readers who’ve subscribed so far.

Freya Womersley, Postdoctoral Research Scientist, Marine Biological Association and David Sims, Professor of Marine Ecology, University of Southampton

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

The Albanese government has today declared stronger protections for the waters around Heard Island and McDonald Islands, one of Australia’s wildest, most remote areas. The marine park surrounding the islands will be extended by 310,000 square kilometres, quadrupling its size.

Announcing the decision, Environment Minister Tanya Plibersek said Heard Island and McDonald Islands – about 4,000 kilometres southwest of Perth – are a “unique and extraordinary part of our planet. We are doing everything we can to protect it.”

But the announcement, while welcome, is a missed opportunity on several fronts.

Important areas around the islands remain unprotected, despite a wealth of scientific evidence pointing to the need for safeguards. On this measure, the government could have done far more to protect this unique wildlife haven.

A special place

Heard Island and McDonald Islands are a crucial sanctuary for marine life in the Southern Ocean. The land and surrounding waters support a food chain ranging from tiny plankton to fish, invertebrates, seabirds and marine mammals such as elephant seals and sperm whales.

Both the marine and land environments of the islands are globally recognised for their ecological significance, and include species not found elsewhere in Australia.

In 2002, a marine reserve was declared over the islands and parts of the surrounding waters. The reserve was extended in 2014.

The expansion announced today means most waters around the islands have protection. The new safeguards primarily extend to foraging areas for seals, penguins and flying birds such as albatrosses.

The expansion covers some deep water areas but excludes important deeper water locations including underwater canyons and seamounts, and a feature known as Williams Ridge.

This is an important oversight that compromises the strength of the expanded protections.

The science is clear

In March this year, my colleagues and I released a report showing existing protections for Heard Island and McDonald Islands were no longer adequate and should urgently be expanded.

The report drew on more than two decades’ of research and new scientific understanding. In particular, we found climate change was warming the waters around the islands, posing risks to marine life such as the mackerel icefish.

The icefish lives in shallow water and is an important food source for other animals. To maintain the islands’ biodiversity as the climate warms, we recommended extending the existing marine reserve to cover more shallow waters in the east, and protecting currently unprotected deeper waters.

Today’s announcement does not protect these deeper waters. This is a major shortcoming. Our report showed deeper water areas to the east of Heard Island are significant to the region’s biodiversity, and to its ability to cope with warmer seas under climate change.

The government says its decision came after extensive consultation with a range of parties – including the fishing industry and conservation groups.

Heard Island and McDonald Islands host valuable fisheries for Patagonian toothfish and mackerel icefish. The footprint of fishing operations has expanded over the past 30 years.

The fishery for mackerel icefish uses a range of methods including bottom trawling. This is the only fishery in the Southern Ocean to use bottom trawling methods. This is a damaging fishing technique that uses towed nets to catch fish and other marine species on or near the seabed.

A range of non-target fish species, especially skates, are accidentally caught by the fisheries around Heard Island and McDonald Islands. Skates are a vulnerable species because they are slow to grow and mature. Indicators suggest skate bycatch is too high.

The new measures should have prevented fishing in some deeper waters to reduce pressure on this and other vulnerable species. In particular, bottom trawling should have been prohibited.

As climate change worsens and fishing activity continues, the area must be managed to take account of these dual pressures. The management should also maximise the resilience of species imperilled by climate change, such as mackerel icefish – a cold-adapted species not found anywhere else in Australia’s marine zone.

My colleagues and I proposed deep-sea protections over about 30% of the existing fishing grounds around Heard Island and McDonald Islands. Catch limits would not have been adjusted, and the fisheries were not likely to have been substantially affected.

The decision to allow fishing, including bottom-trawling, in some areas of high conservation value means other measures will be needed to protect marine life in deep areas under pressure from climate change.

An opportunity missed

Today’s announcement follows a decision by the government last year to triple the size of Macquarie Island Marine Park. The move was largely in keeping with the science, and both protected important biodiversity regions and provided for fisheries.

The protection awarded to Heard Island and McDonald Islands falls short of this standard. It fails to protect vulnerable marine species from climate change and fishing, and squanders a chance for Australia to show international leadership.

Andrew J Constable, Adviser, Antarctica and Marine Systems, Science & Policy, University of Tasmania

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

When it rains heavily, plastic waste is washed off our streets into rivers, flowing out to the ocean. Most plastic is trapped in estuaries and coastal ecosystems, with a small fraction ending up offshore in the high seas.

In the coastal ocean, waves and tides break down plastic waste into smaller and smaller bits. These micro and nanoplastics linger in the environment indefinitely, impacting the health of marine creatures from microorganisms all the way up to seabirds and whales, which mistake them for food.

When we look at the scale of the problem of microplastics (smaller than 5mm) and nanoplastics (defined as 1 micrometer or less), we find something alarming. Our new research shows the shallow embayment of Moreton Bay, off Brisbane in Southeast Queensland now has roughly 7,000 tonnes of accumulated microplastics, the same as 700 million half-litre plastic bottles.

This bay accumulates plastics fast, as the Brisbane River funnels the city’s waste into it, along with several other urban rivers. The research hasn’t yet been done, but we would expect similar rates of microplastics in Melbourne’s Port Phillip Bay and Sydney Harbour.

Our research shows how much plastic waste from a big city makes it into its oceans.

Plastic buildup in Moreton Bay

What volume of microplastics does a large city accumulate offshore? It’s hard to measure this for cities built on open coastlines. That’s because sediments and microplastics are rapidly washed away from the original source by waves and currents.

But Moreton Bay is different. The large sand islands, Moreton (Mugulpin) and North Stradbroke (Minjerribah) Islands largely protect the bay from the open ocean. This is why the bay is better described as an enclosed embayment. These restricted bays act as a trap for sediments and pollutants, as waves and currents have limited ability to wash them out. These bays make it possible to accurately measure a city’s microplastic build-up.

The bay supports a range of marine habitats from mangroves, seagrass and coral reefs, as well as an internationally recognised wetland for migrating seabirds. Dugong and turtles have long grazed the seagrass in Moreton Bay’s shallow protected waters, while dolphins and whales are also present. But microplastic buildup may threaten their existence.

Most types of plastic are denser than water, which means most microplastics in coastal seas will eventually sink to the seafloor and accumulate in sediment. Mangroves and seagrass ecosystems are particularly good at trapping sediment, which means they trap more microplastics.

We wanted to determine whether Moreton Bay’s varying ecosystems had accumulated different amounts of plastics in the sediment.

We measured the plastic stored in 50 samples of surface sediment (the top 10cm) from a range of different ecosystems across Moreton Bay, including mangroves, seagrass meadows and mud from the main tidal channels.

The result? Microplastics were present in all our samples, but their concentrations varied hugely. We found no clear pattern in how plastics had built up. This suggests plastics were entering the bay from many sources.

We tested for seven common plastics: polycarbonate (PC), polyethylene (PE), polyethylene terephthalate (PET), poly (methyl methacrylate) (PMMA), polypropylene (PP), polystyrene (PS), and polyvinyl chloride (PVC).

Of these, the most abundant microplastic was polyethylene (PE). This plastic is widely used for single-use plastic items such as chip packets, plastic bags and plastic bottles. It’s the most commonly produced and used plastic in Australia and globally.

In total, we estimate the bay now holds about 7,000 tonnes of microplastic in its surface sediments.

In our follow-up paper we explored how rapidly these plastics had built up over time. We took two sediment cores from the central part of the bay, where sediment is accumulating. Cores like this act as an archive of sediment and environmental changes over time.

The trend was clear. Before the 1970s, there were no microplastics in Moreton Bay. They began appearing over the next three decades. But from the early 2000s onwards, the rate rose exponentially. This is in line with the soaring rate of plastic production and use globally. Our analysis shows a direct link between microplastic concentration and population growth in Southeast Queensland.

The challenge of measuring microplastics

To date, we have had limited knowledge of how much plastic is piling up on shallow ocean floors. This is because measuring microplastics is challenging. Traditionally, we’ve used observation by microscope and a technique called absorption spectroscopy, in which we shine infrared light on samples to determine what it’s made up of. But these methods are time-consuming and can only spot plastic particles larger than 20 micrometres, meaning nanoplastics weren’t being measured.

Our research team has been working to get better estimates of microplastic and nanoplastic using a different technique: pyrolysis-gas chromatography mass spectrometry. Here, a sample is dissolved in a solvent and then heated until it vaporises. Once in vapour form, we can determine the concentration of plastic and what types of plastics are present.

This method can be used to estimate how much plastic pollution is present in everything from water to seafood to biosolids and wastewater.

What’s next?

It’s very likely microplastics are building up rapidly in other restricted bays and harbours near large cities, both in Australia and globally.

While we might think microplastics are safe once buried in sediment, they can be consumed by organisms that live in the sediments. Currents, tides and storms can also wash them out again, where marine creatures can eat them.

This is not a problem that will solve itself. We’ll need clear management strategies and policies to cut plastic consumption and improve waste disposal. Doing nothing means microplastics will keep building up, and up, and up.

Elvis Okoffo, PhD candidate in Environmental Science, The University of Queensland; Alistair Grinham, Honorary Associate Professor in Civil Engineering, The University of Queensland; Ben Tscharke, Research fellow, Analytical Chemistry, The University of Queensland; Helen Bostock, Associate Professor in Marine Geology, The University of Queensland, and Kevin Thomas, Professor of Environmental Health, The University of Queensland

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Ocean fish populations have fallen dramatically in the past half-century, and climate change is expected to make the problem worse. Governments have designated “marine protected areas”, where where human activity is constrained to protect ocean life. But have these efforts worked?

About 8% of Earth’s oceans are protected, including about 3% where fishing is banned altogether. Our new study of nearly 2,600 tropical coral reefs around the world is the first to examine whether these areas have helped fish populations.

We found about one in ten kilograms of fish on coral reefs is the result of efforts such as marine protected areas and other restrictions on fishing. This is promising news. But our study also reveals great room for improvement.

Getting to grips with marine protection

Maintaining healthy fish populations is important. Many communities depend on fishing for their food and livelihoods. And fish play a vital role in ocean ecosystems.

Marine protected areas are a key policy tool used to increase fish populations. They cover a range of ocean areas including lagoons, coastal waters, deep seabed waters and coral reefs.

The areas go by several names, including marine parks and conservation zones. Some, where fishing is prohibited, are known as no-take zones.

Governments often quote figures on the area of ocean protected when seeking to tout their conservation policies. For example in Australia, we are told the federal, state and territory governments have established marine parks covering 4.3 million square kilometres or 48% of our oceans.

But the extent to which marine protected areas actually conserve marine life varies enormously from place to place. So simply counting up the protected ocean area doesn’t tell you much about what has actually been achieved.

Measuring success

We and our colleagues wanted to assess the extent to which marine protection efforts have increased the amount of fish on coral reefs.

We developed a computer model based on about 2,600 reefs across the global tropics, which includes reefs in the Pacific, Indian, and Atlantic oceans. From that, we estimated the amount of fish currently on each reef – measured in the kilograms of fish per hectare, or “biomass”.

The estimations were based on information such as:

• environmental conditions such as ocean temperature and the type of habitat where the reef is located

• the intensity of fishing activity, known as “fishing pressure”

• how strong the protection is – for example whether it bans fishing, or just restricts it

• the level of compliance with no-take zones.

We then simulated what would happen if we changed the type of protection strategy in each location while keeping everything else the same.

We ran a few scenarios:

• no coral reef conservation existed anywhere and all reefs could be fished without constraint

• sites currently fished without constraint (which amounted to over half of our sites) had restrictions in place

• fishing was prohibited on 30% of all reefs.

And the results?

We found both marine protected areas and other fishing restrictions account for about 10% of the fish “biomass” on reefs. In other words, about one in ten kilograms of fish on coral reefs is due to protection efforts.

No-take zones punch above their weight. Of the fish biomass attributable to protection efforts, about 20% comes from just 3% of sites in no-take zones. This proportion would be even higher if illegal fishing in no-take zones was stamped out.

But we found any type of fishing restriction was useful. If everywhere currently fished without constraint was subject to some level of protection – such as banning nets or spear guns – the biomass of fish globally would be another 10.5% higher, our study found. This essentially matches all conservation efforts to date.

Our modelling also showed fish on coral reefs could be increased by up to 28% globally if the area of no-take zones rose to 30%.

But these reefs must be chosen strategically. That’s because protection strategies can lead to wildly different results, depending on local conditions. For example, sites with lower fishing pressure in the surrounding seascape got a bigger boost from protection than places surrounded by intensive fishing effort.

This may be because at heavily fished locations, algae often overtakes coral as the dominant feature. Algae is less fish-friendly than coral, so fish populations may not bounce back quickly even when fishing pressure is reduced.

Grounds for optimism

Our study tested the mettle of global coral reef conservation. On one hand, we found conservation efforts have made a contribution to the amount of fish on global coral reefs, which provides grounds for cautious optimism.

But on the other hand, this contribution is quite modest. Our study shows much greater gains could be made not only by expanding protected marine areas, but also by improving compliance in existing ones.

Most nations have signed a global agreement to protect 30% of Earth’s land and waters by 2030. That means the amount of ocean in marine protected areas globally will increase nearly fourfold in just six years.

As governments continue this task, we hope our results help identify ocean sites that will benefit most from protection.

Joshua Cinner, Professor & ARC Laureate Fellow, Thriving Oceans Research Hub, School of Geosciences, University of Sydney and Iain R. Caldwell, Adjunct Senior Research Fellow, James Cook University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Water flows in mainland Australia’s most important river system, the Murray-Darling Basin, have been declining for the past 50 years. The trend has largely been blamed on water extraction, but our new research shows another factor is also at play.

We investigated why the Darling River, in the northern part of the basin, has experienced devastating periods of low flow, or no flow, since the 1990s. We found it was due to a decrease in rainfall in late autumn, caused by climate change.

The research reveals how climate change is already affecting river flows in the basin, even before water is extracted for farm irrigation and other human uses.

Less rain will fall in the Darling River catchment as climate change worsens. This fact must be central to decisions about how much water can be taken from this vital natural system.

A quick history of the Darling

The Darling River runs from the town of Bourke in northwest New South Wales, south to the Murray River in Victoria. Together, the two rivers form the Murray-Darling river system.

The Indigenous name for the Darling River is the Baaka. For at least 30,000 years the river has been an Indigenous water resource. On the river near Wilcannia, remnants of fish traps and weirs built by Indigenous people can still be found today.

The Darling River was a major transport route from the late 19th to the early 20th century.

In recent decades, the agriculture industry has extracted substantial quantities of water from the Darling’s upstream tributaries, to irrigate crops and replenish farm dams. Water has also been extracted from Menindee Lakes, downstream in the Darling, to benefit the environment and supply the regional city of Broken Hill.

A river in trouble

Natural weather variability means water levels in the Darling River have always been irregular, even before climate change began to be felt.

In recent years, however, water flows have become even more irregular. This has caused myriad environmental problems.

At Menindee Lakes, for example, fish have died en masse – incidents experts say is ultimately due to a lack of water in the river system.

Periods of heavy rain in recent years have dramatically improved water flows.

But in between those episodes, water levels and quality have declined, due to factors such as droughts, expanded water extraction, salinity and pollution from farms.

Compounding the droughts, smaller flows that once replenished the system have now greatly reduced. Our research sought to determine why.

What we found

We examined rainfall and water flows in the Darling River from 1972 until July 2024. This includes from the 1990s – a period when global warming accelerated.

We found a striking lack of short rainfall periods in April and May in the Darling River from the 1990s. The reduced rainfall led to long periods of very low, or no flow, in the river.

Since the 1990s under climate change, shifts in atmospheric circulation have generated fewer rain-producing systems. This has led to less rain in inland southeast Australia in autumn.

The river system particularly needs rainfall in the late autumn months, to replenish rivers after summer.

The periods of little rain were often followed by extreme floods. This is a problem because the rain fell on dry soils and soaked in, rather than running into the river. This reduced the amount of water available for the environment and human uses.

In addition to the fall in autumn rainfall, we found the number of extreme annual rainfall totals for all seasons has also fallen since the 1990s.

We also examined monthly river heights at Bourke, Wilcannia and Menindee. We found periods of both high and low water levels before the mid-1990s. But the low water levels at all three locations from 2000 onwards were the lowest in the period.

Ensuring water for all

Australia is the driest inhabited continent on Earth. Ensuring steady water supplies for human use has always been challenging.

Falls in Darling River water levels in recent decades have largely been attributed to water extraction for farm dams, irrigation and town use.

But as our research shows, the lack of rainfall in the river catchment – as a result of climate change – is also significant. The problem will worsen as climate change accelerates.

This creates a huge policy challenge. As others have noted, the Murray-Darling Basin Plan does not properly address climate change when determining how much water can be taken by towns and farmers.

Both the environment and people will benefit from ensuring the rivers of the basin maintain healthy flows into the future. As our research indicates, this will require decision-makers to consider and adapt to climate change.

Milton Speer, Visiting Fellow, School of Mathematical and Physical Sciences, University of Technology Sydney and Lance M Leslie, Professor, School of Mathematical And Physical Sciences, University of Technology Sydney

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

When dead animals are left lying around in nature, who takes advantage of the free feed – carnivores or herbivores? The answer may surprise you.

In Australia, people tend to think carnivores – such as dingoes, ravens, foxes and wedge-tailed eagles – lead the clean-up crew.

But our new research shows common brushtail possums – often thought to be herbivores – also dine on animal carcasses.

Understanding when and where brushtail possums scavenge is important. It can improve our knowledge of how carcasses are disposed of in nature, and how nutrients cycle through ecosystems.

Seeking a nutritious meal

Scavenging may provide specific essential nutrients otherwise lacking in herbivore diets.

Carcasses often contain much greater levels of crude protein than leafy greens do. Similarly, chewing on bones, may increase the intake of calcium and phosphorus, two key minerals essential for growth.

Scavenging on carrion may also help herbivores meet nutritional requirements in regions where typical food resources may be restricted during some seasons. Similarly, in times of drought, thirst may also drive herbivores to scavenge in an attempt to extract fluids from carcasses.

Though it may seem gruesome, scavenging is crucial to healthy ecosystems. Clearing carcasses from the landscape by feeding them back into food chains recycles nutrients into living systems.

Our previous research has found native marsupial herbivores feasting on the dead.

In alpine Australia, possums accounted for 61% of all recorded carcass scavenging – a proportion far surpassing species more typically considered carcass consumers.

In our latest research, we wanted to understand the factors that influence carrion consumption by brushtail possums in different ecosystems.

What we did

We monitored fresh eastern grey kangaroo carcasses across both alpine (Kosciuszko National Park) and temperate (Wolgan Valley, Greater Blue Mountains National Park) regions in New South Wales. We also compared sites in both open (grassland with no canopy cover) and closed (woodland) habitats, in cool and warm seasons.

At each carcass, we used a remote camera “trap” to record scavenging behaviours.

We found possums were one of the main scavengers, often feeding from carrion more than typical scavengers such as dingoes and ravens.

Possum scavenging rates varied by habitat and season. Regardless of region, possums scavenged exclusively in closed canopy habitats under the trees, probably for protection from predators and other scavengers such as dingoes, red foxes, and wedge-tailed eagles.

Out in the cold

Possum scavenging activity varied according to the season.

In temperate regions, possums scavenged only in winter when other food resources were limited.

In alpine areas, where food is scarce even in summer, possums scavenged year-round. But they still ate more from carcasses in cooler months. This may be necessary for possums to get the nutrition they need when other normal food resources — such as leaves, flowers and fruit — are limited.

Competition between scavengers may also change with the seasons. For example, in alpine regions, we saw fewer large scavengers such as dingoes in winter, possibly reducing competition and making it easier for possums to access carrion.

During warmer months, insect activity increases. These tiny scavengers often start eating a carcass within minutes of its death, accelerating its decomposition. It means animals such as possums have less time to feed on the carrion.

Flexible ‘herbivores’ around the world

Previous research has shown many herbivore diets are more flexible than previously thought. All over the world, certain plant-eaters have been found scavenging on animal remains – especially when other food sources are limited, such as during drought or after fire.

In Africa, hippopotamuses were found to have consumed flesh from the carcasses of other animals. In the United States, white-tailed deer fed on discarded fish.

Similarly, on a small island off Cape Town, introduced European fallow deer ate dead rabbits. On the Eurasian tundra (treeless plains), reindeer devoured lemming carcasses. In Italy, crested porcupine ate dead pigeons.

These are all still primarily herbivorous animals, they just happen to dip into carcass resources when they need to.

Improving our understanding of ‘bloody hungry’ herbivores

Our study found brushtail possums are an important scavenging species across several Australian ecosystems. It also highlights how scavenging can vary with a region, season and habitat.

Understanding the unusual foraging behaviour of the common brushtail possum could also help inform more effective wildlife management. Specifically, understanding how carcasses can support possum populations during cooler months in places like New Zealand, where they are considered an invasive pest, may lead to more effective control measures.

Our methods could also help scientists understand herbivore scavenging in other environments. This may provide valuable insights into complexities of food webs and how nutrients move through ecosystems.

Patrick Finnerty, Postdoctoral research fellow in conservation, University of Sydney and Thomas Newsome, Associate Professor in Global Ecology, University of Sydney

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Over the last decade, several groups in Australia have successfully mobilised against fossil fuel interests. But which ones have gone the distance?

The urgent global threat of climate change might suggest groups running large-scale campaigns are the ones likely achieve lasting change. But my research suggests groups focused on local efforts are often more successful.

I’ve studied coalitions and campaigns, the climate movement and people-power globally. I’ve found groups with strong local roots can evolve and endure better than larger, more dispersed groups.

The trajectory of two major environmental groups in Australia demonstrate the point.

The first is focused around the Northern Rivers in New South Wales. There, the threat of gas extraction in the 2010s prompted the community to start organising through the national anti-gas group Lock the Gate. When floods struck the region in 2017 and 2022, many organisers shifted focus to form a new, successful alliance.

The second is the Stop Adani group. Organising began around 2010 after plans for the giant Adani coal mine in central Queensland were announced. The group successfully reduced the size of the proposed mine, but energy behind the movement dwindled.

Examining the way these groups organised and operated – and how long they lasted – offers lessons for others.

Northern Rivers

The Northern Rivers region has attracted environmentally-minded people from the 1960s peace movement onward. This activist history was almost certainly not considered by gas companies when they began planning large-scale fracking operations.

Locals began meeting under the banner “Lock the Gate”. In 2014, they launched the Bentley Blockade camp-in on land earmarked for gas extraction. The campaign worked and the Northern Rivers remains gasfield-free.

When unprecedented floods hit in 2017 and 2022, locals involved in Lock the Gate shifted focus. They formed the Northern Rivers Community Resilience Alliance to work on mutual aid and ongoing resilience.

Stop Adani

In 2010, the multinational Adani Group announced plans for the Carmichael coal mine in Queensland’s Galilee Basin. Climate groups around the country were outraged.

People began campaigning against the mine, initially locally focused on the coal port. By 2017 the campaign became national under the banner Stop Adani.

By 2017, Stop Adani had built a national strategy coordinating more than 100 community groups across many cities and regions. The movement used public pressure to slow progress. It reduced but did not stop the mine, which began exporting coal in late 2021.

Who was in these groups?

To tackle the gasfield threat, Northern Rivers residents doorknocked neighbours and local councils voted to declare their region gasfield free. Lock the Gate organisers deliberately set out to make their group as representative as possible.

Disagreements were inevitable. Farmers worried about the effect of gasfields on groundwater while environmentalists focused on the climate. But their relationships in the same place helped maintain unity. This broad base also meant opponents couldn’t write them off as “angry greenies”. As organiser Annie Kia has said, the movement “maximised self-organisation”.

By contrast, my analysis and interviews have shown Stop Adani involved local groups mostly comprised of white, middle class, well-educated urban women from the east coast. This made it easier to find agreement. But individual groups were smaller and less diverse than the Northern Rivers group.

Who designed the strategy?

Northern Rivers organisers tapped experienced campaigners to create the strategy. This helped overcome tensions within the broad coalition and arguably drove more creativity.

The Stop Adani strategy was done nationally. Community groups were invited to plan coordinated local actions. The led to effective public pressure on banks financing the mine, and other organisations.

But national-local separation comes at a cost, as my research has found. Local groups tasked with carrying out a national plan and had less ability to build their own plans.

Framing matters

Both groups focused on stopping fossil fuel extraction, but their framing differed.

Northern Rivers residents were motivated by a range of concerns, from avoiding damage to water tables to tackling climate change. To harness these motivations, the group framed their demand positively – fighting for a gasfield-free Northern Rivers region.

Stop Adani was built on a simple negative: stop the mine. This drove urgency and led to high levels of participation. But it also prompted a backlash, such as tense stand-offs between Central Queensland residents and a convoy organised by Bob Brown against the mine in 2019.

The stark framing created a challenge in negotiating with government. But success is not always black or white. State and federal governments slashed the size of the mine to just one-sixth the size of the original plans.

The negative framing also made it hard to retain participants. When years of protests failed to stop the mine, mass participation fell away.

But Stop Adani didn’t give up. In recent years, Traditional Owners have kept up the pressure on the mine’s financial and political backers.

What does success look like?

Stop Adani and Northern Rivers had very similar goals: stop the mine, stop the gasfields. By this metric, both groups were largely successful.

But Northern Rivers organisers also focused on building a broad movement beyond the usual environmentally-minded people. That’s why the group is still going strong, even after gas plans were defeated.

This is a remarkable community asset. When much of Lismore went underwater in 2022, state and federal help was slow. So community groups sprang into action, pooling resources and cooperating during the immediate emergency and the long clean-up.

Other communities now look to the Northern Rivers as a model of ground-up disaster recovery.

Their success should give us hope. As the climate warps, groups with strong community roots are well-placed to lead the response to the changing demands of the climate crisis.

Amanda Tattersall, Associate Professor in Urban Geography and Host of ChangeMakers Podcast, University of Sydney

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

The rise of artificial intelligence (AI) has triggered concern about potentially detrimental effects on humans. However, the technology also has the potential to harm animals.

An important policy reform now underway in Australia offers an opportunity to address this. The federal government has committed A$5 million to renewing the lapsed Australian Animal Welfare Strategy. Consultation has begun, and the final strategy is expected in 2027.

While AI is not an explicit focus of the review, it should be.

Australians care about animals. The strategy could help ensure decision-makers protect animals from AI’s harms in our homes, on farms and in the wild.

Will AI harms to animals go unchecked?

Computers are now so developed they can perform some complex tasks as well as, or better than, humans. In other words, they have developed a degree of “artificial intelligence”.

The technology is exciting but also risky.

Warnings about the risks to humans include everything from privacy concerns to the collapse of human civilisation.

Policy-makers in the European Union, the United States and Australia are scrambling to address these issues and ensure AI is safe and used responsibly. But the focus of these policies is to protect humans.

Now, Australia has a chance to protect animals from AI.

Australia’s previous Animal Welfare Strategy expired in 2014. It’s now being revived, and aims to provide a national approach to animal welfare.

So far, documents released as part of the review suggest AI is not being considered under the strategy. That is a serious omission, for reasons we outline below.

Powerful and pervasive technology in use

Much AI use benefits animals, such as in veterinary medicine. For example, it may soon help your vet read X-rays of your animal companion.

AI is being developed to detect pain in cats and dogs. This might help if the technology is accurate, but could cause harm if it’s inaccurate by either over-reporting pain or failing to detect discomfort.

AI may also allow humans to decipher animal communication and better understand animals’ point of view, such as interpreting whale song.

It has also been used to discover which trees and artificial structures are best for birds.

But when it comes to animals, research suggests AI may also be used to harm them.

For example, it may be used by poachers and illegal wildlife traders to track and kill or capture endangered species. And AI-powered algorithms used by social media platforms can connect crime gangs to customers, perpetuating the illegal wildlife trade.

AI is known to produce racial, gender and other biases in relation to humans. It can also produce biased information and opinions about animals.

For example, AI chatbots may perpetuate negative attitudes about animals in their training data – perhaps suggesting their purpose is to be hunted or eaten.

There are plans to use AI to distinguish cats from native species and then kill the cats. Yet, AI image recognition tools have not been sufficiently trained to accurately identify many wild species. They are biased towards North American species, because that is where the bulk of the data and training comes from.

Algorithms using AI tend to promote more salacious content, so they are likely to also recommend animal cruelty videos on various platforms. For example, YouTube contains content involving horrific animal abuse.

Some AI technologies are used in harmful animal experiments. Elon Musk’s brain implant company Neuralink, for instance, was accused of rushing experiments that harmed and killed monkeys.

Researchers warn AI could estrange humans from animals and cause us to care less about them. Imagine AI farms almost entirely run by smart systems that “look after” the animals. This would reduce opportunities for humans to notice and respond to animal needs.

Existing regulatory frameworks are inadequate

Australia’s animal welfare laws are already flawed and fail to address existing harms. They allow some animals to be confined to very small spaces, such as chickens in battery cages or pigs in sow stalls and farrowing crates. Painful procedures (such as mulesing, tail docking and beak trimming) can be legally performed without pain relief.

Only widespread community outrage forces governments to end the most controversial practices, such as the export of live sheep by sea.

This has implications for the development and use of artificial intelligence. Reform is needed to ensure AI does not amplify these existing animal harms, or contribute to new ones.

Internationally, some governments are responding to the need for reform.

The United Kingdom’s online safety laws now require social media platforms to proactively monitor and remove illegal animal cruelty content from their platforms. In Brazil, Meta (the owner of Facebook and WhatsApp) was recently fined for not taking down posts that had been tagged as illegal wildlife trading.

The EU’s new AI Act also takes a small step towards recognising how the technology affects the environment we share with other animals.

Among other aims, the law encourages the AI industry to track and minimise the carbon and other environmental impact of AI systems. This would benefit animal as well as human health.

The current refresh of the Australian Animal Welfare Strategy, jointly led by federal, state and territory governments, gives us a chance to respond to the AI threat. It should be updated to consider how AI affects animal interests.

Lev Bromberg, PhD Candidate and Research Fellow, The University of Melbourne; Christine Parker, Professor of Law, The University of Melbourne, and Simon Coghlan, Senior Lecturer in Digital Ethics, Centre for AI and Digital Ethics, School of Computing and Information Systems, The University of Melbourne

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

In a race against time, scientists are exploring new ways to restore natural systems. Alongside traditional methods such as planting trees, reducing pollution and reintroducing native species, a surprising new tool is emerging: sound. Ecologists can harness sound to bring life back to degraded ecosystems.

On land and at sea, natural soundscapes are being replicated to stimulate growth, reproduction and even communication among species. Sound is already being used to restore oyster beds and coral reefs.

In our new research, we found beneficial plant microbes are also receptive to sound. We used high-frequency white noise to stimulate a fungus that promotes plant growth. The noise is a bit like the sound emitted in between channels of an old-fashioned radio.

This adds a new dimension to restoration projects. Imagine using tailored soundscapes to restore wetlands, forests or grasslands, simply by artificially amplifying the sonic cues that attract wildlife, stimulate growth and rebuild relationships between species. We see a bright future for this “biodiversity jukebox”, with tracks for every ecosystem.

Sound as an ecological tool

In healthy ecosystems, everything from animal calls to water trickling underground creates a sonic landscape or “soundscape” that ultimately supports biodiversity.

Conversely, the soundscapes in degraded ecosystems are often diminished or altered. This can change the way species behave and ecosystems function.

Marine biologists were among the first to explore sound as a tool for restoring Australia’s southern oyster reefs. Intact oyster reefs provide habitat for many species and prevent shoreline erosion. But pollution, overharvesting and dredging almost wiped them out more than a century ago.

It turns out playing sounds of healthy reefs, namely snapping shrimp, underwater encourages baby oysters to settle and grow. These sounds mimic the natural environment of thriving oyster beds.

The results have been impressive. Oyster populations show signs of recovery in areas where soundscapes have been artificially restored.

Similarly, fish support healthy coral reefs by grazing on algae that can otherwise smother corals. Playing the sounds of healthy coral reefs can attract young fish to degraded reefs. This helps kickstart reef recovery.

The power of sound in plant microbiology

Building on these successes, we ventured into new territory. In our new research we used sound to stimulate the growth of soil microbes.

These microbes play an essential role in plant health. Some promote nutrient uptake in plants, others protect against disease. But these communities of microorganisms can be diminished and disrupted in degraded soils, hampering plant growth and ecosystem recovery.

We wanted to find out whether specific sounds could encourage the growth of these beneficial microbes. We ran a series of experiments, to test the effect of sound on the growth and reproduction rate of a particular fungus known to stimulate plant growth and protect against diseases.

We grew the fungus in the laboratory in 40 Petri dishes and subjected half of them to treatment with sound. We played a sound recording similar to the high-frequency buzz of white noise for 30 minutes a day over five days. Then we compared the amount of fungal growth and the number of spores between the two groups.

In technical terms, the frequency was 8 kHz and level was 80 dB, which is quite loud, like the sound of a busy city street or vacuum cleaner, almost loud enough to damage hearing.

We used a monotonous sound for experimental reasons, because it is easy to control. But a more natural or diverse soundscape may be even better. We plan to do more research on this in the near future.

We found sound stimulated the fungi, increasing the growth rate by more than seven times and the production of spores by more than four times compared to the control (no sound).

Why sound works

Why does sound have such a powerful effect on ecosystems? The answer lies in the way organisms interact with their environment.

Sound travels almost five times faster in water than in air, making it an efficient means of communication for marine life such as oysters, fish and whales.

Trees detect the soundwaves produced by running water, and their roots move towards the vibration.

We already know sound influences the activity of microbes. We think it stimulates special receptors on the membranes of the microbes. These receptors might trigger a response in the cells, such as switching genes responsible for growth on or off.

Is sound the future of restoration?

Microbes support plant life, help maintain soil structure, hold water and store carbon. By stimulating beneficial microbes with sound, we may be able to improve large-scale restoration projects. This approach may also support regenerative agriculture, where farming works with nature rather than against it.

Our next steps include refining the sound patterns that are most effective in different ecosystems. We then need to scale up our research to test different sounds in diverse environments. We envisage creating a “biodiversity jukebox” of beneficial sounds to enhance ecosystem health.

It’s clear what we hear – and don’t hear – profoundly influences the environment. So we’re also interested in noise cancellation. By this, we mean barriers to protect ecosystems from potentially undesirable noises. For instance, we’re asking questions such as: do traffic and industrial noises harm the ecosystem?

As ecosystems face increasing pressure from climate change, biodiversity loss and habitat destruction, sound can become a powerful tool for restoration.

While the science is still in its infancy, it has huge potential.

Ultimately, sound-based restoration might offer a low-impact and cost-effective approach to help ecosystems recover. The future of restoration could be as much about what we hear as what we see.

Jake M Robinson, Ecologist and Researcher, Flinders University and Martin Breed, Associate Professor in Biology, Flinders University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Pollution and waste, climate change and biodiversity loss are creating a triple planetary crisis. In response, UN Environment Programme executive director Inger Andersen has called for waste to be redefined as a valuable resource instead of a problem. That’s what urban mining does.

We commonly think of mining as drilling or digging into the earth to extract precious resources. Urban mining recovers these materials from waste. It can come from buildings, infrastructure and obsolete products.

An urban mine, then, is the stock of precious metals or materials in the waste cities produce. In particular, electronic waste, or e‑waste, has higher concentrations of precious metals than many mined ores. Yet the UN Global E‑waste Monitor estimates US$62 billion worth of recoverable resources was discarded as e‑waste in 2022.

Urban mining can recover these “hidden” resources in cities around the world. It offers sustainable solutions to the problems of resource scarcity and waste management. And it happens in the very cities that are centres of overconsumption and hotspots for the greenhouse gas emissions driving climate change.

What sort of waste can be mined?

Materials such as concrete, pipes, bricks, roofing materials, reinforcements and e‑waste can be recovered for reuse. Urban waste can be “mined” for metals such as gold, steel, copper, zinc, aluminium, cobalt and lithium, as well as glass and plastic. Mechanical or chemical treatments are used to retrieve these metals and materials.

Simply disposing of this waste has high financial and environmental costs. In Australia, about 10% of waste is hazardous. Landfill costs are soaring as cities run out of space to discard their waste.

The extent of this fast-growing problem is driving the growth of urban mining around the world. We are then salvaging materials whose supply is finite, while reducing the impacts of waste disposal.

What’s happening globally?

In Europe, the focus is largely on construction and demolition waste. Europe produces 450 million to 500 million tonnes of this waste each year – more than a third of all the region’s waste. Through its urban mining strategy, the European Commission aims to increase the recovery of non-hazardous construction and demolition waste to at least 70% across member countries by 2030.

In Asia, urban mining has focused on e‑waste. However, the region recovers only about 12% of its e‑waste stock. Rates of e‑waste recycling vary greatly: 20% for East Asia, 1% for South Asia, and virtually zero for South-East Asia. China, Japan and South Korea are leading the way in Asia.

Australia is on the right track. Our recovery rate for construction and demolition materials climbed to 80% by 2022 — the highest among all types of waste streams. However, we recover only about a third of the value of materials in our e-waste.

Africa has also recognised the growing value of urban mining resources. Regional initiatives include the Nairobi Declaration on e‑waste, the Durban Declaration on e‑Waste Management in Africa and the Abuja Platform on e‑Waste.

Urban mining solves many problems

The OECD forecasts that global materials demand will almost double from 89 billion tonnes in 2019 to 167 billion tonnes in 2060. The United Nations’ Global Waste Management Outlook 2024 shows the amount of waste and costs of managing it are soaring too. It’s estimated the world will have 82 million tonnes of e‑waste to deal with by 2030.

These trends mean urban mining is becoming ever more relevant and important.

Urban mining also helps cut greenhouse gas emissions. Unlocking resources near where they are needed reduces transport costs and emissions. Urban mining also provides resource independence and creates employment.

In addition, increasing recovery and recycling rates reduce the pressure on finite natural resources.

Urban mining underpins circular economy alternatives such as the “deposit and return” schemes that give people financial incentives to return e‑waste and containers for recycling in cities such as Singapore, Sydney, Darwin and San Francisco. By 2030, San Francisco aims to halve disposal to landfill or incineration and cut solid waste generation by 15%.

What more needs to be done?

Governments have a role to play by adopting and enforcing policies, laws and regulations that encourage recycling through urban mining instead of sending waste to landfill. European Union laws, for example, mandate increased recycling targets for municipal waste overall and for packaging waste, including 80% for ferrous metals and 60% for aluminium.

In Australia, 2019 legislation prohibits landfills from accepting anything with a plug, battery or cord. Anything with a plug is designated as e-waste.

Product design is an important consideration. A designer must balance a product’s efficiency with making it easy to recycle. Products with greater efficiency and easy-to-recycle parts are more likely to use less energy, lead to less waste and hence less natural resource extraction.

Our urban mining research documents a more sustainable approach to product design. Increasing product stewardship initiatives are expected to encourage better product design and standards that promote reuse and recycling, producer responsibility and changes in consumer behaviour.

Good information about the available resources is essential too. The Urban Mine Platform, ProSUM and Waste and Resource Recovery Data Hub collect data on e‑waste, end-of-life vehicles, batteries and building and mining waste. These centralised databases allow easy access to data on the sources, stocks, flows and treatment of waste.

Traditional mining is not the only method for extracting raw materials for the green transition. Waste is set to be increasingly recycled, reducing demand for virgin materials. A truly circular economy can become a reality if governments develop and apply an urban mining agenda.

Michael Odei Erdiaw-Kwasie, Lecturer in Sustainability| Business and Accounting Discipline, Charles Darwin University; Matthew Abunyewah, Research Fellow, The Australasian Centre for Resilience Implementation for Sustainable Communities, Charles Darwin University, and Patrick Brandful Cobbinah, Associate Professor of Urban Planning, The University of Melbourne

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Evidence is mounting that modern medicines present a growing threat to ecosystems around the world. The chemicals humans ingest to stay healthy are harming fish and other animals.

Modern pharmaceuticals have revolutionised disease prevention and treatment. But after our bodies use medicines, they excrete them. Eventually, the chemicals can end up in rivers, oceans and soils.

This is a problem, because medicines designed to treat humans can also affect other species in serious ways, changing their bodies and behaviour. The chemicals can also pass through food webs and affect animals higher up the chain.

Urgent action is needed to design drugs that work on humans, but don’t harm nature.

Evidence of harm

In the past two decades, studies have emerged showing the extent to which medicines persist in nature.

In August this year, Australian researchers found the antidepressant fluoxetine – sold under the brand name Prozac, among others – can harm male guppies in ways that affected their body condition and breeding.

Research in 2022 examined pharmaceuticals in rivers in 104 countries of all continents. It found pharmaceutical contaminants posed a threat to the health of the environment or humans in more than a quarter of locations studied.

In 2018, a study of watercourses and surrounds in Melbourne found more than 60 pharmaceutical compounds in aquatic invertebrates and spiders.

Researchers in the United States have found hormones in the contraceptive pill have caused male fish to produce a protein usually produced by female fish. This “feminisation” led to collapses in fish populations.

And a psychoactive drug found in wastewater effluent has been found to alter wild fish behaviour and feeding.

Benign by design

So how do we solve this problem?

More effective and economical wastewater treatments must be developed to remove pharmaceuticals from wastewater before it is discharged into the environment.

In addition, researchers developing pharmaceuticals must adopt a “benign by design” approach across the entire life of a drug.

From the outset, drugs must be designed to decompose quickly and fully after being excreted by humans. It’s possible for drug scientists to alter the chemical and physical properties of drugs so after humans excrete them, the active ingredients mineralise, or change form, to base substances such as carbon dioxide and water.

Traditionally researchers have designed drugs not to break down, either on the shelf or in the human body. While these properties remain important, drug developers should ensure medicines degrade quickly once in the environment.

Taking action

The principles of sustainable drug discovery should be included in Australia’s academic curriculum.

This would hopefully produce a generation of drug researchers who prioritise, where possible, medications that don’t harm the environment.

Regulation is also needed to ensure “greener” drug development. The International Pharmaceutical Federation last year took steps in this direction. The global body, representing more than 4 million pharmacists and pharmaceutical scientists, released a statement calling for all medicines to be rigorously tested for environmental risk.

The European Medicines agency has gone even further. It requires the environmental risk of a medicine to be assessed before it’s approved for use.

The assessment considers a medicine’s chemical properties, potential ecological harm and where in the environment it may end up, such as water or soil. Pharmaceutical companies are also required to produce waste management plans that minimise environmental impact.

Research has found Australia lags behind on introducing similar requirements for environmental risk assessments for medicines.

By prioritising eco-friendly practices, the pharmaceutical sector can contribute to a healthier planet, while continuing to provide safe and effective medicines.

Everyday Australians can also take action to reduce environmental pollution from medicines. The federal government’s Return Unwanted Medicines project allows household drugs to be returned to pharmacies for safe and correct disposal.

By dropping off old medicines to your local chemist – instead of flushing or throwing them away, as some people mistakenly do – you can help look after fish and other wildlife in your area.

Lauren T. May, Senior Lecturer and Group Leader, Drug Discovery Biology, Monash Institute of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Monash University and Manuela Jorg, Research Fellow & Lab Head in Medicinal Chemistry, Monash Institute of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Monash University, Monash University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

A city street may seem an unusual place to save species found in critically endangered grasslands. My new research, though, shows we can use plants from these ecosystems to create beautiful and biodiverse urban wildflower meadows. This means cities, too, can support nature repair.

Species-rich grassy ecosystems are some of the most threatened plant communities on the planet. Occupying easily developed flat land, grassy ecosystems are routinely sacrificed as our cities expand.

In south-east Australia, the volcanic plains that support Melbourne’s northern and western suburbs were once grasslands strewn with wildflowers, “resembling a nobleman’s park on a gigantic scale”, according to early explorer Thomas Mitchell. But these exceptionally diverse, critically endangered ecosystems have been reduced to less than 1% of their original area. The few remnants continue to be lost to urban development and weed invasion.

Unfortunately, efforts to restore the grasslands around Melbourne have had mixed results. In 2020 the City of Melbourne took matters into its own hands. Recognising it is possible to enrich the diversity of birds, bats and insects by providing low-growing native plants, the council set a goal to increase understorey plants by 20% on the land it manages.

Creating a large native grassland in inner-city Royal Park would help achieve this goal. Adopting a technique used by wildflower meadow designers, we sowed a million seeds of more than two dozen species from endangered grasslands around Melbourne. All but one of these species established in the resulting native wildflower meadow.

What were the challenges at this site?

Existing restoration techniques remove nutrient-enriched topsoils full of weed seeds before sowing native seeds. The target plant community can then establish with less competition from nutrient-hungry weeds.

However, this approach could not be used at the Royal Park site. Topsoil removal cannot be used on many urban sites where soils are contaminated or there are underground services. Alternative approaches are needed to reduce weed competition while minimising soil disturbance.

I saw a possible answer in the horticultural approaches used to create designed wildflower meadows.

While still rare in Australia, designed wildflower meadows can increase the amenity and biodiversity of urban environments. They also reduce the costs of managing and mowing turf grass. These meadows are designed to be infrequently mown or burnt.

Wildflower meadow designers typically use an international suite of species that can be established from seed and persist without fertiliser or regular irrigation. An abundance of flowers makes people more accepting of “messy” vegetation. Recognising this, designers select a mix of species that will flower for as much of the year as possible.

To reduce competition from weeds, these meadows are often created on a layer of sand that covers the original site soils. The low-nutrient sand buries weed seeds and creates a sowing surface that resists weed invasion from the surrounding landscape.

However, the grasslands around Melbourne grow on clay soils, not sand. Would these techniques work for plants from these ecosystems?

A deep sand layer controls weeds and slugs

To find out we sowed more than a million seeds on sites with two depths of sand (10mm and 80mm) and one without a sand layer in Royal Park. Within one year, 26 of the 27 species sown had established to form a dense, flowering meadow across all sand depths. These plants included three threatened species.

Crucially, the deepest sand layer reduced weed numbers and therefore time spent weeding.

Interestingly, slugs played a role in determining the diversity of the native meadow. South-east Australia’s grasslands have largely evolved without slugs. As a result, seedlings lack chemical or physical defences against grazing by slugs, which can greatly reduce species diversity in native meadows.

Again, sand provided a real benefit. Fewer slugs occurred on the deepest sand layer compared to bare soil. The suggestion that sand can deter slugs is consistent with meadow research in Europe.

Now to repair nature in all our cities

Our research gives us another technique to reinstate critically endangered plant communities. We can use it to bring nature back to city parks and streets.

Working in urban contexts also unlocks other advantages. There’s ready access to irrigation while the meadow gets established and to communities keen to care for natural landscapes. Creating native wildflower meadows in cities also helps native animals survive, including threatened species that call our cities home.

People will be able to engage with beautiful native plants that are now rare in cities. Enriching our experience of nature can enhance our health and wellbeing.

My colleagues and I trialled these approaches with the support of the City of Melbourne. We are continuing our research to improve the scale and sustainability of native wildflower meadows in other municipalities.

Native wildflower meadows and grassland restoration projects could genuinely help Australia meet its commitment to restore 30% of degraded landscapes. But first we need to invest much more in seed production. Reinstating native species on degraded land requires a lot of seed.

Once seed supply is more certain, we will be able to bring back native biodiversity and beauty to streets, parks and reserves across the country.

I would like to acknowledge the Traditional Custodians of the land on which the project took place, the Wurundjeri and Bunurong people of the Kulin Nations, and we pay our respects to their Elders, past, present and emerging. I also acknowledge my colleagues listed as co-authors on the research paper that formed the basis of this article: urban ecologists Nicholas S.G. Williams and Stephen Livesley, and seed ecologists Megan Hirst and John Delpratt.

Katherine Horsfall, PhD Candidate, School of Agriculture, Food and Ecosystem Sciences, The University of Melbourne

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Long-spined sea urchins have emerged as an environmental issue off Australia’s far south coast. Native to temperate waters around New South Wales, the urchins have expanded their range south as oceans warm. There, they devour kelp and invertebrates, leaving barren habitats in their wake.

Lobsters are widely accepted as sea urchins’ key predator. In efforts to control urchin numbers, scientists have been researching this predator-prey relationship. And the latest research by my colleagues and I, released today, delivered an unexpected result.

We set up several cameras outside a lobster den and placed sea urchins in it. We filmed at night for almost a month. When we checked the footage, most sea urchins had been eaten – not by lobsters, but by sharks.

This suggests sharks have been overlooked as predators of sea urchins in NSW. Importantly, sharks seem to very easily consume these large, spiky creatures – sometimes in just a few gulps! Our findings suggest the diversity of predators eating large sea urchins is broader than we thought – and that could prove to be good news for protecting our kelp forests.

A puzzling picture

The waters off Australia’s south-east are warming at almost four times the global average. This has allowed long-spined sea urchins (Centrostephanus rodgersii) to extend their range from NSW into waters off Victoria and Tasmania.

Sea urchins feed on kelp and in their march south, have reduced kelp cover. This has added to pressure on kelp forests, which face many threats.

Scientists have been looking for ways to combat the spread of sea urchins. Ensuring healthy populations of predators is one suggested solution.

Overseas research on different urchin species has focused on predators such as lobsters and large fish. It found kelp cover can be improved by protecting or reinstating these predators.

In NSW, eastern rock lobsters are thought to be important urchin predators. The species has been over-fished in the past but stocks have significantly bounced back in recent years.

But despite this, no meaningful reduction in urchin populations, or increase in kelp growth, has been observed in NSW.

Why not? Could it be that lobsters are not eating urchins in great numbers after all? Certainly, there is little empirical evidence on how often predators eat urchins in the wild.

What’s more, recent research in NSW suggested the influence of lobsters on urchin populations was low, while fish could be more important.

Our project aimed to investigate the situation further.

What we did

We tied 100 urchins to blocks outside a lobster den off in Wollongong for 25 nights. This tethering meant the urchins were easily available to predators and stayed within view of our cameras.

Then we set multiple cameras to remotely turn on at sunset and turn after sunrise each day, to capture nocturnal feeding. We used a red-filtered light to film the experiments because invertebrates don’t like the white light spectrum.

We expected our cameras would capture lobsters eating the urchins. But in fact, the lobsters showed little interest in the urchins and ate just 4% of them. They were often filmed walking straight past urchins in search of other food.

Sharks, however, were very interested in the urchins. Both crested horn sharks (Heterodontus galeatus) and Port Jackson sharks (H. portusjacksonii) entered the den and ate 45% of the urchins.

As the footage below shows, sharks readily handled very large urchins (wider then 12 centimetres) with no hesitation.

Until now, it was thought few or no predators could handle urchins of this size. Larger urchins have longer spines, thicker shells and attach more strongly to the seafloor, making them harder to eat.

But the sharks attacked urchins from their spiny side, showing little regard for their sharp defences. This approach differs from other predators, such as lobsters and wrasses, which often turn urchins over and attack them methodically from their more vulnerable underside.

In fact, some sharks were so eager to eat urchins, they started feeding before the cameras turned on at sunset. This meant we had to film by hand.

A complex food web

Our experiment showed the effect of lobsters on urchins in the wild is less than previously thought. This may explain why efforts to encourage lobster numbers have not helped control urchin numbers.

We also revealed a little-considered urchin predator: sharks.

Lobsters are capable but hesitant predators, whereas sharks seem eager to eat urchins. And crested horn sharks are an abundant, hardy species that is not actively fished.

When interpreting these findings, however, a few caveats must be noted.

First, sharks (and lobsters) are not the only animals to prey on urchins. Other predators include bony fishes, and more are likely to be identified in future.

Second, other factors can control urchin numbers, such as storm damage and the influx of fresh water.

And finally, it is unsurprising that we found a key predator when we intentionally searched for it by laying out food. Tethering urchins creates an artificial environment. We don’t know if the results would be replicated in the wild.

And even though we now know some shark species eat sea urchins, we don’t yet know if they can control urchins numbers.

But our research does confirm predators capable of handling large urchins may be more widespread than previously thought.

Jeremy Day, PhD researcher, University of Newcastle

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Meteorologists are again predicting a possible La Niña this summer, which means Australia may face wetter and cooler conditions than normal.

It would be the fourth La Niña in Australia in five years, and highlights the need for Australians to prepare for what may be an extreme weather season.

Typically, a La Niña or its counterpart, El Niño, signals its arrival earlier in the year. Signs of this potential La Niña are emerging fairly late. That’s where new research by my colleagues and I may help in future.

La Niña and El Niño explained

La Niña and its opposite phase, El Niño, are created by changes in ocean temperatures in the Pacific Ocean’s equatorial region. Together, the two phenomena are known as the El Niño Southern Oscillation.

The oscillation is said to be in the positive phase during an El Niño and the negative phase during a La Niña. When sitting between the two, the cycle is in neutral phase.

Earlier this month, the World Meteorological Organization said there was a 60% chance of La Niña conditions emerging by year’s end.

In the United States, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration put the likelihood at 71%. Australia’s Bureau of Meteorology is in “watch” mode, predicting a 50% chance of a La Niña weather pattern forming later this year.

La Niña occurs when strengthening winds change currents on the ocean surface, pulling cool water up from the deep.

The winds also cause warm surface waters in the western Pacific and north of Australia, bringing increased rainfall and clouds. This usually means above-average rainfall and cooler temperatures for Australia, particularly in the east and north.

Conversely, an El Niño weather pattern generally brings hotter temperatures across Australia, and less rainfall in the east and north.

Paths of destruction

La Niña or El Niño events can cause devastation around the world.

The El Niño in 2015–16, for example, caused crops to fail and affected the food security and nutrition of almost 60 million people globally.

In Australia, El Niño events can bring increased risk of drought, bushfires and heatwaves, and water shortages.

Meanwhile, rainfall associated with La Niña conditions can lead to greater crop yield. But particularly heavy rainfall can wash crops away. It also heightens flood risks for some communities.

These far-reaching impacts mean it’s essential to plan ahead when a La Niña or El Niño is on the cards. But predicting these events has always been tricky.

Both types of events usually develop in the Southern Hemisphere autumn, peak in late spring or summer, and weaken by the next autumn. But it’s now late spring without a clear La Niña declaration. Why the delay?

Climate change is one factor. The Bureau of Meteorology says as oceans absorb heat from global warming, it’s harder to spot the specific warming patterns linked to La Niña.

The sheer complexity of the ocean-atmosphere system adds to the difficulty. The computer models used to predict El Niño and La Niña are improving all the time. But scientists still need more information on deep ocean processes, and how winds affect the oscillation.

Predictions are hardest during the Southern Hemisphere’s autumn. That’s because the cycle then is very susceptible to change – teetering at a point where either a La Niña or El Niño could develop.

That’s why the earliest an El Niño or La Niña can be predicted is usually around May or June.

But new research offers a way to predict the events much earlier – and start preparing if necessary.

Better, earlier forecasts

The study, which I led, assessed the likelihood of La Niña or El Niño events occurring in succession – either in the eastern or central region of the Pacific Ocean.

This distinction is important. For Australia, El Niño and La Niña events peaking in the Central Pacific, close to our continent, have greater impacts here compared to those peaking in the east, closer to South America.

We analysed weather observations, and the sequence of past El Niño and La Niña events, over the past 150 years. We also examined climate models for future changes in transitions between El Niño and La Niña events.

From this, we determined the likelihood of an El Niño or La Niña occurring in two consecutive years.

We found most El Niño events are followed by neutral conditions the next year (with a likelihood of 37–56%).

But La Niña behaves differently. In 40% of cases, a Central Pacific El Niño could follow an Eastern Pacific La Niña. And there is a 28% chance of two consecutive La Niña events in the Central Pacific.

These results allow for more advanced predictions. By identifying patterns in this way, the odds of an El Niño or La Niña can be predicted up to a year in advance.

Looking ahead

So, what does our research suggest for Australia? Will a La Niña develop here this year?

From September last year, Australia experienced a strong Eastern Pacific El Niño. So our findings suggest there is only a 17% chance of La Niña this year.

If the La Niña arrives, it will likely peak in the Central Pacific, potentially affecting Australia rainfall. But overall, any La Niña that develops this late is likely to be weak and relatively short-lived.

Our research also found that as climate change accelerates, the El Niño Southern Oscillation is likely to shift. For example, the odds of two consecutive El Niños peaking in the central Pacific region will likely increase. And we can expect fewer calm, neutral years between events.

We hope our research enables more accurate, long-range forecasts, giving communities additional time to plan and prepare.

Mandy Freund, Lecturer, Climate Science Geography, The University of Melbourne

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Small plastic particles are everywhere: in the soil where our food is grown, in the water we drink and in the air we breathe. They got there from the plastic we throw away, which ends up in landfill sites, rivers and seas. There the plastic waste slowly breaks down, releasing tiny particles called microplastics and even tinier nanoplastics into the environment.

Microplastics are also increasingly being found throughout the human body. We are not sure how they got there, though there are three probable routes. We may ingest microplastics when we eat and drink, or breathe them into our lungs, or absorb them through our skin. Another route has recently been suggested, whereby microplastics get up our noses and from there into our brains.

For a long time, it was thought that the human brain existed in splendid isolation from the rest of the body. The so-called blood-brain barrier, a special layer of cells, protects the brain from all manner of pathogens and harmful substances. However, we now know that the blood-brain barrier can be breached because small plastic particles have been found in the human brain.

New research has suggested that the blood-brain barrier has at least one vulnerable spot where microplastics may be able to get into the brain. This potential entry point was suggested by researchers at the Freie Universität Berlin and the University of São Paulo. It is in the nose, where there are special nerves, the olfactory nerves, that detect smells.

The olfactory nerves run from the inside of the nose, through the skull, and then directly into part of the brain called the olfactory bulb. The researchers suggest that microparticles breathed into the nose may somehow get transported along the olfactory nerves and into the brain.

The researchers came to their conclusions by analysing tissue samples from residents of São Paulo who had died and undergone routine coroners’ autopsies. They removed the olfactory bulbs from these brains and analysed them using a variety of techniques.

Eight out of the 15 brains studied had microplastics in their olfactory bulbs. However, these eight samples had only 16 microplastic particles between them, which is perhaps some comfort.

Those 16 plastic particles included fragments, spheres and fibres, and were made of polypropylene, nylon and other plastics. Some of the fibres could have come from clothing. This makes sense because laundering clothes made from synthetic fibres is a significant source of microplastics in the environment.

Some of our small plastic particles are missing

The new study is just one of many that has reported the presence of small plastic particles in the human body. Most of these studies are about microplastics, which are particles up to five millimetres in size. Very few studies have looked for nanoplastics in the human body.

Nanoplastics are less than one-thousandth of a millimetre in size – so tiny that it is difficult to detect them without special equipment, and few scientists have easy access to this equipment.

The reason nanoplastics are important is that, unlike microplastics, they are well-documented to be harmful to living cells. This is because nanoplastics are small enough to get inside cells. Once inside, they can kill the cell.

Nanoplastics have been shown to kill cells in animal embryos. This can lead to birth defects in animals if the embryo is exposed to a high dose of nanoparticles.

Fortunately, there is no evidence that humans have suffered any great increase in birth defects in recent years. Maybe the placenta is able to stop microplastics and nanoplastics from reaching the foetus.

We need to know much more about the presence of microplastics – and especially nanoplastics – in the human body. And we need to know how they get there in the first place.

This makes the new Berlin-São Paulo study so interesting. It suggests a potential entry point, from the nose into the brain. This leaves us with the question: what potential risks are posed to our health by microplastics and nanoplastics? The jury is out, but perhaps feeling a little more nervous than before.

Michael Richardson, Professor of Animal Development, Leiden University and Meiru Wang, Postdoctoral Researcher, Developmental Biology, Molecular Biology and Nanotoxicology, Leiden University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

It’s been 20 years since a paper in the journal Science showed the environmental accumulation of tiny plastic fragments and fibres. It named the particles “microplastics”.

The paper opened an entire research field. Since then, more than 7,000 published studies have shown the prevalence of microplastics in the environment, in wildlife and in the human body.

So what have we learned? In a paper released today, an international group of experts, including myself, summarise the current state of knowledge.

In short, microplastics are widespread, accumulating in the remotest parts of our planet. There is evidence of their toxic effects at every level of biological organisation, from tiny insects at the bottom of the food chain to apex predators.

Microplastics are pervasive in food and drink and have been detected throughout the human body. Evidence of their harmful effects is emerging.

The scientific evidence is now more than sufficient: collective global action is urgently needed to tackle microplastics – and the problem has never been more pressing.

Tiny particles, huge problem

Microplastics are generally accepted as plastic particles 5mm or less in one dimension.

Some microplastics are intentionally added to products, such as microbeads in facial soaps.

Others are produced unintentionally when bigger plastic items break down – for example, fibres released when you wash a polyester fleece jacket.

Studies have identified some of the main sources of microplastics as:

• cosmetic cleansers
• synthetic textiles
• vehicle tyres
• plastic-coated fertilisers
• plastic film used as mulch in agriculture
• fishing rope and netting
• “crumb rubber infill” used in artificial turf
• plastics recycling.

Science hasn’t yet determined the rate at which larger plastics break down into microplastics. They are also still researching how quickly microplastics become “nanoplastics” – even smaller particles invisible to the eye.

Measuring the microplastic scourge

It’s difficult to assess the volume of microplastics in the air, soil and water. But researchers have attempted it.

For example, a 2020 study estimated between 0.8 and three million tonnes of microplastics enter Earth’s oceans in a year.

And a recent report suggests leakage into the environment on land could be three to ten times greater than that to oceans. If correct, it means between ten and 40 million tonnes in total.

The news gets worse. By 2040, microplastic releases to the environment could more than double. Even if humans stopped the flow of microplastics into the environment, the breakdown of bigger plastics would continue.

Microplastics have been detected in more than 1,300 animal species, including fish, mammals, birds and insects.

Some animals mistake the particles for food and ingest it, leading to harm such as blocked intestines. Animals are also harmed when the plastics inside them release the chemicals they contain – or those hitch-hiking on them.

Invaders in our bodies

Microplastics have been identified in the water we drink, the air we breathe and the food we eat – including seafood, table salt, honey, sugar, beer and tea.

Sometimes the contamination occurs in the environment. Other times it’s the result of food processing, packaging and handling.

More data is needed on microplastics in human foods such as land-animal products, cereals, grains, fruits, vegetables, beverages, spices, and oils and fats.

The concentrations of microplastics in foods vary widely – which means exposure levels in humans around the world also varies. However, some estimates, such as humans ingesting a credit card’s worth of plastic every week, are gross overstatements.

As equipment has advanced, scientists have identified smaller particles. They’ve found microplastics in our lungs, livers, kidneys, blood and reproductive organs. Microplastics have crossed protective barriers into our brains and hearts.

While we eliminate some microplastics through urine, faeces and our lungs, many persist in our bodies for a long time.

So what effect does this have on the health of humans and other organisms? Over the years, scientists have changed the way they measure this.

They initially used high doses of microplastics in laboratory tests. Now they use a more realistic dose that better represents what we and other creatures are actually exposed to.

And the nature of microplastics differ. For example, they contain different chemicals and interact differently with liquids or sunlight. And species of organisms, including humans, themselves vary between individuals.

This complicates scientists’ ability to conclusively link microplastics exposure with effects.

In regards to humans, progress is being made. In coming years, expect greater clarity about effects on our bodies such as:

• inflammation
• oxidative stress (an imbalance of free radicals and antioxidants that damages cells)
• immune responses
• genotoxicity – damage to the genetic information in a cell that causes mutations, which can lead to cancer.

What can we do?

Public concern about microplastics is growing. This is compounded by our likely long-term exposure, given microplastics are almost impossible to remove from the environment.

Microplastic pollution is the result of human actions and decisions. We created the problem – and now we must create the solution.

Some countries have implemented laws regulating microplastics. But this is insufficient to address the challenge. That’s where a new legally binding agreement, the UN’s Global Plastics Treaty, offers an important opportunity. The fifth round of negotiations begins in November.

The treaty aims to reduce global production of plastics. But the deal must also include measures to reduce microplastics specifically.

Ultimately, plastics must be redesigned to prevent microplastics being released. And individuals and communities must be brought on board, to drive support for government policies.

After 20 years of microplastics research, there is more work to be done. But we have more than enough evidence to act now.

Karen Raubenheimer, Senior Lecturer, University of Wollongong

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

It’s no secret Australia has abundant and cheap renewable energy, especially wind and solar power. But yes, there are times when the sun doesn’t shine and the wind doesn’t blow. We need energy storage to get us through those still nights and dreary days.

The Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO) reports investment in storage capacity continues to increase, filling gaps left by retiring coal-fired power stations. But it warns sufficient storage is needed to ensure electricity supply is reliable throughout the transition.

Energy storage is the special sauce that makes renewables work anytime, anywhere and everywhere. Being able to send this stored renewable energy back to the grid on demand makes the most of the existing electricity network, including transmission lines.

We need both short- and long-duration storage to maintain energy security. This will enable renewable energy to be collected, stored and dispatched when needed. AEMO forecasts reliability levels can be maintained over most of the next ten years if programs and initiatives already established are delivered on time and in full. But we can’t afford any delays.

Storage on the grid

Old-fashioned power stations burning coal tend to run continuously, which helps make the electricity grid stable and reliable. In contrast, renewables need to be backed with storage such as batteries to provide a continuous supply of electricity.

The modern electricity network is being designed to handle the power produced when the sun is shining brightly and the wind is blowing hard, at the same time. But this only happens about 25% of the time.

Similarly, transmission lines are being built to a maximum capacity. But we could get by with fewer transmission lines if we store more solar and wind power for later. That’s why many renewable generation projects include storage on site or nearby, and why it also makes sense to have batteries in our homes or communities.

Australia has some of the world’s biggest batteries

The 300 megawatt Victorian Big Battery, near Geelong, is the biggest in Australia and one of the biggest in the world. It can store enough energy to power more than a million homes for 30 minutes.

The federal government is also funding six large-scale batteries through the Capacity Investment Scheme. This includes a 350MW energy storage system on the site of the Jeeralang Power Station, near Morwell in the Latrobe Valley. But the title of the nation’s biggest battery will soon be handed to the 850MW Waratah Super Battery in New South Wales.

What’s next?

Other emerging battery systems could power the future. For example, new lithium-sulphur batteries deliver more energy per gram and last longer than existing lithium-ion batteries. This has been achieved simply by adding sugar.

Australia has all the critical minerals needed to make batteries (lithium, nickel, copper, cobalt). But about 90% of the batteries we currently use come from China.

The 2024 National Battery Strategy vision is for Australia is a globally competitive producer of batteries and battery materials by 2035.

Battery booster scheme needed

Australia has the policy settings and incentives about right for building grid-scale storage systems. But almost half the effort in getting to 82% renewables by 2030 will come from consumers – mainly rooftop solar systems, backed by home and business battery storage.

We have just passed the point at which the payback period for small-scale batteries falls within the product’s lifetime, making the upfront cost worthwhile.

But government incentives are still needed to make it more affordable to install small-scale solar batteries. This would help families and businesses reduce their power bills, gain better control of when and how they produce energy, and build a more resilient energy system.

More than 300,000 solar power systems are installed on Australian homes and businesses each year. The total reached more than 3.7 million systems at the start of this year. With the right ambition and policy settings, we could have similar rates of uptake in home batteries – going from about 250,000 at the moment to more than one million by 2030.

What’s more, electric vehicles are essentially large “batteries on wheels”. They can be plugged in at home to provide backup power in blackouts, or at times of peak demand.

Government incentives are also needed here to drive the further uptake of electric vehicles in the domestic, commercial and industry sector. The upfront price of an EV is too high for many Australians. Perverse incentives such as the diesel rebate are also slowing the switch in some sectors such as mining.

Australia is already a world leader in rooftop solar. With the right policy levers, we can also lead the world in home energy storage.

The energy storage toolkit

Batteries alone aren’t enough. As the penetration of renewables increases, the importance of long duration energy storage technologies will increase. In general, these technologies provide more than eight hours of energy storage using various electrochemical, mechanical, thermal and mechanical means.

Beyond batteries, other energy storage solutions include pumped hydro such as Snowy 2.0, “green gravity” using mine shafts, green hydrogen and concentrated solar thermal power plants.

Get smart about storage

Many energy storage options are readily available now and could be manufactured in Australia. We have the technology to empower communities, create thousands of new jobs and help save the planet.

If we’re smart about it, we can even get by with fewer transmission lines and less bulky electricity infrastructure.

Scott Hamilton, Adjunct associate professor, Department of Chemical and Biological Engineering, Monash University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

The electricity workforce will need to double in five years to achieve Australia’s 2030 renewable energy target, our new report finds. More than 80% of these jobs will be in renewables. Jobs in energy storage alone will overtake domestic coal and gas jobs (not including the coal and gas export sector) in the next couple of years.

The Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO) updates its Integrated System Plan every two years. It’s a blueprint for the energy transition from coal to renewable energy. The plan lays out scenarios for how the electricity system might change to help put in place all the elements needed to make the transition happen.

AEMO and the RACE for 2030 co-operative research centre commissioned the Institute for Sustainable Futures to undertake modelling on the workforce needed for this transition. The “step change” scenario in the Integrated System Plan is broadly aligned with the 2030 renewables target. Under this scenario, we found the electricity workforce would need to grow from 33,000 to peak at 66,000 by 2029.

Rooftop solar and batteries together are projected to account for over 40% of these jobs. Wind farms will employ around one-third and solar farms just under 10%. Jobs would also treble in transmission line construction to connect renewables in regional areas to cities and other states in the next few years.

Job growth would surge in a ‘renewable energy superpower’

In the “green energy export” scenario, Australia becomes a “renewable energy superpower”. The country uses renewable energy to export green hydrogen and power heavy industry. In this scenario, the electricity workforce would almost treble to 96,000 by the late 2020s.

By 2033, after construction peaks, more than half of electricity sector jobs will be in operations and maintenance. This applies to both the step change and green energy export scenarios.

A significant employment downturn is projected during the 2030s. But in the green energy export scenario jobs then climb steeply again to a peak of 120,000. This projection reflects AEMO’s expectations of when green export growth will occur.

New South Wales is projected to have the most renewable energy jobs in the 2020s. However, Queensland would become the largest state for renewable jobs (especially in wind farms) in the green energy export scenario.

What are the other possibilities?

“Progressive change” is another scenario in the Integrated System Plan. For this scenario, we modelled slower growth in renewable energy. It reflects constraints on the economy and supply chains (including labour and minerals) for renewables.

In an “enhanced manufacturing” scenario, local renewable energy manufacturing increases. Our modelling found it could create a peak of 5,000 extra jobs.

Importantly, these projections don’t include upstream jobs in supply chains for the sector (for example, increased mining to supply the resources that renewables need) or electrification of homes.

Creating this many jobs is very challenging

Our modelling shows the workforce needs to grow very rapidly to make Australia’s energy transition happen. Unfortunately, the challenges of building this workforce are daunting. They include:

• there’s a shortage of almost all key occupations in demand for the electricity sector – electricians, engineers, construction managers – according to Australia’s Skills Priority List

• “extraordinary growth” forecast by Infrastructure Australia in other major infrastructure projects, such as transport, which will compete for many of the same skilled workers

• under AEMO’s scenarios, employment will be subject to boom-bust cycles, which increases the risk of skill shortages and damaging impacts, such as housing shortages, in regional areas

• Australia has relied heavily on skilled migrants – and will look to do so again – but many parts of the world are chasing the same workers.

The International Energy Agency has noted:

Labour and skills shortages are already translating into project delays, raising concerns that clean energy solutions will be unable to keep pace with demand to meet net zero targets.

What can be done to avoid skill shortages?

Some action has been taken to increase the workforce. The federal government, for instance, is subsidising apprentices under the New Energy Apprenticeship program.

But action isn’t happening at the scale and pace required.

What else can be done?

Firstly, Jobs Skills Australia and Powering Skills Organisation (which oversees energy skills training) have outlined ways to increase the system’s capacity to train more skilled workers. This includes creating better pathways into renewable energy for students, especially in recognised Renewable Energy Zones.

Secondly, Jobs Skills Australia has noted the need for renewable energy businesses to increase their intakes of apprentices. It recommends expanding the Australian Skills Guarantee to include generation and transmission projects.

The guarantee has set mandatory targets for apprentices or trainees to complete 10% of labour hours on Commonwealth-funded major construction and information technology projects (A$10 million plus). It could also be applied to major government funding programs for renewable energy and transmission. These include:

• the Capacity Investment Scheme, a government tender program to support a large volume of new renewables and storage projects

• Rewiring the Nation, a $20 billion fund for transmission lines

• grants from the Australian Renewable Energy Agency and the Clean Energy Finance Corporation.

Thirdly, government tenders could moderate the peaks and troughs in employment by limiting the maximum and minimum volumes built each year.

Fourthly, including more women and First Nations Australians can increase labour supply and workforce diversity. Only one-in-two First Nations Australians are employed compared to around two in three in the wider population. Yet they account for around one-in-ten people in some major Renewable Energy Zones.

Government pre-employment programs, working with industry and First Nations groups, could also increase the supply of workers. These could have a dramatic social impact too.

It’s a challenging problem whichever way you look at it. We need rapid change to build renewable energy capacity before coal plants retire and to tackle climate change. But that depends on growing the workforce amid skill shortages.

There’s a range of ways to increase the supply of workers and improve local outcomes. But we are running out of time. Urgent action is needed.

Jay Rutovitz, Research Director, Institute for Sustainable Futures, University of Technology Sydney; Chris Briggs, Research Director, Institute for Sustainable Futures, University of Technology Sydney, and Elianor Gerrard, Senior Research Consultant, Institute for Sustainable Futures, University of Technology Sydney

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

In arid inland Australia lives one of Australia’s rarest birds: the night parrot. Missing for more than a century, a live population was rediscovered in 2013. But the species remains elusive.

Until recently, Australia’s known night parrot population numbered in the tens of birds, scattered across desert in Queensland and Western Australia.

But our research team – consisting of Indigenous rangers and scientists – has made a breakthrough discovery. We’ve detected the largest known night parrot population in the world: perhaps as many as 50, living in WA’s Great Sandy Desert, on land managed by the Ngururrpa people. Our results are published today.

Urgent action is needed to protect these vulnerable populations and ensure the night parrot doesn’t go missing a second time, perhaps for good.

A highly mysterious species

The night parrot was once found throughout Australia’s arid inland, but its numbers plummeted in the late 19th century.

The bird was not definitely recorded for more than 100 years, until a dead bird was found near Boulia in western Queensland in 1990. Another dead bird was found in Diamantina National Park, also in western Queensland, in 2006.

In 2013 a small population was found by naturalist John Young in south-western Queensland. That area is now a wildlife reserve.

Night parrots are notoriously difficult to detect. They build tunnels in dense spinifex and hide there by day, emerging at night to forage. They are known only from populations in remote south-west Queensland and central and northern Western Australia. The species is critically endangered.

In Western Australia, Indigenous cultural knowledge about the species includes stories about how difficult the bird is to find. There are also whispered stories of mothers telling children the night parrot’s call was the sound of an evil spirit, and warning them not to stray from camp.

What we did

The Ngururrpa Indigenous Protected Area is in the Great Sandy Desert. It comprises vast areas of sandplains and dunefields, and smaller areas of floodplain and spinifex which are key night parrot habitats.

Ngururrpa Rangers worked with scientists to learn how to use sound recorders to search for night parrots. We then searched for the birds on Country between 2018 and 2023.

We combined the rangers’ detailed knowledge of habitats, water and seed resources with geology maps, satellite imagery and fire history data. From this we selected 31 potential roosting areas, then deployed sound recorders called “songmeters” at those sites.

We wanted to detect the night parrots’ distinctive calls which consist of whistles, croaks and bell-like sounds.

The acoustic data we gathered was then analysed to extract any bird calls in the night parrot’s frequency range. Potential detections were verified using a reference library of known night parrot calls.

Our results

We detected night parrot calls at 17 of 31 sites. Of these, ten were roost sites, where night parrot calls were detected in the hour after sunset and the hour before sunrise.

Individual night parrots are thought to have unique calls. We analysed how many different calls we could hear, and how loud they were (which can tell us when birds are calling from different locations). From this we built a picture of the identity and number of individuals regularly occupying a site.

We extrapolated this across the 58 patches of potential night parrot habitat on the Ngururrpa Indigenous Protected Area. We concluded up to 20 roosting areas may be occupied by night parrots.

Based on the numbers at roosting sites where we recorded calls, we estimate 40–50 night parrots could be present in the Ngururrpa Indigenous Protected Area.

Fire and predators pose grave threats

Once we found the night parrot populations, we wanted to know what threats they faced.

We used camera-traps to identify predators and also collected their scats (poos) to analyse their diets.

Dingoes were the predator detected most frequently in night parrot roosting habitat. Our cameras captured them ten times more often than feral cats. And we found dingoes regularly eat feral cats at night parrot sites.

Based on information from other areas, we suspect cats are a key predator of night parrots. Dingoes could be important in suppressing cat numbers and helping the parrots survive. So, attempts to limit predators in night parrot habitat should not harm dingoes.

We also analysed 40 years of satellite imagery to assess the threat of fire to night parrots’ roosting habitat. Based on the vegetation types and flammability of surrounding landscapes, we found bushfires sparked by lightning are a much bigger threat to night parrots in the Great Sandy Desert than in Queensland.

Strategic aerial and ground burning, to reduce fuel loads, already occurs in the Ngururrpa Indigenous Protected Area. As our knowledge of night parrots improves, these programs can become more targeted to protect key night parrot areas.

Keeping night parrots alive

A long-term monitoring program for night parrots on Ngururrpa Country should be established to help better understand and protect this vitally important population.

And the remote, wild nature of the landscape should be retained. This means minimising disturbance from people and vehicles, and continuing to exclude livestock and weeds.

Ngururrpa Ranger Clifford Sunfly exlpains how rangers want to help protect night parrots into the future:

We would like to spend more time on Country to find where [night parrots] are and understand what they are doing.

We want those scientists to come and help us catch some night parrots and tag them. We also need more snake-cams (inspection cameras) too and more songmeters. And a kit for collecting scats for DNA.

One day we would love to have our own research facility for doing our night parrot surveys. It would be our dream to have our own research base on Ngururrpa.

Rachel Paltridge, Adjunct Senior Research Fellow, ecology, The University of Western Australia; Clifford Sunfly, Ngururrpa Ranger, Indigenous Knowledge, and Nicholas Leseberg, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, School of the Environment, The University of Queensland

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Just as individual humans handle stress differently, so do corals. Even coral colonies of the same species, growing side by side, vary in their tolerance to pressures such as heatwaves.

In research published today, we discovered surprising new evidence of variable heat tolerance in corals. As the world’s oceans warm, these differences are important.

Earlier this year, the world’s fourth global mass bleaching event was declared. The Great Barrier Reef has suffered five mass bleachings since 2016 – most recently this past summer. The declarations followed the world’s warmest year on record.

To keep the world’s coral reefs healthy and functioning, global carbon emissions must be dramatically curbed to reduce the rate of ocean warming. As humanity works towards that goal, interventions may buy time for corals to survive in their warming environments.

What we did

The heat tolerance of corals can be measured by analysing their responses to elevated water temperatures. Our research involved measuring the bleaching thresholds of more than 500 colonies of the tabular coral, Acropora hyacinthus.

Acropora hyacinthus is a common coral that forms “tables” of tiny branchlets. This species is both ecologically important and highly vulnerable to heat waves, making it a prime candidate for conservation.

The characteristic colour of coral is provided by algae living inside its tissue. The algae also provide most of the coral’s nutrition. When water temperatures get too high for too long, the coral expels the algae, causing it to bleach and starve.

While at sea, we visited 17 reefs to scuba dive and search for Acropora hyacinthus. We then brought samples of these corals on board a research vessel to conduct experiments.

Our specially designed portable experiment system contained 12 tanks set to four different temperatures. Coral fragments were placed in each tank and subjected to short-term heat stress at different temperatures.

Afterwards, we measured the amount of pigment left in the coral fragments, which directly aligns with the amount of algae left in the coral’s cells.

We then determined each coral’s bleaching thresholds - in other words, the temperature at which the coral’s pigmentation drops to 50% of its healthy level. This allowed us to understand how much variation exists and where the most heat-tolerant colonies live.

So what did we find? Under our experiments, the amount of pigment retained under high temperatures varied from 3% to 95%. This means at high temperatures, some coral colonies completely bleached while others seemed barely affected.

Of the 17 reefs we studied, 12 contained colonies with bleaching thresholds in the top 25%. This means heat-tolerant corals could be found at most of the reefs we sampled.

Nature versus nurture

Corals handle stress differently for two reasons: nature and nurture.

Each coral has a unique “nature” or genetic makeup that can affect its heat tolerance. Our results suggest corals found across the entire Great Barrier Reef may hold unique genetic resources that are important for recovery and adaptation.

However, aspects of the marine environment may nurture, or hinder, a coral’s heat stress response. These include water temperatures, nutrient conditions, and the symbiotic algae living inside coral tissue.

We found corals living in warmer regions, such as the northern Great Barrier Reef, can handle higher water temperatures. However, because the water is so warm in these areas, the corals are already pushed close to their temperature limits.

Corals in the southern Great Barrier Reef cannot handle temperatures as high as their northern neighbours. Our findings suggest these corals can tolerate more warming above their local temperatures than corals to the north.

These tolerance patterns may affect which corals survive marine heatwaves.

Giving our reefs a future

Our findings have potentially important implications for the ability of corals to adapt to warmer seas under climate change.

The results may also inform reef restoration and conservation efforts. For example, heat-tolerant parent corals could be selectively bred to produce offspring better suited to warmer waters.

The success of such programs depends on the extent to which a coral’s genetic makeup controls its tolerance to heat. So, the next step in this research is investigating these genetic differences.

Selective breeding trials are already underway, using the most heat-tolerant corals identified in this study.

When it comes to protecting our coral reefs, reducing greenhouse gas emissions is imperative. However, interventions such as selective breeding may be useful supplements to give coral reefs the best future possible.

Melissa Naugle, PhD Candidate in Coral Ecology, Southern Cross University; Emily Howells, Senior Research Fellow in Marine Biology, Southern Cross University, and Line K Bay, Research Program Director, Australian Institute of Marine Science

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.