Tag: nature

Categories
Science communication The Conversation

The Conversation: Powerless against bird flu? Not entirely. Here are 8 ways to help protect Australia’s birds and mammals

Philip Thurston/Getty, CC BY

John Woinarski, Professor of Conservation Biology, Charles Darwin University; Euan Ritchie, Professor in Wildlife Ecology and Conservation, School of Life & Environmental Sciences, Deakin University, and Stephen Garnett, Professor of Conservation and Sustainable Livelihoods, Charles Darwin University.

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

The deadly H5N1 strain of bird flu has now spread from migratory birds to infect resident Australian birds. Clusters of dead birds have been found in several locations. The virus will inevitably infect other wildlife, most notably mammals.

Death rates range from 75-100% in poultry and some wild bird species. There’s great uncertainty about how big the death toll will be over both the short and long-term. Native species such as the black swan are highly vulnerable, while others may prove more resilient.

Based on overseas experience, we can expect many thousands, if not millions, of Australian birds, and large numbers of mammals, to perish. Poultry will likely become infected, while some beloved pets may die.

Overall, the populations of many Australian species will likely plummet. Some threatened species will move closer to extinction, and relatively safe species could become threatened. As the virus spreads through widespread species such as silver gulls, white ibis, pigeons, ducks and crows, many of us will be confronted by wildlife deaths close to home.

Facing a threat like this can make us feel powerless. But there are actions we can take.

Blow after blow for wildlife

Over the 2019-20 summer, megafires incinerated forests and wildlife. In 2025, the lethal South Australian algal bloom denuded large marine areas.

The prospect of yet another hammer blow to wildlife is haunting and emotionally triggering for conservationists, wildlife carers and people who love nature.

To date, the official messaging asks us to watch for, report and record sick birds and mammals. This is important, but it risks leaving the community feeling disempowered witnesses to catastrophe. The situation is far from hopeless. Now is the time to act.

What can be done?

Following overseas work on ways to reduce the toll, we have come up with eight actions.

1. Tackle other threats to give species a fighting chance

While federal, state and territory response plans are not public, what we do know suggests a focus on controlling threats other than bird flu, especially for species that are threatened.

For example, locally eradicating predators such as cats and foxes could give more individuals a chance to get through the first wave of bird flu. Banning duck hunting could also reduce one threat to wildlife.

Working to reduce other threats such as feral cats will boost resilience to the virus at a species level. Pictured: a cat stalking a red-tailed tropic-bird chick on Christmas Island. Janos Hennicke, CC BY

2. Secure insurance populations

Threatened birds and mammals with populations in captivity provide some security. We can boost these insurance populations by increasing their genetic diversity and the number of individuals kept.

For at-risk species without these populations, we may have to collect wild animals before infection reaches them (where practical). Zoos may offer the most protection, but there’s scope to translocate species (such as northern quolls) to safer wild places.

3. Vaccinate species at risk

New Zealand authorities are already giving vaccines to birds at risk. To date, Australia is not doing so, though policymakers are exploring the option. Limited trials in mammals have been undertaken in the United States.

Wild animals have to be caught, given the vaccine, and recaptured for a booster 4-6 weeks later. This is challenging but often feasible. In the US, authorities captured and vaccinated endangered Californian condors, then released them back to the wild.

We need to explore new vaccines, especially for mammals.

4. Widen monitoring

We need good monitoring to track the spread, understand whether our efforts have helped and plan future actions. Monitoring will show what the virus has done to species, track viral mutations and assess survival rates.

For many seabirds and waterbirds, existing programs give us good estimates of current population size. This will let us estimate declines and any recoveries. But we don’t have robust estimates for other at-risk bird and mammal species. This gap needs to be rapidly filled with funding for targeted monitoring. Citizen scientists can also help.

Citizen scientists can play a key role in monitoring population declines and – hopefully – recovery through platforms such as iNaturalist and Birdata. Renee Mead, CC BY

5. Expand research

Much Australian fauna is very distinct from species overseas, meaning lessons learned elsewhere won’t necessarily apply. We need to know which species are most vulnerable, which species spread the virus most effectively, whether survivors have compromised immune systems and how much genetic diversity has been lost.

6. Slow the spread

The virus spreads rapidly in contaminated water and through the movements of infected birds and mammals. Even so, we can slow the spread. In some situations, authorities can remove sick or dead animals to reduce the chance of scavenging birds and animals eating them and contracting then spreading the virus.

Some areas may need to be closed to the public to reduce infection risks through disturbance or contamination. It may be necessary to shut down some water sources or make them less attractive to waterfowl, who are often good carriers of the virus. Poultry farmers will need to control water sources too, to avoid attracting infected birds.

7. Involve interested groups

Authorities must ensure community members, land-owners, First Nations groups and conservationists are involved in creating response plans. Bird flu is a shared problem. Governments cannot respond alone.

8. Look for some silver linings

This virus will likely have dire consequences for many species. But it could also kill introduced predators and scavengers such as feral pigs, cats, foxes and common mynahs.

Time to act

The damage this virus will do isn’t set. We can shape some outcomes. We believe this package of actions could help avert the worst future for Australian birds and mammals – and encourage their recovery.

Acknowledgements: Ecologist Tanya Loos provided helpful feedback.

The Conversation
Categories
Science communication The Conversation

The Conversation: Bird flu has spread to two Australian states. Here’s how it could accelerate our extinction crisis

A rare northern quoll, an animal almost extinct due to the cane toad. Jason Edwards via Getty Images

Euan Ritchie, Professor in Wildlife Ecology and Conservation, School of Life & Environmental Sciences, Deakin University

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

The deadly H5N1 strain of bird flu has now been found in a second state, South Australia, after earlier being identified in Western Australia.

Authorities have confirmed three seabirds have died of the highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) H5N1 virus. It is too early to know if H5N1 has spread beyond these animals to other wildlife or livestock in Australia. But it appears very much a matter of when, not if, this happens.

Globally, H5N1 has already devastated wildlife populations. In Australia, this deadly virus could greatly disrupt ecosystems and push our most threatened species even closer to extinction.

Why is H5N1 so dangerous?

The H5N1 strain of bird flu spreads through contact with bodily fluids such as saliva and faeces, infected animals or contaminated environments. It can also be transmitted through scavenging by species that feed on infected carcasses.

Since 2021, the H5N1 strain has killed millions of the world’s wild birds, mammals and poultry. This is because it can spread faster than other HPAI strains – including between mammals – and move between continents via migratory birds.

However, it’s hard to predict how H5N1 will affect our wildlife and ecosystems. This strain of the virus is not yet established in Australia. And many of our species are endemic – meaning they’re not found anywhere outside Australia – so we don’t have the data needed to reliably predict how H5N1 may affect them.

Threatened species most at risk

For threatened species, an H5N1 outbreak could be catastrophic. And a mass mortality event could be the final straw that finishes off a species. This is especially true if a population is already in decline, is geographically restricted or gathers to breed during certain seasons.

After the initial outbreak passes, populations may rebound through breeding and immigration. However, an extreme drop in numbers can create a genetic bottleneck, leading to rapid, substantial loss of genetic diversity. This, in turn, can threaten a population’s long-term health.

Since detecting H5N1 in Australia, authorities have understandably focused on protecting Australia’s spectacular birds – including the threatened regent honeyeater and orange-bellied parrot.

What’s received less attention are our iconic but increasingly threatened mammals. This includes the egg-laying platypus, native rodents such as the rakali and numerous marsupial species. In the United States, the virus has already done widespread damage to native rodents such as squirrels and voles, and the marsupial Virginia Opossum. It may well do the same to Australia’s mammals.

Carnivorous marsupials such as endangered Tasmanian devils and quoll species are also at risk, as their hunting and scavenging may expose them to infected carcasses.

Kangaroos, wallabies, possums and bandicoots can also scavenge and eat meat, meaning they could come in contact with H5N1. Species that live near shore birds in coastal and island habitats – including endangered mainland eastern barred bandicoots and threatened quokkas – are even more at risk.

The H5N1 strain could also prove deadly to our Australian sea lion and black swan populations. Black swans appear particularly susceptible to H5N1, which may be because they evolved in the isolated island continent of Australia. Unlike other swan species, they lack certain genetic traits that might help their immune systems fight the H5N1 virus.

Long-term damage to ecosystems

Beyond individual species, H5N1 has the potential to greatly disrupt and devastate Australia’s ecosystems.

An H5N1 outbreak in predator species could see prey populations surge. If a local dingo population is wiped out by the virus, the kangaroos, wallabies, feral goats and other herbivores they prey on could rapidly increase in numbers. This could lead to overgrazing, which in turn would deprive other animals of food and shelter.

In freshwater and marine environments, an H5N1 outbreak could see many birds die in and around waterways in a short period. Nutrients from the bird carcasses could pollute waterways if not cleaned up, worsening water quality and oxygen levels and potentially causing widespread fish kills.

So, what can we do?

Compared to other countries and continents, Australia has had longer to prepare for an H5N1 outbreak.

The federal government has so far invested A$113 million to bolster our H5N1 response. This money will go towards disease surveillance, invasive species control, captive breeding programs and efforts to monitor wildlife health.

But we can also help stop the spread of H5N1 on an individual level by:

  • immediately reporting any sick or dead animals to the Emergency Animal Disease hotline on 1800 675 888 or organisations such as Wildlife Health Australia

  • not touching native wildlife

  • only feeding birds in backyards, never in the wild, and following strict hygiene measures such as cleaning water baths weekly and opting for hanging bird feeders

  • keeping dogs and cats away from wildlife, animal faeces and especially dead carcasses.

The arrival of H5N1 in Australia is not cause for panic, as this outbreak is yet to unfold. But we must be extra vigilant in how we observe and interact with wildlife and nature. The future of our most vulnerable species depends on it.

The Conversation

Categories
Science communication The Conversation

The Conversation: From fossicking for fossils to a champion for life on Earth: Sir David Attenborough at 100

BBC, CC BY-NC-ND

Euan Ritchie, Professor in Wildlife Ecology and Conservation, School of Life & Environmental Sciences, Deakin University

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

Sir David Attenborough turns 100 this week.

Very few people have the good fortune to live for a century. Fewer still achieve so much and touch so many lives.

Across his seven decade career with the BBC, Attenborough ushered in the transition from black and white to colour television. He gave the now legendary comedy troupe Monty Python their lucky break, greenlighting their Flying Circus. His keen eye and care for viewers is in part why tennis balls are yellow, not white – they’re much easier to see on screen.

But Attenborough is, of course, most famous for his nature documentaries. For decades, he has fronted the camera to educate, entertain and inspire billions of people about the complexity, wonder and majesty of the natural world, and the many threats it faces. It wasn’t a given – Attenborough was told early in his career his teeth were too big for television!

For ecologists like myself, Attenborough’s work has been a source of deep inspiration. It was instrumental in my decision to pursue a life and a career dedicated to understanding, caring and fighting for the protection of nature. For this gift, I am eternally grateful.

A career driven by curiosity

Attenborough’s connection with nature came early, forged in no small part through an insatiable fascination with fossils – including his childhood joy at discovering an ammonite in the Leicestershire countryside.

He went on to study geology and zoology at Cambridge University, graduating in 1947. He served in the navy and worked in an educational publishing house. Notably, the BBC rejected his first job application as a radio producer in 1950. But he tried again, and joined the BBC as a trainee producer in 1952.

Early in his career, Attenborough (right) interviewed Edmund Hillary. Wikimedia, CC BY-NC-ND

His career in nature documentaries began to bud almost immediately, with his Zoo Quest series beginning in 1954. But it burst into full bloom with the landmark Life on Earth series in 1979, which brought distant locations, extraordinary wildlife and evolution and ecology to TV. It instilled a sense of wonder and awe in audiences, while maintaining and respecting scientific accuracy.

The master storyteller

One reason Attenborough has had such success as a communicator is his understated, calm but authoritative demeanour. When you sit down to watch an Attenborough documentary, you feel in safe hands.

His approach isn’t the norm. In other nature documentaries, wildlife can often seem secondary, as props for the presenter.

Some of Sir David’s documentaries didn’t always go to script.

In series such as The Living Planet, The Trials of Life, The Blue Planet, The Planet Earth, and scores of others, Attenborough took us across the globe, revealing nature’s beauty, oddities and extraordinary complexity, as well as its macabre and brutal aspects. The habitats home to the world’s species are brought to life in extraordinary detail. We watch with laughter, trepidation, sadness, anger, excitement and awe, ebbing and flowing as nature’s stories unfold.

Who can forget the first time they saw and heard the extraordinary vocal repertoire and mimicry of a lyrebird, or a curious mountain gorilla’s desire to connect with a fellow great ape? The epic battle for survival between a hatchling iguana and hungry hordes of racer snakes? Or the breathtaking explosion of colour and complexity of a coral reef? Each of these was captured by master cinematographers and the story told to us by Attenborough.

A truly epic chase and battle for survival between iguanas and snakes.

Over his long career, Attenborough has become an icon. He was voted the UK’s best TV presenter of all time. But his prodigious output has come at a personal cost too. One of his regrets is how much time he has spent away from his family.

He is also not off limits to criticism. For a long time, Attenborough focused on the glory of nature, largely omitting the damage humans do through overfishing, deforestation, pollution, spreading exotic species, and other threats. He has also shied away from assigning blame to those most responsible for the harms inflicted on nature.

In 2018, he said too much focus on why so much wildlife is threatened was a “turn-off” for some viewers. Ecologists and conservation scientists can sympathise. We know bombarding people with doom and gloom invites apathy and despair, not a desire to act. It’s a hard line to walk between harsh realities and hope.

To his credit, Attenborough has belatedly focused on these issues in recent years. Footage of plastic pollution in Blue Planet II and the ravages of industrial fishing in Ocean have brought a sharp focus on these issues.

In 2020, he released A Life On Our Planet, which he describes as a “witness statement” to the startling losses of biodiversity he has seen over his lifetime. Rather than just spell out the problems, Attenborough laid out how to solve them – and the role we can all play in fixing the two biggest and deeply interwoven problems nature faces: climate change and biodiversity declines and extinctions.

While Attenborough’s earlier work largely avoided these difficult conversations, they succeeded in bringing nature’s wonder to millions of people. This shouldn’t be overlooked. At a time when more and more of us are cut off from nature, Attenborough’s documentaries forged a new connection. For people to care about losing nature, they first have to know and love it.

Conservation relies on stories

Scientific research rarely leads to the behavioural changes we might hope for. Accumulating facts and evidence is vital. But it’s not enough. What humans respond to is stories.

Alongside other globally renowned voices such as the late, great Jane Goodall, Attenborough’s work telling the stories of nature has shaped public opinion. In turn, it has galvanised conservation efforts such as the push to protect 30% of the world’s oceans by 2030.

As he celebrates his centenary, it’s encouraging to see a new generation and diversity of voices in the media and science communication, advocacy, and scientific community. They speak and share their messages with great clarity, confidence, and passion.

Attenborough is just one person. He can’t replace the vital role of scientists, community leaders, conservationists and policymakers in conserving nature. But no one will ever replace David’s distinctive voice. As he has said:

it seems to me that the natural world is the greatest source of excitement; the greatest source of visual beauty; the greatest source of intellectual interest. It is the greatest source of so much in life that makes life worth living

Hear, hear. Happy birthday for May 8th, David Attenborough.

The Conversation
Categories
Science communication The Conversation

The Conversation: When feral cats are away, potoroos and bandicoots are more likely to play


Fidel Fernando/Unsplash

Euan Ritchie, Professor in Wildlife Ecology and Conservation, School of Life & Environmental Sciences, Deakin University; Amy Coetsee, Threatened Species Biologist, The University of Melbourne; Anthony Rendall, Lecturer in Conservation Biology, School of Life and Environmental Sciences, Deakin University, and Duncan Sutherland, Deputy Director of Research, Phillip Island Nature Parks; Research Fellow, The University of Melbourne

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

All animals need to eat to survive, grow and reproduce. To do so, they also need to avoid being eaten. This is a big challenge for many of Australia’s native mammals, because when they search for food, they must also escape the attention of introduced predators, namely, feral cats and red foxes.

Tragically, many have been unable to overcome this test of survival, becoming one of the 40 native mammal species driven to extinction since European colonisation.

But what happens if we reduce the numbers of introduced predators? Do our surviving native species think there is less risk of being the next meal for a cat or fox? How do they respond? And how might we tell? With peanut butter balls, of course!

A deadly game of hide and seek


Long-nosed potoroos are vulnerable to predation by non-native feral cats and red foxes.
Leo Berzins/flickr, CC BY-ND

Natural environments contain predators and prey engaged in a deadly game of hide and seek, and – from the prey’s perspective – a landscape of fear. The extent to which the two groups are aware of each other and able to respond (hunting vs hiding and escape) varies across time and space. Prey might perceive some areas as a riskier proposition, such as more open habitats or times when predators are most active. They therefore reduce their activity to minimise the likelihood of being eaten.

But avoiding being eaten comes at an energetic cost. It may mean preferred areas or times to feed are reduced, which in turn limits rates of growth, reproduction and survival of prey species. Prey animals are constantly weighing up this tradeoff of risk vs reward as they go about their lives.

Tasty treats can assess risk appetite

We can’t know for sure how much animals fear being eaten, but we can assess it indirectly, through their willingness to eat. In our recently published study, we measured how much food animals don’t eat as a indicator of their fear of being eaten. The more food they give up, the greater the risk of predation those animals are assumed to perceive. These experiments are made easier by the fact many mammals are mad about gobbling up peanut butter.

French Island has long been fox free, but had thousands of feral cats. In 2010, authorities began a feral cat eradication, which made it a perfect place for our research.


Feral cat activity per month at one site on French Island, south-eastern Australia, across a 2-year period during a cat eradication program. The red arrow indicates when the cat eradication program began and the blue arrows indicate when we undertook our GUD experiments.
CC BY-NC-ND

Importantly, we were able to start our experiment prior to an eradication program of feral cats, which began in 2010 on French Island, Victoria. This means we were able to measure changes in long-nosed potoroos and eastern barred bandicoots habitat use and foraging as cat numbers and activity fell.

So, on fox-free French Island, we placed balls of peanut butter, rolled oats and golden syrup into trays with soil and dug them into the ground, ensuring they were below the soil surface. We did this in more open grassland areas (likely riskier habitat, with less cover and protection from feral cats) and more densely vegetated areas (less risky habitat, due to increased cover).

We used camera traps to measure how often potoroos and bandicoots visited these feeding trays to dig up the tasty treats, and how much of the peanut butter balls they left behind in different habitats and at different periods throughout the ongoing feral cat eradication program.

When feral cats are away, native animals play (more)

A deadly game of feral cat and long-nosed potoroo, as revealed by our camera trap. We can confirm that this potoroo survived, this time. Te Ao Marama Eketone (Deakin University), CC BY-NC-ND

As the number of feral cats on French Island was reduced, potoroos and bandicoots used both open and closed habitat types more frequently, and they increased their activity, giving up less food over time. This suggests bandicoots and potoroos do recognise feral cats as a threat, and are able to fairly rapidly change their habitat use and foraging accordingly.

Aside from the obvious benefits of fewer feral cats killing and eating potoroos and bandicoots on French Island, our study suggests there may be substantial benefits for native wildlife — namely increased access to habitats and foraging opportunities — even before the ultimate longer-term goal of cat eradication can be achieved.

Our study’s results are encouraging. Outside the safe havens of invasive predator-free islands and fenced sanctuaries, feral cats are notoriously hard to eradicate from large areas, and there is a constant threat of their return.

We need to do all that we can to give Australia’s native mammals, including eastern barred bandicoots, a helping hand. Zoos Victoria, CC BY-NC-ND

To change this, new and more effective ways to control and eradicate feral cats are needed. But until then, reducing and keeping feral cat numbers lower, while also carefully managing habitats to benefit wildlife, can still give native animals the helping hand they need to survive.

We would like to acknowledge that this work was led by former Deakin University Honours student, Te Ao Marama Eketone, and it occurred on the unceded Country of the Bunurong/Boonwurrung peoples.

The Conversation
Categories
Science communication The Conversation

The Conversation: Yes, feral cats and foxes really have driven many Australian mammals to extinction

Lea Scannan/Getty

John Woinarski, Professor of Conservation Biology, Charles Darwin University; Euan Ritchie, Professor in Wildlife Ecology and Conservation, School of Life & Environmental Sciences, Deakin University; Katherine Moseby, Professor of Conservation Biology, UNSW, and Sarah Legge, Professor of Wildlife Conservation, Australian National University

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

Millions of years of isolation have shaped Australia’s extraordinary mammal fauna into species unlike anywhere else in the world, from platypus to koalas and wombats.

Tragically, Australia is the world leader in mammal extinctions. About 40 species have gone extinct in the 238 years since European colonisation began, and nearly 80 species are now imperilled. It’s essential we understand what factors caused these extinctions and ongoing decline.

Over many years, scientists have gathered compelling evidence demonstrating predation by introduced cats and foxes has been a key driver. Australian mammals have had millennia living alongside other predators such as wedge-tailed eagles and dingoes. But foxes and cats are extraordinarily capable and ecologically flexible hunters, quite unlike anything Australia’s mammals had confronted before.

Recently, some researchers have questioned whether these introduced predators really are responsible. In our new research, we lay out the clear lines of evidence implicating foxes and cats. For instance, extinct species tend to be small-to-medium mammals, the preferred prey size for these predators. When mammals are returned to fenced, fox- and cat-free areas, their populations often flourish.

The main lines of evidence implicating introduced predators in Australian native mammal declines and extinctions. Author provided, CC BY-NC-ND

Controversy in conservation

Last year, researchers questioned whether there was enough evidence to say feral cats and foxes had contributed to Australian mammal extinctions – and, by implication, their role in the ongoing decline of other threatened mammal species.

Their research drew on three premises relating to extinct and surviving mammals. If cats and foxes caused these extinctions, they argued that these should follow:

  1. The last recorded sighting of a now extinct mammal from an area must come after the arrival of one or both of these predator species

  2. Lethal management programs aimed at reducing fox and cat numbers should result in an increase in native mammal numbers in an area

  3. Where cats and foxes are abundant, there should be fewer native mammals.

After testing these three ideas, the authors conclude the hypothesis foxes and cats cause extinctions “has come to be accepted with little evidence.”

The research caused a major stir among the conservation community, as it took aim at longstanding accumulated knowledge and questioned whether the evidence base was strong enough to justify efforts to control feral cats and foxes.

As experts with many decades experience working to protect threatened Australian mammals and other wildlife, we had a duty to evaluate their evidence.

Claim and counterclaim is essential to test, shape and hone science, and to provide a robust foundation for conservation management. It may seem like an academic argument, but it has clear real-world implications.

The survival and recovery of much of Australia’s native mammal fauna depends on controlling cats and foxes. Many recent success stories in bringing native animals back from the brink are due to removing foxes and cats.

If this objective is abandoned because of arguments feral cats and foxes are simply innocent bystanders, we risk rapidly losing many of these imperilled species.

An introduced eastern barred bandicoot population has thrived after foxes were eradicated on Phillip Island. Neil Bowman/Getty

What did we do?

A provocative claim in last year’s research was that some Australian mammal species may have gone extinct before foxes and cats ever got to the area. If this was true, cats and foxes couldn’t be held responsible.

Cats came with the First Fleet in 1788, augmented with many subsequent introductions. By the 1890s, feral populations had spread across the entire continent. Foxes came later, first introduced to southeastern Australia in the 1830s. They, too, spread out across most of the continent over decades.

We re-ran analysis of the historic data and found the last record of a now-extinct native mammal in an area was always dated after the arrival of cats. The picture is less clear for foxes, though this is understandable given the earlier arrival of cats would already have caused losses.

Further, the actual date of extinction may occur long after the last documented record, especially in remote, sparsely populated areas of Australia.

First Nations peoples and Europeans have witnessed and recorded many cases where a native mammal species disappeared from an area soon after one or both non-native predators arrived.

Fate provides further evidence. Many mammals were wiped out from their entire mainland ranges but survived on islands that cats and foxes never colonised. For instance, all mainland populations of the greater stick-nest rat have disappeared. But the species survives because it also had an island population. By contrast, the lesser stick-nest rat had no island population. It is now extinct.

After cats arrived in an area, historic data shows regional losses of mammals went up sharply, with the exception of two arbitrarily dated bones. Author provided, CC BY-NC-ND

Does fox and cat control work?

The authors argue fox and cat control doesn’t result in increases of threatened mammals. But this conclusion may stem from misreading data from feral cat and fox control programs. Not all control programs work to reduce cat numbers over long periods or even at all.

Instead, we can get far clearer evidence from what happens in safe havens – islands or fenced areas where foxes and cats are completely excluded. Threatened mammal species almost always increase in these areas and almost always decline at comparable sites where foxes and cats are not excluded.

Eastern barred bandicoots now roam Victoria’s fox-free Phillip Island, while hare-wallaby numbers are rebounding on Western Australia’s Dirk Hartog Island following the eradication of feral cats.

The assumption that native mammals should typically be less abundant when and where cats and foxes are more common doesn’t always hold. After periods of good rainfall in inland Australia, populations of native mammals and feral predators all increase. During droughts, predator and prey numbers both fall.


This trail camera image captures a feral cat with two native hopping mice in its mouth.
Katherine Moseby, CC BY-NC-ND

Difficult truths

The original analysis and our new research have a broader context. Some have argued the impact of introduced species has been overstated, and that introduced species should be seen as a legitimate part of Australia’s ecosystems. Scientific evidence and conservation outcomes do not support this.

Australia supports about 8% of the world’s biodiversity as one of just 17 megadiverse nations. Protecting our unique species is not easy. But the task for conservationists and policymakers will be even harder if feral cats and foxes are given a free pass to keep killing.

Lethal control is, unfortunately, necessary to protect many species near the brink of no return. It has to be done as humanely as possible and justified publicly. Stepping back would mean more and more extinctions.

We would like to acknowledge our research coauthors.

The Conversation
Categories
Science communication The Conversation

The Conversation: In the most cleared state in Australia, Victoria’s native wildlife needs our help after fires

 joey found by firefighters near the Harcourt fire in Victoria. Glenlyon Rural Fire Brigade/Facebook

Euan Ritchie, Professor in Wildlife Ecology and Conservation, School of Life & Environmental Sciences, Deakin University

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

Victoria has just suffered some of its worst bushfires since the Black Summer fires of 2019–20. Over 400,000 hectares are estimated to have burnt so far, an area more than five times larger than Singapore.

Regional communities have been deeply affected. They need support to recover and rebuild their homes, towns and lives. And what about the state’s unique plants, animals and ecosystems?

Both large and small fires erupted in Victoria, and were extraordinarily widespread across diverse environments. They burned in the Wimmera–Mallee region in the northwest, the Otways in the southwest, central Victoria, northeastern Victoria and eastern Victoria, including the alpine region. This means a correspondingly diverse range of native plants and animals has been affected.

Compounding this, Victoria is the most cleared state in Australia. This makes it more difficult for animals to find suitable habitat outside of burnt areas in a fragmented landscape as they recover.

A night image of fires lighting up the sky above Lake Eildon during the Victorian bushfires. Graeme Thomas/Facebook

How will these fires affect nature?

Fires have short and long-term affects on wildlife. While a high proportion of animals can survive fires, the total numbers of insects, birds, frogs, reptiles, mammals and others that have died during the fires or afterwards, will still be large. This is due to severe burns, smoke, radiant heat or other injuries as they try to escape. Many animals get caught on fences as they move across landscapes seeking refuge.

We might think animals that can fly, such as many insects, birds and bats, should be able to easily escape. But smoke and extreme heat makes it difficult to breathe and regulate their body temperature, and can disorient wildlife. Temperatures soared well above 40°C during the fires. Along with intense winds, this took a heavy toll on some animals. Tragically, thousands of flying foxes died.

Many animals will have survived fires by finding refuge in protected waterways, caves, rock and boulder piles, or by going underground, including into wombat burrows. Echidnas dig into the ground and go to sleep, a clever tactic to conserve energy and reduce stress on the body.

After fires, animals face additional challenges. Feral cats and foxes are known to rapidly take advantage of burnt areas. Hunting and capturing their prey in more open habitat is easier. Potoroos, bandicoots, lizards and many others that survive initially may be hunted in the hours, days and weeks after a fire.

The long-term effects

The impact of fire can last for decades, or even longer. Many Australian wildlife species depend on logs and hollows in trees for shelter and to raise young. Fire can both create and destroy hollows.

Importantly, Victoria is the most cleared state in Australia. Hence, hollows are already short in supply and patchily distributed. For some tree species, they can take more than 100 years to form. Their loss puts pressure on threatened species including greater gliders, barking owls and spotted-tailed quolls.

Aquatic life is not immune to the effects of fire either. Rains that occur in burnt landscapes can wash ash, debris and toxins into waterways. This smothers underwater habitats and reduces oxygen and water quality for native fish, crayfish and amphibians. In some cases it leads to mass mortality, including fish kills.

How to respond?

Once bushfires are contained and it is safe to enter, government agencies, scientists and wildlife carers will get a clearer picture of fire severity and native wildlife that need help. They will undertake population surveys and develop a management plan. This may include culling invasive herbivores such as deer, laying poison baits to control feral cats and foxes and installing artificial refuges for native animals.

Agencies should take a whole-of-ecosystem view to ensure well intended actions don’t have unexpected consequences. While 1080 poison may be needed in some areas to help control non-native predators, it also poses a risk to dingoes, a threatened species in Victoria.

This includes the Wilkerr (dingo) population in the Big Desert-Wyperfeld region in northwest Victoria, estimated to number fewer than 100 adults. Approximately 60,000 hectares of Wilkerr habitat has burned. The fires may push Wilkerr into agricultural land seeking cover and water, increasing contact and conflict with livestock graziers. This situation needs to be thoughtfully managed to protect graziers, livestock and Wilkerr.

What should I do?

We can help in a range of ways. These include:

  • putting out water dishes for animals with sticks or stones in them so small animals don’t drown
  • donating to charities and organisations that take care of injured wildlife
  • creating wildlife-friendly gardens that displaced animals may use.

Members of the public should not attempt to feed wildlife, and leave this to experts. Likewise, approaching injured animals is not advised, including kangaroos and snakes. Stressed animals can behave erratically and aggressively, and should only be taken care of by experienced wildlife experts.

Feeding wildlife after fire should be done by experts, such as occurred for rock wallabies following the Gariwerd–Grampians fires.

Governments must change course

As a wildlife ecologist and conservation expert, these fires bring an unwelcome but familiar mixture of deep sadness and intense frustration. As the climate gets hotter, such events will only become more likely and more severe.

Governments must substantially increase efforts to curb climate change, including a rapid transition away from fossil fuels. Likewise, we need far stronger environmental laws, and greater government investment to protect and recover the wildlife and places Australians love.

Fire has shaped Australia’s environments, and many species are adapted to survive and even benefit from fire. But the increasing regularity of severe fires will push some wildlife and ecosystems into oblivion. As with people and communities, we have a duty to provide Australia’s native plants, animals and other life with a safe and secure future.

The Conversation
Categories
The Conversation

The Conversation: Long‑sought environmental law reform is finally here. But will the compromise deal actually protect nature?

Brayden Stanford/Pexels, CC BY-NC-ND

Justine Bell-James, Professor, TC Beirne School of Law, The University of Queensland; Euan Ritchie, Professor in Wildlife Ecology and Conservation, School of Life & Environmental Sciences, Deakin University; Phillipa C. McCormack, Future Making Fellow, Environment Institute, University of Adelaide, and Yung En Chee, Senior Research Fellow, Environmental Science, The University of Melbourne

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

Today is a landmark day for environmental law. After years of false starts and abandoned promises, Labor has finally struck a deal with the Greens to pass long-awaited changes to the federal Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act. The laws are expected to pass the Senate today – the final parliamentary sitting day of the year.

Change is long overdue, as the 25-year-old laws have been shown to be not fit for purpose. Australia’s unique species and ecosystems are in real trouble. Threatened species populations are falling year after year, while climate change is driving species to extinction and ecosystems towards collapse.

Significantly, neither Labor nor the Greens are declaring the bill a complete success. In its second reading today, Labor Senator Michelle Ananda-Rajah described the bill as “not perfect”, while the Greens described it as falling “woefully short” on climate.

Environment Minister Murray Watt was negotiating with both the Coalition and the Greens to pass the laws. While the Greens agreed to the deal and extracted key concessions on native forest protections, Watt has left some wins for business and the Liberal Party.

The compromise deal is indeed far from perfect. But after five years of stalled reforms, it’s clear significant compromise was the only way for the laws to pass.

What was in the original reform bill?

In late October, Labor introduced reforms that proposed a slew of changes to existing environment laws.

These included provisions for:

  • making national environmental standards to guide decision-making
  • a new federal environmental protection agency
  • planning at a bioregional scale to assess cumulative damage across a landscape

These changes were broadly positive. But other elements raised considerable concern, namely:

  • considerable ministerial discretion over whether to apply the new national environmental standards to development applications
  • a wide-ranging national interest exemption allowing the government to fast-track projects in the undefined “national interest”
  • fast-tracking for some decisions
  • allowing developers to pay into a “restoration fund” to compensate for biodiversity loss despite evidence it worsens biodiversity loss
  • excluding native forest logging from Commonwealth oversight
  • plans to devolve environmental decision-making to states, with the pro-mining and anti-regulation Western Australian government the first in line.

The original 500-page draft bill had areas of considerable uncertainty, such as requiring the minister to knock back developments if satisfied they would have “unacceptable impacts”. The idea was sound: create red lines where projects don’t have to be considered if damage to the environment would be too great. But the definitions were confusing and subjective.

For instance, an “unacceptable impact” on a critically endangered species was defined as one that “seriously impairs, will seriously impair, or is likely to seriously impair” species viability. But “seriously impair” was nebulously defined as “something if, compared to the action not being taken, the impact results in the thing being seriously altered for the worse”. Industry criticised this for setting the bar too low, fearing it would stop projects in their tracks.

What concessions have the Greens secured?

While the Labor-Greens deal means the bills can now pass the Senate, it hasn’t fundamentally changed what was introduced by Labor. The concessions include:

  • better protection for native forests
  • banning fast-tracking of new coal and gas projects
  • reining in ministerial discretion.

The Greens are claiming their major concession is the removal of a longstanding exemption for the logging industry for areas of native forest covered by Regional Forest Agreements. Forested areas under these agreements currently have no protection from federal environment laws.

Under the changes, these agreements will have to comply with the laws and meet higher standards within 18 months. The deal contains compensation for forestry workers. This is a clear win for the environment.

The Greens also secured modest progress on climate, but far short of their long-sought climate trigger, which was a non-starter for Labor.

Instead, the bill will be amended to remove coal and gas projects from fast-tracked approvals and to prevent the minister from declaring these to be projects to be in the “national interest”.

Crucially, the Greens claim the deal will tighten ministerial discretion. The original reforms said the minister “must be satisfied” a decision is “not inconsistent with” the National Environmental Standards. This gave the environment minister of the day wide leeway to depart from the standards and approve projects. The Greens are claiming a major win here by changing the language from “not inconsistent with” these standards to “consistent with”. This isn’t semantics – it’s a stricter legal test.

The amendments will also bring more land clearing under the environment assessment regime and allow the minister to declare some matters too important to be offset by paying into the new Restoration Contributions Fund. This could be a potentially important safeguard.

Wins for the Liberals?

In recent months, Watt has pitched these reforms as a win for the environment and for business, which would benefit from faster approvals. But businesses were wary of the nebulous concept of “unacceptable impacts”.

It looks like Liberal Senator Jonathon Duniam’s proposed changes to the definition of “unacceptable impacts” have been supported.

The definition of an “unacceptable impact” on a critically endangered species has been pared back to “seriously impairs […] viability”. This means projects can’t be knocked back if they are only likely to seriously impair viability.

“Seriously impair” has now been redefined as “something if, compared to the action not being taken, the impact results in an impairment or alteration of the thing that is of a severe nature and extent”. These are terms requiring subjective interpretation, but “severe nature” may make it harder to reject projects than “seriously altered for the worse”.

Will the new legislation stem the damage to nature?

The bar for improvement is low. Australia’s current environment laws are riddled with administrative discretion. Many projects are never assessed, and 99% of projects assessed under these laws are given the green light.

The revised bill contains some key elements proposed by the scathing 2020 Samuel Review, such as provision for National Environmental Standards, while the concessions won by the Greens reduce ministerial discretion. Samuel described today’s deal as a “great balance” between environment and business concerns.

Much will be up in the air even after these laws pass. The government has only drafted two of the many environmental standards anticipated, one on matters of national environmental significance and one on environmental offsets. It remains to be seen whether these standards will improve decision-making, and they are also not yet finalised. Major questions around the interpretation of language in the new laws may need to be hashed out in future court proceedings.

The Greens were unable to remove Labor’s new “pay to destroy” from the laws. This is a significant concern, as the controversial ability for developers to pay into a restoration fund will likely be seen as the easy route. This mechanism is already up and running in New South Wales, with poor outcomes.

What now?

These reforms are the end of a tortuous process – and the start of another, far bigger, job. To be successful, they will need to be coupled with far greater public investment and rigorous enforcement.

The true test of these reforms will be whether we succeed in the ultimate act of conserving and recovering the wildlife and places Australians know and love.

The Conversation
Categories
Science communication The Conversation

The Conversation: ‘Only if we help shall all be saved’: Jane Goodall showed we can all be part of the solution

Scientist Jane Goodall studies the behavior of a chimpanzee during her research February 15, 1987 in Tanzania. Penelope Breese/Getty

Euan Ritchie, Professor in Wildlife Ecology and Conservation, School of Life & Environmental Sciences, Deakin University; Kylie Soanes, Postdoctoral Fellow in Urban Biodiversity, The University of Melbourne; Marissa Parrott, Honorary Research Associate in BioSciences, The University of Melbourne; Vanessa Pirotta, Postdoctoral Researcher and Wildlife Scientist, Macquarie University, and Zara Bending, Associate, Centre for Environmental Law, Macquarie University.

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

With the passing of Dr Jane Goodall, the world has lost a conservation giant. But her extraordinary achievements leave a profound legacy.

Goodall was a world-leading expert in animal behaviour and a globally recognised environmental and conservation advocate. She achieved all this at a time when women were commonly sidelined or ignored in science.

Her work with chimpanzees showed it was wrong to assume only humans used tools. She showed us the animals expressed emotions such as love and grief and have individual personalities.

Goodall showed us scientists can express their emotions and values and that we can be respected researchers as well as passionate advocates and science communicators. After learning about how chimpanzees were being used in medical research, she spoke out: “I went to the conference as a scientist, and I left as an activist.”

As childhood rights activist Marian Wright Edelman has eloquently put it, “You can’t be what you can’t see”.

Goodall showed what it was possible to be.

Forging her own path

Goodall took a nontraditional path into science. The brave step of going into the field at the age of 26 to make observations was supported by her mother.

Despite making world-first discoveries such as tool use by non-humans, people didn’t take her seriously because she hadn’t yet gone to university. Nowadays, people who contribute wildlife observations are celebrated under the banner of citizen science.

Goodall was a beacon at a time when science was largely dominated by men – especially remote fieldwork. But she changed that narrative. She convinced famous paleoanthropologist Louis Leakey to give her a chance. He first employed her as a secretary. But it wasn’t long until he asked her to go to Tanzania’s remote Gombe Stream National Park. In 1960, she arrived.

This was not easy. It took real courage to work in a remote area with limited support alongside chimpanzees, a species thought to be peaceful but now known to be far stronger than humans and capable of killing animals and humans.

Goodall is believed to be the only person accepted into chimpanzee society. Through calm but determined persistence she won their trust. These qualities served Goodall well – not just with chimps, but throughout her entire career advocating for conservation and societal change.

At Gombe, she showed for the first time that animals could fashion and use tools, had individual personalities, expressed emotions and had a higher intelligence and understanding than they were credited with.

Jane Goodall worked with chimpanzees for decades. This 2015 video shows her releasing Wounda, an injured chimpanzee helped back to health in the Republic of Congo.

Goodall was always an animal person and her love of chimps was in part inspired by her toy Jubilee, gifted by her father. She had close bonds with her pets and extended these bonds to wildlife. Goodall gave her study subjects names such as “David Greybeard”, the first chimp to accept her at Gombe.

Some argue we shouldn’t place a human persona on animals by naming them. But Goodall showed it was not only acceptable to see animals as individuals with different behaviours, but it greatly aids connection with and care for wildlife.

Goodall became an international voice for wildlife. She used her profile to encourage a focus on animal welfare in conservation, caring for both individuals and species.

Jane Goodall’s pioneering work with chimpanzees shed light on these animals as individuals – and showed they make tools and experience emotions. Apic/Getty

A pioneer for women in science

With Goodall’s passing, the world has lost one of the three great “nonagenarian environmental luminaries”, to use co-author Vanessa Pirotta’s phrase. The other two are the naturalist documentary maker, Sir David Attenborough, 99, and famed marine biologist Dr Sylvia Earle, who is 90.

Goodall showed us women can be pioneering scientists and renowned communicators as well as mothers.

She shared her work in ways accessible to all generations, from National Geographic documentaries to hip podcasts.

Her visibility encouraged girls and women around the world to be bold and follow our own paths.

Goodall’s story directly inspired several authors of this article.

Co-author Marissa Parrott was privileged to have spoken to Goodall several times during her visits to Melbourne Zoo and on her world tours. Goodall’s story was a direct inspiration for Parrott’s own remote and international fieldwork, supported by her mother just as Goodall’s mother had supported her. They both survived malaria, which also kills chimpanzees and gorillas. Goodall long championed a One Health approach, recognising the health of communities, wildlife and the environment are all interconnected.

Co-author Zara Bending worked and toured alongside Goodall. The experience demonstrated how conservationists could be powerful advocates through storytelling, and how our actions reveal who we are. As Goodall once said:

every single one of us matters, every single one of us has a role to play, and every single one of us makes a difference every single day.

From the forest floor to global icon

Goodall knew conservation is as much about people as it is about wildlife and wild places.

Seventeen years after beginning her groundbreaking research in Gombe, Goodall established the Jane Goodall Institute with the mission of protecting wildlife and habitat by engaging local communities.

Her institute’s global network now spans five continents and continues her legacy of community-centred conservation. Researchers have now been studying the chimps at Gombe for 65 years.

Goodall moved from fieldwork to being a global conservation icon who regularly travelled more than 300 days a year. She observed many young people across cultures and creeds who had lost hope for their future amid environmental and climate destruction. In response, she founded a second organisation, Roots & Shoots, in 1991. Her goal was:

to foster respect and compassion for all living things, to promote understanding of all cultures and beliefs, and to inspire each individual to take action to make the world a better place for people, other animals, and the environment.

Last year, Roots & Shoots groups were active in 75 countries. Their work is a testament to Goodall’s mantra: find hope in action.

Jane Goodall went from pioneering field researcher to international conservation icon. David S. Holloway/Getty

Protecting nature close to home

One of Goodall’s most remarkable attributes was her drive to give people the power to take action where they were. No matter where people lived or what they did, she helped them realise they could be part of the solution.

In a busy, urbanised world, it’s easier than ever to feel disconnected from nature. Rather than presenting nature as a distant concept, Goodall made it something for everyone to experience, care for and cherish.

She showed we didn’t have to leave our normal lives behind to protect nature – we could make just as much difference in our own communities.

One of her most famous quotes rings just as true today as when she first said it:

only if we understand, can we care. Only if we care, will we help. Only if we help shall all be saved.

Let’s honour her world-changing legacy by committing to understand, care and help save all species with whom we share this world. For Jane Goodall.

The Conversation
Categories
Science communication The Conversation

The Conversation: Top End’s tropical savannas are a natural wonder – but weak environment laws mean their future is uncertain

Gouldian Finch, François Brassard

By Euan Ritchie (Professor in Wildlife Ecology and Conservation, School of Life & Environmental Sciences, Deakin University), Brett Murphy (Professor of Ecology, Charles Darwin University) and John Woinarski (Professor of Conservation Biology, Charles Darwin University).

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

The Top End of Australia’s Northern Territory contains an extensive, awe-inspiring expanse of tropical savanna landscapes. It includes well-known and much-loved regions such as Darwin, Kakadu National Park, Arnhem Land and Nitmiluk Gorge.

Australia’s tropical savannas are diverse and dynamic, shaped by fire and the cycle of wet and dry seasons. Brett Murphy

These tropical savannas feature open forests and woodlands dominated by eucalypts and a diverse grassy understorey. They experience an intense monsoon-driven wet season and long dry season during which fire is common.

The area is home to a spectacular range of plants and animals, including crocodiles, barramundi, speartooth sharks, the spectacularly coloured Leichhardt’s grasshopper and flocks of magpie geese. Some groups are extraordinarily diverse. Several thousand ant species are thought to live there – compared to just 1,000 species in South America’s Amazon basin.

Yet, despite their immense ecological and cultural significance, the NT’s tropical savannas face an uncertain future. The landscape is under increasing pressure from invasive species, more frequent and severe fires, climate change, mining, agriculture and development – including water extraction.

Our new report outlines what should be done to ensure conservation and sustainable management of this unique and special region.

A region in trouble

Species such as the brush-tailed rabbit-rat have declined substantially and are now locally extinct in some areas. Cara Penton

As ecologists, we share a deep passion for tropical Northern Australia but fear for its future. To aid environmental policy and decision-making, we set out to describe the current condition and likely future of the NT’s tropical savannas. This involved identifying existing, emerging and possible future threats.

We found biodiversity in decline. Many species, particularly mammals that were once common and widespread, have disappeared from much of the region. These include the northern quoll, brush-tailed rabbit-rat and black-footed tree-rat.

Habitats are degraded and ecosystems are showing signs of collapse. Feral animals are widespread. Cats prey on native wildlife. Feral pigs feast on turtle nests and trash plants in and around waterways, reducing water quality. Cattle, water buffalo, horses and donkeys eat their way through native plants, reducing habitat structure and complexity, aiding the establishment and spread of weeds.

In many parts of the Top End, fires are becoming more frequent and severe. This is in part due to the increasing dominance of invasive grasses, particularly Gamba and buffel grass. Both grasses are highly flammable, increasing the risk and harm of fires.

Longer and hotter dry seasons also increase fire risk and severity, as well as making water less available to wildlife due to higher rates of evaporation. Plants and animals also face greater heat stress and risk of dying during extended periods of extreme temperatures.

The changing nature of land-clearing

The Top End is spectacular and rich in biodiversity. François Brassard

Land-clearing is increasing in the Top End, too. We estimate about 45,000 hectares of savanna habitat was destroyed between 2000 and 2020. That’s equivalent to an area roughly the size of 22,500 Melbourne Cricket Grounds.

Another 146,000 hectares have approval to be cleared, and an additional 100,000 hectares could be cleared for an expanded cotton industry.

It is not just the amount of clearing that matters, but where it occurs. The habitat mainly destroyed to date has been in higher rainfall areas between Darwin and Katherine. This is where most threatened species live. On average, the cleared areas overlapped with more than 12 nationally listed threatened species.

What should be done?

The Top End is awe inspiring but without greater enviromental protection its many values may be diminished. François Brassard

Our report shows current laws are insufficient to protect the Northern Territory’s tropical savannas. Evidence-based law reform is urgently needed.

Decision-making must be collaborative, not controlled by individuals, based on sound science. It must also actively support and involve First Nations peoples and their goals.

The situation in the NT reflects broader calls to strengthen national environmental laws as a matter of urgency and greatly boost investment in conservation to achieve positive results for nature.

Nature is the lynchpin of northern Australia. It characterises and nurtures the place, underpins and embraces Indigenous culture, is a major tourist attraction and helps make our country healthy. We need to recognise its value, and guard against its ongoing loss.

Our report was independently reviewed by experts in the ecology and conservation of Northern Australia, Professors Richard Williams and Christopher Johnson.

The Conversation