Am I not pretty enough? This article is part of The Conversation’s series introducing you to unloved Australian animals that need our help.
Australia’s oceans are home to a startling array of biodiversity — whales, dolphins, dugongs and more. But not all components of Aussie marine life are the charismatic sort of animal that can feature in a tourism promotion, documentary, or conservation campaign.
The echiuran, or spoon worm, is one such animal. It is also called the penis worm.
There is no “Save the Echiuran Foundation” and no influencers selling merchandise to help save them. But these phallic invertebrates are certainly worth your time as integral and fascinating members — of Australia’s marine ecosystems.
Taxonomists have classified echiurans in various different ways over the years, including as their own group of unique animals. Today, they’re considered a group of annelid worms that lost their segmentation. There is uncertainty about the exact number of species, but an estimate is 236.
The largest echiuran species reach over two metres in length! They have a sausage-shaped muscular trunk and an extensible proboscis (or tongue) at their front end. The trunk moves by wave like contractions.
Most echiurans live in marine sand and mud in long, U-shaped burrows, but some species also live between rocks. And they’re widespread, living up to 6,000 metres deep in the ocean all the way to the seashore, worldwide.
For example, one species, Ochetostoma australiense, is a common sight along sandy or muddy shorelines of Queensland and New South Wales, where it sweeps out of its burrow to collect and consume organic matter.
In fact, their feeding activities are something to behold, as they form a star-like pattern on the surface that extends from their burrow opening.
In another species, Bonella viridis, there is a striking difference> between the males and females — the females are large (about 15 centimetres long) and the males are tiny (1-3 millimetres). Most larvae are sexually undifferentiated, and the sex they end up as depends on who’s around. The larvae metamorphose into dwarf males when they’re exposed to females, and into females when there are no other females present.
Males function as little more than a gonad and are reliant on females for all their needs.
Echiurans perform a range of important ecological functions in the marine environment. They’re known as “ecosystem engineers” - organisms that directly or indirectly control the availability of resources, such as food and shelter, to other species. They do this mainly by changing the physical characteristics of habitats, for example, by creating and maintaining burrows, which can benefit other species.
Echiurans also have a variety of symbiotic animals, including crustaceans and bivalve molluscs, residing in their burrows. This means both animals have a mutually beneficial relationship. In fact, animals from at least eight different animal groups associate with echiuran burrows or rock-inhabiting echiurans — and this is probably an underestimate.
They’re beneficial for humans, too. Their burrowing and feeding habits aerate and rework sediments. Off the Californian coastline, for example, scientists noted how these activities reduced the impacts of wastewater on the seabed.
And they’re an important part of the such as the houndsharks, and species of commercial significance such as Alaskan plaice. Some mammals feast on them, too, such as the in the Bering Sea, and the southern sea otter. In Queensland they also contribute to the diet of the critically endangered eastern curlew.
And many people eat them in East and Southeast Asia, where they’re chopped up and eaten raw, or used as a fermented product called gaebul-jeot. They (allegedly) taste slightly salty with sweet undertones.
In Australia there is very little known about the biology and ecological roles of our echiuran fauna. This can also be said of many of Australia’s soft sediment marine invertebrates — the unloved billions.
We simply do not understand the population dynamics of even the large and relatively common echiuran species, and the human processes that threaten them. Given their role as ecosystem engineers, impacts to echiuran populations can flow on to other components of the seabed fauna, imperilling entire ecosystems.
We can, in general terms, predict that populations have suffered from the cumulative effects of urbanisation and coastal development. This includes loss and modification of habitats, and changes to water quality.
Populations may also be harmed by undersea seismic activities used in oil and gas exploration, but this is still poorly understood. Until recently, scientists knew only of the threats seismic activity posed to the hearing of whales and dolphins. It’s becoming clearer they can also affect the planet’s vital invertebrate species.
It is a dilemma for marine conservation when so little is known about a species that impacts cannot be reliably predicted, and where there is little or no impetus to improve this knowledge base.
We cannot simply presume an animal does not play an important role in an ecosystem because it lacks charisma.
In George Orwell’s novel Animal Farm, it was said “All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others”. This remains abundantly true in terms of how humans view animals. But we must move away from this philosophy if we are to conserve and restore the planet’s fragile ecosystems.
August 18 2021
Snorkellers on the Great Barrier Reef have discovered a huge coral more than 400 years old which is thought to have survived 80 major cyclones, numerous coral bleaching events and centuries of exposure to other threats. We describe the discovery in research published today.
Our team surveyed the hemispherical structure, which comprises small marine animals and calcium carbonate, and found it’s the Great Barrier Reef’s widest coral, and one of the oldest.
It was discovered off the coast of Goolboodi (Orpheus Island), part of Queensland’s Palm Island Group. Traditional custodians of the region, the Manbarra people, have called the structure Muga dhambi, meaning “big coral”.
For now, Muga dhambi is in relatively good health. But climate change, declining water quality and other threats are taking a toll on the Great Barrier Reef. Scientists, Traditional Owners and others must keep a close eye on this remarkable, resilient structure to ensure it is preserved for future generations.
Muga dhambi is located in a relatively remote, rarely visited and highly protected marine area. It was found during citizen science research in March this year, on a reef slope not far from shore.
We conducted a literature review and consulted other scientists to compare the size, age and health of the structure with others in the Great Barrier Reef and internationally.
We measured the structure at 5.3 metres tall and 10.4 metres wide. This makes it 2.4 metres wider than the widest Great Barrier Reef coral previously measured by scientists.
Muga dhambi is of the coral genus Porites and is one of a large group of corals known as “massive Porites”. It’s brown to cream in colour and made of small, stony polyps.
These polyps secrete layers of calcium carbonate beneath their bodies as they grow, forming the foundations upon which reefs are built.
Muga dhambi’s height suggests it is aged between 421 and 438 years old – far pre-dating European exploration and settlement of Australia. We made this calculation based on rock coral growth rates and annual sea surface temperatures.
The Australian Institute of Marine Science has investigated more than 328 colonies of massive Porites corals along the Great Barrier Reef and has aged the oldest at 436 years. The institute has not investigated the age of Muga dhambi, however the structure is probably one of the oldest on the Great Barrier Reef.
Other comparatively large massive Porites have previously been found throughout the Pacific. One exceptionally large colony in American Samoa measured 17m × 12m. Large Porites have also been found near Taiwan and Japan.
We reviewed environmental events over the past 450 years and found Muga dhambi is unusually resilient. It has survived up to 80 major cyclones, numerous coral bleaching events and centuries of exposure to invasive species, low tides and human activity.
About 70% of Muga dhambi consisted of live coral, but the remaining 30% was dead. This section, at the top of the structure, was covered with green boring sponge, turf algae and green algae.
Coral tissue can die from exposure to sun at low tides or warm water. Dead coral can be quickly colonised by opportunistic, fast growing organisms, as is the case with Muga dhambi.
Green boring sponge invades and excavates corals. The sponge’s advances will likely continue to compromise the structure’s size and health.
We found marine debris at the base of Muga dhambi, comprising rope and three concrete blocks. Such debris is a threat to the marine environment and species such as corals.
We found no evidence of disease or coral bleaching.
A Traditional Owner from outside the region took part in our citizen science training which included surveys of corals, invertebrates and fish. We also consulted the Manbarra Traditional Owners about and an appropriate cultural name for the structure.
Before recommending Muga dhambi, the names the Traditional Owners considered included:
Indigenous languages are an integral part of Indigenous culture, spirituality, and connection to country. Traditional Owners suggested calling the structure Muga dhambi would communicate traditional knowledge, language and culture to other Indigenous people, tourists, scientists and students.
No database exists for significant corals in Australia or globally. Cataloguing the location of massive and long-lived corals can be benefits.
For example from a scientific perspective, it can allow analyses which can help understand century-scale changes in ocean events and can be used to verify climate models. Social and economic benefits can include diving tourism and citizen science, as well as engaging with Indigenous culture and stewardship.
However, cataloguing the location of massive corals could lead to them being damaged by anchoring, research and pollution from visiting boats.
Looking to the future, there is real concern for all corals in the Great Barrier Reef due to threats such as climate change, declining water quality, overfishing and coastal development. We recommend monitoring of Muga dhambi in case restoration is needed in future.
We hope our research will mean current and future generations care for this wonder of nature, and respect the connections of Manbarra Traditional Owners to their Sea Country.
August 20 2021
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license.
“Post-hatchling turtles have adapted to enter the oceanic zone (for green, loggerhead, hawksbill, and olive ridley turtles) or shallow coastal waters (flatback turtles) where they feed opportunistically on a range of organisms. “Normally, these habitats are ideal for their development, but the rapid introduction of plastic debris among their natural food items has made the environments risky.”
Plastic ingestion can cause sea turtles to die from laceration or obstruction of the gastrointestinal tract, as well as malnutrition and chemical contamination.
The study also found plastic in the turtles of Eastern Australia waters was mostly hard fragments likely from a range of consumable products, while Indian Ocean plastics were mostly fibres – possibly from fishing ropes or nets.
Aug 6 2021
Adapted from: https://www.tropicnow.com.au/2021/august/2/jcu-finds-baby-sea-turtles-ingesting-hundreds-of-plastic-pieces-in-australian-waters
Read the original study here: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmars.2021.699521/full
Australia’s marine industry contributes more than $80 billion annually to the national economy according to a report released today. The AIMS Index of Marine Industry is a biannual update of the value the marine sector provides to Australia’s wealth by Deloitte Access Economics, commissioned by AIMS. Assistant Minister for Forestry and Fisheries and for Industry Development Senator Jonathon Duniam, who released the report, said Australia’s marine industry was one of the most important, vital and fastest-growing parts of the Australian economy. “The value of Australia’s marine industry increased by more than a quarter between 2015-16 and 2017-18 and has seen a four-fold increase over the past two decades,” he said.
“To put it in perspective, our $81.2 billion blue economy produced more than the agricultural sector ($58.9 billion), coal mining ($69.7 billion) and heavy and civil engineering construction ($68.5 billion) in 2017-18.
“This isn’t surprising if you consider that more than 85% of our population is concentrated near the coast and more than 70% of Australia’s territory lies beneath the ocean.”
Gas, shipbuilding and tourism driving growth
The report found that the total income of the marine industry increased substantially in the two years (by almost 28%), driven by growth in offshore natural gas production (up 79%), shipbuilding and repair (up 57%), and marine tourism (up 11%). Other marine-based activities include, transport, aquaculture and fishing, with the whole marine sector employing nearly 340,000 full time workers.
Chief Executive Officer Dr Paul Hardisty said AIMS’ scientific research contributed to the sustainable productivity of many of marine industries while protecting our oceans. “Marine-based industries build economic value, create employment, and improve people’s livelihoods,” he said. “AIMS is here to help ensure that this occurs in a way that also preserves and protects our unique marine ecosystems now and in the future.” The report, now in its eighth edition, includes breakdowns of key marine industry sub-sectors by state or territory for the first time. The report acknowledges the COVID-19 pandemic brought unprecedented disruption to the Australian economy which will be measured by the next index due to be published in 2022.
The AIMS Index of Marine Industry is a biannual economic update of Australia’s marine sector. The 2020 edition uses the latest data from 2017–18.
July 2 2021
New research out today shows the Great Barrier Reef’s iconic table corals can regenerate coral reef habitats 14 times higher – that’s more than two decades faster – than any other coral type.
Table corals have been dubbed as “extraordinary ecosystem engineers” – with new research showing these unique corals can regenerate coral reef habitats on the Great Barrier Reef faster than any other coral type. The new study highlights the importance of tabular Acropora, and is led by the Australian Institute of Marine Science (AIMS) in collaboration with the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, the University of Queensland and The Nature Conservancy. AIMS scientist and lead author Dr Juan Carlos Ortiz said the research showed overall reef recovery would slow considerably if table corals declined or disappeared on the Great Barrier Reef. “Table corals are incredibly fast growing. Habitats in exposed reef slopes recover from disturbances at a rate 14 times higher – that’s more than two decades faster – when table corals are abundant,” he said. “Their large, flat plate-like shape provides vital protection for large fish in shallow reef areas and serves as a shelter for small fishes, with some species almost entirely dependent on table corals. “Even after death these corals provide value, as their skeletons are the preferred place for young corals of all types to settle.” Table corals, also known as plate corals, are mostly found in upper reef slopes exposed to wave action, at most mid-shelf and offshore reefs in the Great Barrier Reef. The study found table corals to have unique combination of characteristics: they provided valuable ecological functions, are among the most sensitive coral types and, most importantly, their role was threatened by a low diversity of species which have this growth form. The authors suggest protecting table corals could be an additional management focus. Targeting management to a particular coral type based on its ecosystem function — rather than their risk of extinction alone — would be ground-breaking in terms of ecosystem-based management.
Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority’s Assistant Director and study co-author Dr Rachel Pears said table corals were fast growing and sensitive species. “Table corals are still frequently seen on outer reefs, but their presence shouldn’t be taken for granted as they are vulnerable to combined impacts,” she said. “These corals do not handle intensifying thermal stress well, are easily killed by anchor damage, highly susceptible to diseases, and are the preferred meal for crown-of-thorns starfish. “The good news is there are tangible actions we can take to protect these corals such as targeted crown-of-thorns starfish control and anchoring restrictions.” University of Queensland’s scientist and study co-author Professor Peter Mumby said while table corals promoted high rates of recovery, they did not necessarily bring high biodiversity. “We know table corals do a big service for these reefs, but it’s not a silver bullet for recovery,” he said. “Protecting table corals could be part of a suite of actions that look at reef recovery, with other management focused more specifically on protecting biodiversity.”
Professor Mumby said it was also important to remember the biggest threat to the reef was climate change, and effective global action to reduce emissions significantly was paramount to protecting coral reefs. The research drew on decades of data from AIMS long term monitoring program, revealing coral reef habitats took up to 32 years to recover, from 5% coral cover to 30% coral cover, where table corals had not recolonised after disturbances. These low recovery rates were in stark contrast to reefs where table corals returned and recolonised, with these habitats recovering to 30% coral cover in just seven and a half years.
Given their extraordinary ecosystem function, the research indicated table corals should also be considered in restoration initiatives, like coral enhancement or assisted colonisation. “Anyone who has been on the mid-shelf or offshore areas of the Great Barrier Reef would have seen table corals,” Dr Ortiz said. “We can think of table corals as the iconic charismatic ‘mega coral’ of the Great Barrier Reef, just like whales, turtles and dolphins are the Reef’s iconic charismatic megafauna.” The study, titled Important ecosystem function, low redundancy and high vulnerability: the trifecta argument for protecting the Great Barrier Reef’s tabular Acropora, was published in Conservation Letters.
2 June 2021
People living near the coast are familiar with the power of ocean waves. What we see when a typical wave breaks on a beach is the endpoint of a global energy conversion story. It starts with the sun’s heat driving winds whose energy generates ocean waves which grow and often travel thousands of kilometres. In this way, the ocean collects an enormous amount of energy. There’s enough energy in waves coming ashore that every metre of coastline could power around five average homes, and much more during storms. Capturing this energy is not a new idea, but one that faces many challenges. Our research illustrates the potential of enlisting biology in a reversal of the typical marine engineering view that “bio-fouling is bad”. Instead, it looks possible to use the added drag generated by allowing marine organisms to grow on a “naked” wave energy extractor.
Decarbonising energy generation
The continuing interest in innovations in wave power is because most economies now have targets to reduce greenhouse gas emissions over the coming decades. New Zealand has promised to reduce net emissions of all greenhouse gases (except methane from livestock) to zero by 2050. Clearly better energy efficiency is paramount. There is no point investing in clean energy supply and then wasting it, because no form of energy generation is without impact. Solar and wind power are the fastest growing forms of renewable supply globally, but this puts increasing pressure on valuable land. And during times of high demand, the variability of optimal wind and solar conditions is a challenge.
With two thirds of our planet covered in seawater, capturing the energy embodied within ocean waves and tides makes a lot of sense. While some tidal energy technology is now commercially viable, wave energy is following a more convoluted trajectory, with many options for how the conversion actually happens.
New Zealand excels in marine innovation in extreme yachting and aquaculture, but there is almost no maritime engineering focused on marine energy generation, despite having an exclusive economic zone 15 times larger in area than the country’s landmass.
Untapped wave energy
Regardless of the design, wave energy converters are vulnerable to damage in inevitable storms. Despite this challenge, current technologies like the Wello Penguin are getting close to being able to produce energy at a cost comparable with other renewable energy generation methods. What has really pushed the marine renewable energy field forward in the last decade has been the growth of offshore fixed-foundation wind farms. This has been a game changer as it socialised the marine setting and, through scale, increased the economic viability of the supply chain. It is common to look to nature to help in environmental design. Energy converter designs are often inspired by nature, with ideas ranging from nodding ducks to sea snakes. Some designs get more serious in how they use biomimicry. Our research explores a hybrid solution, combining physics and biology, as a pathway for future marine energy. The Bio-Oscillator looks at how species like large macroalgae and mussels could be integrated into the submerged structure of a wave-power generator. This is possible because parts of the structure are required only to add drag and inertia and experience only relatively little motion during operation.
Using local species of algae or mussels has several benefits. They grow and regenerate naturally and, importantly, will have only limited impact if they are damaged during storms. It is also common to look at ways to connect renewable energy sources to existing ocean infrastructure such as navigation buoys or aquaculture farms. Approaches like the Bio-Oscillator could generate both a harvestable crop of shellfish or macroalgae – as well as producing renewable energy. The United Nations decade of ocean science for sustainable development is a perfect setting for exploring the many opportunities that now exist to reduce energy emissions and, in doing so, head off the forecast threats caused by our present way of living.
June 7 2021
First published https://www.miragenews.com/can-we-use-bio-fouling-organisms-to-help-572463/
Under the right conditions, corals can recover from bleaching events. This is the case for multiple reefs in the southern Great Barrier Reef, which avoided wide-spread mortality from the 2020 mass coral bleaching event. These reefs escaped prolonged heat stress and did not have ongoing impacts from crown-of-thorns starfish – giving the corals a chance to bounce back from bleaching. Australian Institute of Marine Science’s (AIMS) monitoring program team leader Dr Mike Emslie said the six reefs, spanning offshore between Shoalwater Bay and Agnes Waters, were observed closely by scientists because of their specific disturbance history. “These reefs were the perfect candidates for our team to observe their recovery, the corals were not severely bleached and did not have extra stress from the coral eating starfish,” he said. “What is often misunderstood is corals do not immediately die from bleaching – bleaching is a stress response, and they can recover if given the opportunity.
“Our preliminary results show these reefs appear to have had little impact from the 2020 mass coral bleaching, with an increase of hard coral cover at most reefs. “This increase is what we predict in the absence of disturbance. The reefs were given the opportunity to recover because 75% of southern reefs were not exposed to sustained temperatures expected to cause mortality and were also free the from the additional stressors of crown-of-thorns starfish.” Research Program Director Dr Britta Schaffelke said disturbances, such as crown-of-thorns starfish, can be significant in hindering the recovery process of reefs following bleaching events. “AIMS scientists lead world-class research in this effort to understand cumulative impacts on coral reefs,” she said. While the 2019-2020 mass coral bleaching event was the third event in five years, it was the first time such widespread bleaching has occurred in the southern region. “These results are encouraging for the southern region – but we are still in the water conducting surveys all along the Great Barrier Reef to understand the full impact of the 2020 mass bleaching event, and indeed other disturbances, for both coral mortality and recovery,” said Dr Emslie.
AIMS’ Long-Term Monitoring Program has measured the condition of reefs more than 30 years, spreading over 490 reefs within the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. AIMS’ Annual Summary Report on coral reef condition for 2019/20 is drawn from surveys undertaken between September 2019 and June 2020.
2 March 2021
Artificial intelligence may soon be counting and classifying Australia’s tropical fish populations if at least one of the four Australian technology businesses to receive Australian Government seed funding is successful. The four small to medium-sized businesses are sharing funding of almost $400,000 from the latest round of the Department of Industry, Science, Energy and Resources’ Business Research and Innovation Initiative. The businesses will use the funding to address a challenge set by the Australian Institute of Marine Science (AIMS).
They will each run a project to scope the feasibility of creating an innovative solution to analyse fish video survey data, harnessing advanced technologies such as machine learning and artificial intelligence.
Currently, AIMS uses Baited Remote Underwater Video Stations (BRUVS) to capture footage of fish populations to better understand reef health. The method can give estimates of the fish species present, their numbers, sizes and biomass which provide critical indicators of the health of the fish community, but it has a drawback. This BRUVS footage, which can capture up to 70 different species per video, is manually analysed by an experienced researcher – a labour-intensive and time-consuming task which limits the ability to scale-up data collection.
The challenge is to develop technology that can learn to identify different species, count them, and measure fish length, quickly and efficiently delivering critical information about fish communities, removing the potential for observer bias. The solution needs to be easy enough for a non-technical user to operate – such as citizen scientists and Indigenous and local communities – which would lead to a significant scaling up of the data collected in Australia and beyond. It could also provide opportunities to expand the monitoring other marine life including sharks, rays and sea snakes. AIMS Technology Development Engineering Team Leader Melanie Olsen said it was AIMS’ first BRII Challenge and they were delighted with the strong interest it attracted and the large number of high-quality applications. The four companies (Tekno (GAIA Resources), Mapizy, Silverpond and Harrier Project Management) will be competing to produce the most compelling feasibility study. The top two solutions will then each be eligible for a grant of up to $1 million to work with AIMS to develop a prototype.
“We look forward to working closely with these technology innovators to develop a solution that could potentially revolutionise the way diverse fish populations are monitored, not only in Australia, but across the world,” Ms Olsen said. “This is another example of the way we work with industry to apply new technologies, such as AI, to the problems our ecologists are facing and to expand our capabilities and the services we can deliver to the Australian public.”
From AIMS first published: https://www.aims.gov.au/news-and-media/ai-go-fish,
8 February 2021
Scientists are keeping a close eye on reefs along the west coast of Australia, with sea surface temperatures reaching levels where some coral bleaching is occurring. The thermal stress has been accumulating over the high-risk summer period and is expected to continue until April, according to forecasts from the Bureau of Meteorology (BoM).
Australian Institute of Marine Science’s (AIMS) coral ecologist Dr James Gilmour said the areas of concern include reefs in the Pilbara, Ningaloo, Shark Bay and the Abrolhos. “Low level bleaching has already been observed in parts of Exmouth Gulf and in the Dampier Archipelago, which were reported by officers from the Department of Biodiversity Conservation and Attractions (DBCA),” he said.
“While cloud cover and rainfall from a recent tropical low has reduced some heat stress, the risk of bleaching will continue in the coming weeks in central to southern Western Australian reefs.” The recurring threat of bleaching to WA coral reefs has galvanised collaborative efforts across government and research institutions, drawing on the most current observations and forecasts based on data provided by BoM, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), CSIRO, the Integrated Marine Observing System (IMOS) and the University of Western Australia (UWA).
“In the coming weeks, we’ll have many eyes on the reef to report coral bleaching and in-water surveys will be conducted by several research agencies, including AIMS, DBCA and CSIRO,” Dr Gilmour said. “This week we are conducting in-water surveys around Ningaloo – this monitoring will extend to other reefs at risk in the coming weeks.
“We are encouraging people who are visiting these reefs to download our app ArcGIS Collector and report any sightings of coral bleaching.” Currently, on the other side of Australia, temperatures are below bleaching thresholds for the most part of the Great Barrier Reef. The 2020-2021 summer has been characterised by a La Niña event, which is forecasted by BoM to last until Autumn. This climate driver has meant above average rainfall has been likely for eastern and some northern parts of Australia, meaning a lower risk of bleaching in the Kimberley and the Great Barrier Reef.
First published: https://www.aims.gov.au/news-and-media/west-coast-reefs-warming,
16 February 2021
An 81-year-old midnight snapper caught off the coast of Western Australia has taken the title of the oldest tropical reef fish recorded anywhere in the world. The octogenarian fish was found at the Rowley Shoals—about 300km west of Broome—and was part of a study that has revised what we know about the longevity of tropical fish.
The research identified 11 individual fish that were more than 60 years old, including a 79-year-old red bass also caught at the Rowley Shoals. Australian Institute of Marine Science (AIMS) Fish Biologist Dr Brett Taylor, who led the study, said the midnight snapper beat the previous record holder by two decades. “Until now, the oldest fish that we’ve found in shallow, tropical waters have been around 60 years old,” he said. “We've identified two different species here that are becoming octogenarians, and probably older.”
Dr Taylor said the research will help us understand how fish length and age will be affected by climate change.
“We’re observing fish at different latitudes—with varying water temperatures—to better understand how they might react when temperatures warm everywhere,” he said. The study involved four locations along the WA coast, as well as the protected Chagos Archipelago in the central Indian Ocean. It looked at three species that are not targeted by fishing in WA; the red bass (Lutjanus bohar), midnight snapper (Macolor macularis), and black and white snapper (Macolor niger). Co-author Dr Stephen Newman, from the WA Department of Primary Industries and Regional Development, said long-lived fish were generally considered more vulnerable to fishing pressure.
“Snappers make up a large component of commercial fisheries in tropical Australia and they’re also a key target for recreational fishers,” he said. “So, it’s important that we manage them well, and WA’s fisheries are among the best managed fisheries in the world.” Marine scientists are able to accurately determine the age of a fish by studying their ear bones, or ‘otoliths’. Fish otoliths contain annual growth bands that can be counted in much the same way as tree rings. Dr Taylor said the oldest red bass was born during World War I.
“It survived the Great Depression and World War II,” he said. “It saw the Beatles take over the world, and it was collected in a fisheries survey after Nirvana came and went.” “It’s just incredible for a fish to live on a coral reef for 80 years.”
The research is published in the journal Coral Reefs.
Funding was provided by the Bertarelli Foundation and contributed to the Bertarelli Programme in Marine Science.
1 December 2020
Scientists at the University of Southampton and University of Edinburgh have developed a flexible underwater robot that can propel itself through water in the same style as nature’s most efficient swimmer – the Aurelia aurita jellyfish.
The findings, published in Science Robotics, demonstrate that the new underwater robot can swim as quickly and efficiently as the squid and jellyfish which inspired its design, potentially unlocking new possibilities for underwater exploration with its lightweight design and soft exterior.
Co-author Dr Francesco Giorgio-Serchi, Lecturer and Chancellor’s Fellow, at the School of Engineering, University of Edinburgh, said: “The fascination for organisms such as squid, jellyfish and octopuses has been growing enormously because they are quite unique in that their lack of supportive skeletal structure does not prevent them from outstanding feats of swimming.” The “cost of transport” (the ration of power to speed and weight) is used to compare efficiencies of species across biology, and by this measure the jellyfish is the most efficient animal in nature, easily beating running and flying animals and bony fish. The new robot was developed at the University of Southampton and is the first submersible to demonstrate the benefits of using resonance for underwater propulsion. Resonance refers to large vibrations that occur when applying a force at the ideal frequency, like pushing a child on a swing. This allows the robot to use very little power but generate large water jets to push itself forward. The simple but effective mechanism used consists of a rubber membrane enclosing eight 3D-printed flexible ribs, which together form a ‘propulsive bell’. A small piston in the top half of the robot taps this bell repeatedly so that it expands and then springs back. This mimics a jellyfish’s swimming technique and produced the jets of fluid to propel the robot through the water. When the piston operates at with the correct frequency – the natural resonance for the components – the robot can move at one body length per second and match the efficiency of the Aurella aurita jellyfish.
The latest tests show the new robot is ten to fifty times more efficient than typical small underwater vehicles powered by propellers. This increased efficiency, combined with the additional benefits of the robot’s soft, flexible exterior would make it ideal for operating near sensitive environments such as a coral reef, archaeological sites, or even in waters crowded with swimmers. Co-author Thierry Bujard, a Masters student in Naval Architecture at the University of Southampton, designed and built the robot in a matter of months. Thierry said, “Previous attempts to propel underwater robots with jetting systems have involved pushing water through a rigid tube but we wanted to take it further so we brought in elasticity and resonance to mimic biology. I was really surprised by the results, I was confident that the design would work but the efficiency of the robot was much greater than I expected.” Dr Gabriel Weymouth, Associate Professor in the University’s School of Engineering, who supervised the project added, “The great thing about using resonance is that we can achieve large vibrations of the propulsive bell with a very small amount of power; we just need to poke it out of shape and let the elasticity and inertia do the rest. This has allowed us to unlock the efficiency of propulsion used by sea creatures that use jets to swim.
“The last decade has seen a surge in research into flexible and biologically-inspired robots, such as Boston Dynamic’s “Big Dog”, because they can be much more versatile than standard industry robots. This research demonstrates that these concepts can also be applied to underwater robotics.
“There are still many challenges and exciting possibilities to explore with soft underwater robotic technologies. We are now looking to extend the concept behind this robot to a fully manoeuvrable and autonomous underwater vehicle capable of sensing and navigating its environment.”
January 21 2021
Original article: https://www.miragenews.com/squid-inspired-robot-swims-with-nature-s-most-efficient-marine-animals/
Scientists have collected the first fine-scale maps and imagery of reefs and submarine canyons in the rarely visited Arafura Marine Park, revealing seafloor environments with surprisingly diverse coral and fish communities. The survey team from the Australian Institute of Marine Science (AIMS) and Geoscience Australia returned to Darwin on the weekend after a two-week voyage on RV Solander. The voyage was supported by the Australian Government’s National Environmental Science Program Marine Biodiversity Hub.
AIMS Research Program Leader, Dr Karen Miller, said there were vast knowledge gaps in the northern marine bio-region and this new knowledge would enable Australia to better understand and protect the universal value of the environment. “Information from this research voyage will provide critical baseline data to guide the management and protection of the Arafura Marine Park and sea country,” Dr Miller said. “This in turn will contribute to sustainable economic opportunities, and provide for the enjoyment and benefit of this special environment for current and future generations.”
The survey focused on deep and shallow pockets of reef amid the park’s sediment plains. These reefs are where invertebrates such as sponges and corals can attach and form habitat for other marine life. In the north of the park, at the outer edge of Australia’s continental shelf, the scientists visited Pillar Bank, part of an ancient river system that began its transformation to ocean some 14,000 years ago. In the shallow, southern area of the park, they visited Money Shoal, some 200 km north-east of Darwin. Both areas were mapped in detail using multibeam sonar, covering a total area of 350 square kilometres. Guided by the new maps, scientists stationed baited cameras on the seafloor, towed a video camera behind the ship, and sampled the sediments to build inventories of marine life.
The survey focused on deep and shallow pockets of reef amid the park’s sediment plains. These reefs are where invertebrates such as sponges and corals can attach and form habitat for other marine life.
In the north of the park, at the outer edge of Australia’s continental shelf, the scientists visited Pillar Bank, part of an ancient river system that began its transformation to ocean some 14,000 years ago. In the shallow, southern area of the park, they visited Money Shoal, some 200 km north-east of Darwin.
Both areas were mapped in detail using multibeam sonar, covering a total area of 350 square kilometres. Guided by the new maps, scientists stationed baited cameras on the seafloor, towed a video camera behind the ship, and sampled the sediments to build inventories of marine life.
First published at: https://www.aims.gov.au/news-and-media/abundant-corals-and-fishes-emerge-ancient-contours-arafura-marine-park © 1996-2019 Australian Institute of Marine Science
17 November 2020
Female whale sharks grow more slowly than males but end up being larger, research suggests.
A decade-long study of the iconic fish has found male whale sharks grow quickly, before plateauing at an average adult length of about eight or nine metres. Female whale sharks grow more slowly but eventually overtake the males, reaching an average adult length of about 14 metres.
Australian Institute of Marine Science fish biologist Dr Mark Meekan, who led the research, said whale sharks have been reported up to 18 metres long. “That’s absolutely huge—about the size of a bendy bus on a city street,” he said. “But even though they’re big, they’re growing very, very slowly. It’s only about 20cm or 30cm a year.” In conducting the research, scientists visited Western Australia’s Ningaloo Reef for 11 seasons between 2009 and 2019. They tracked 54 whale sharks as they grew—a feat made possible by a unique ‘fingerprint’ of spots on each whale shark that can be used to identify individual fish. AIMS marine scientist Dr Brett Taylor said the team recorded more than 1000 whale shark measurements using stereo-video cameras.
“It’s basically two cameras set up on a frame that you push along when you’re underwater,” he said.
“It works the same way our eyes do—so you can calibrate the two video recordings and get a very accurate measurement of the shark.”
AIMS' Dr Mark Meekan measures the length of a whale shark using a stereovideo camera. Photo: Andre Rerekura
The study also included data from whale sharks in aquaria. Dr Meekan said it is the first evidence that males and female whale sharks grow differently. For the females, there are huge advantages to being big, he said.
“Only one pregnant whale shark had ever been found, and she had 300 young inside her,” Dr Meekan said.
“That’s a remarkable number, most sharks would only have somewhere between two and a dozen. “So these giant females are probably getting big because of the need to carry a whole lot of pups.” Whale sharks are Western Australia’s marine emblem, and swimming with the iconic fish at Ningaloo Reef boosts the local economy to the tune of $24 million a year. But they were listed as endangered in 2016. Dr Meekan said the discovery has huge implications for conservation, with whale sharks threatened by targeted fishing and ships strikes.
“If you’re a very slow-growing animal and it takes you 30 years or more to get to maturity, the chances of disaster striking before you get a chance to breed is probably quite high,” he said. “And that’s a real worry for whale sharks.” Dr Meekan said the finding also explains why gatherings of whale sharks in tropical regions are made up almost entirely of young males. “They gather to exploit an abundance of food so they can maintain their fast growth rates,” he said. Dr Taylor said learning that whale sharks plateau in their growth goes against everything scientists previously thought. “This paper has really re-written what we know about whale shark growth,” he said. Dr Meekan and Dr Taylor are based in Perth, Western Australia. The research was published today in the journal Frontiers in Marine Science.
Feature image: Andre Rerekura
16 September 2020
Mystery circles providing evidence of a potential new species of pufferfish have been discovered in Australia’s north-west by researchers at The University of Western Australia and Australian Institute of Marine Science.
The research, published in the Journal of Fish Biology, placed the discovery at more than 5500km away from the only other similarly described structures off Amami-Oshima Island in southern Japan. The discovery was made on the North West Shelf of Western Australia when 22 mystery circles were spotted on video footage collected by Fugro during an inspection of the Echo Yodel subsea infrastructure – operated by Woodside on behalf of the North West Shelf Project participants – and while surveying fish along the ancient coastline.
The circles, which are the first to be found in Australia, were recognised by the researchers as the complex underwater structures created by the white-spotted pufferfish previously thought to be found only in southern Japan.
Most notably the size, number of ridges and presence of an intricate central circle with two outer rings makes them comparable to those found in Japanese waters. Originally found at depths of less than 30m in Japan, the finding in the north-west extends their depth occurrence to 137m. Sightings of pufferfish were captured in the immediate vicinity of the circles, near the subsea infrastructure, from Woodside footage using a remotely operated vehicle and an autonomous underwater vehicle, although further investigation was needed to classify the species.
Lead author Todd Bond from UWA’s Oceans Institute and School of Biological Sciences said the discovery of the unique circle structures were most likely produced by a male pufferfish species to use as a nest.
“The pufferfish species responsible cannot be identified from the images collected but it is possibly a new species,” Mr Bond said. “Not only does this discovery spark intrigue and wonder among scientists and the general public, it also provides an insight into the reproductive behaviour and evolution of pufferfish globally.”
Matthew Birt from AIMS said the discovery showed the importance of working alongside industry to uncover the wealth of information so far undiscovered. “Industry routinely conduct video surveys of their assets which are often located in deep and remote waters,” Mr Birt said. “So it’s great that operators of oil and gas infrastructure share their video imagery to build on our existing scientific knowledge. “We can now focus on mapping the distribution of these elaborate pufferfish structures and plan scientific expeditions to collect biological samples so that we can identify and classify the fish.”
First published at https://www.aims.gov.au/news-and-media/mystery-pufferfish-circles-discovered-australias-north-west
17 September 2020
A new study has found that drones have the potential to contribute to effective shark bite management strategies that do not require culling sharks or killing other animals as by-catch. This new study from Southern Cross University looks at “developing the use of drones for non-destructive shark management and beach safety.” The study’s author Dr Andrew Colefax has used drones fitted with artificial intelligence technology to track more than 100 great white sharks along the coast of New South Wales.
In his report, he says there is an increasing need to address human-wildlife conflict in ways that support conservation. However, with current approaches, this balance is seldom achieved. “Shark bites are a well-known human-wildlife conflict, which has presented many management challenges. White (Carcharodon carcarius), bull (Carcharhinus leucas) and tiger (Galeocerdo cuvier) sharks are responsible for the majority of shark bite incidents, both in Australia and globally. Traditionally, addressing perceptions of shark bite risk from these species involved lethal approaches (e.g. mesh nets and drumlines). However, social attitudes are changing towards having greater conservation sentiment, and the cost to wildlife of lethal strategies is increasingly criticised. Therefore, there is widely acknowledged need for a reliable alternative to mitigating shark bites that does not impact marine wildlife. Drones (unmanned aerial vehicles) may contribute to a solution that reduces shark bite risk to a socially acceptable level."
According to the study, overall, drones have potential to contribute to effective shark bite management strategies that do not require culling sharks or impacting bycatch species commonly affected by lethal strategies, and due to the rapidly advancing development of drone-related technologies, the utility of drones for reducing the risk of shark bites can be further improved upon. Read the full study.
It’s vital that we ensure the safety of beachgoers as well as protect sharks and their key role in ocean health.
First published: https://www.seashepherd.org.au/latest-news/drones-sharks-study/
15 September 2020
A landmark new study published today in Nature by Global FinPrint reveals sharks are virtually absent on many of the world’s coral reefs. Sharks were not observed on nearly 20 percent of the 371 reefs surveyed in 58 countries, indicating a widespread decline that has largely gone undocumented until this global survey.
Fortunately, Australia is a country where shark populations on coral reefs are still largely intact. The most common shark species observed were grey reef, whitetip reef and blacktip reef sharks.
Dr Mark Meekan, from the Australian Institute of Marine Science in Perth and Principal Investigator for the Global FinPrint project in the Indian Ocean region said good management plays a key role in determining the status of reef sharks. “Our survey not only reveals the plight of sharks on coral reefs, which is in many cases very worrying, it also reveals how control of shark fishing can make effective conservation gains,” Dr Meekan said. Australia was one of several nations where the study revealed that shark conservation on coral reefs is working. Other nations include the Bahamas, the Federated States of Micronesia, French Polynesia, the Maldives, and the United States. Dr Meekan said reef sharks play an important role maintaining a healthy ecosystem. “Sharks are important for the ecology of coral reefs, particularly at a time when they are facing so many other threats from climate change. But few people realise that reef sharks are also an important part of the economies of many small island nations around the world because they are a key attraction for reef tourism. “Rebuilding shark numbers isn’t just good sense ecologically – it also makes good sense economically,” Dr Meekan said.
AIMS scientist Dr Michelle Heupel, and Global FinPrint Principal Investigator in the Western Pacific, said this world first study relied on cooperation and collaboration of colleagues in many nations and territories across the globe. “Hundreds of scientists, researchers, and conservationists captured and analysed more than 15,000 hours of video from surveys of 371 reefs in 58 countries, states and territories around the world over four years. “We hope these findings will help countries continue to maintain shark populations or make management changes to improve their status,” she said. Funded by the Paul G. Allen Family Foundation, the Global FinPrint’s survey data were generated from baited remote underwater video systems (BRUVS) consisting of an underwater video camera attached to a bait bag containing a small amount of fish. Coral reef ecosystems were surveyed with BRUVS in four key geographic regions: The Indo-Pacific, Pacific, the Western Atlantic and the Western Indian Ocean. As well as AIMS, other coordinating organisations working on the project came from Florida International University, Curtin University, Dalhousie University, and James Cook University.
For more information and a new global interactive data-visualized map of the Global FinPrint survey results, visit https://globalfinprint.org.
23 July 2020
Scientists have discovered a significant coral bleaching event at one of Western Australia’s healthiest coral reefs.
More than 250 kilometres west of Broome, the Rowley Shoals is one of only two reef systems in the State to have recorded high and stable coral cover throughout the past decade.
In April and May 2020, the Australian Institute of Marine Science (AIMS) and the Department of Biodiversity, Conservation and Attractions (DBCA) conducted surveys of the reef system, supported by Parks Australia and Australian Border Force, to confirm reports of significant coral bleaching.
Data obtained revealed that bleaching was variable across the Rowley Shoals, with estimates ranging between one and 30 percent of the corals bleached. One site on Clerke Reef experienced up to 60 percent of the corals bleached. Further aerial surveys of the North Kimberley and Lalang-garram marine parks found coral bleaching to be patchy and less severe than at Rowley Shoals.
Following temperature alerts issued by the Bureau of Meteorology (BOM), aerial flights by Australian Border Force provided the first evidence of coral bleaching at Western Australia’s remote coral reef atolls Image: Australian Border Force DBCA’s Marine Monitoring Coordinator Dr Thomas Holmes attributed the bleaching to an unusually warm and prolonged ocean temperature off the coast of the Kimberley. “By global standards, Western Australia still has relatively healthy reefs, but seawater temperature is increasing around the world as a result of climate change. This is causing corals to bleach and die from heat stress more frequently and at scales not previously observed,” Dr Holmes said.
The extent and severity of bleaching varied across the Rowley Shoals, ranging from 10% to over 60% bleaching at some sites. Image: Chris Tucker
AIMS’ coral ecologist Dr James Gilmour said that bleaching had badly affected other offshore atolls and the inshore Kimberley region in 2016/17. “Coral bleaching can devastate entire reef systems and dramatically alter associated communities of marine plants and animals,” Dr Gilmour said. “Some corals will regain their symbiotic algae and recover, while those corals that have been severely bleached are likely to die.”
At the worst affected sites, even the robust massive corals at 20m depth had bleached. Image: Chris Tucker
Follow up surveys as a part of DBCA and AIMS long-term monitoring programs are currently planned for later this year to determine the full effect of the event on the coral communities. The bleaching survey of Rowley Shoals was conducted as part of AIMS’ North West Shoals to Shore Research Program funded by Santos Ltd.
14 July 2020
A new study published in the journal PeerJ by researchers at the University of Hawaii found that human-induced environmental stressors have a large effect on the genetic composition of coral reef populations in Hawaii.
The National Science Foundation-funded scientists confirmed that there is an ongoing loss of sensitive genotypes in nearshore coral populations due to stressors from poor land-use practices and coastal pollution. This reduced genetic diversity compromises reef resilience.
This research provides valuable information to coral reef managers in Hawaii and around the world who are developing approaches and implementation plans to enhance coral reef resilience and recovery through reef restoration and stressor reduction.
The study identified that genetic relationships between nearshore corals in Maunalua Bay, Oahu, and those from sites on West Mau were closer than relationships to corals from the same islands, but farther offshore.
This pattern can be described as isolation by environment in contrast to isolation by distance. This is an adaptive response by the corals to watershed discharges that contain sediment and pollutants from land.
“While the results were not surprising, they demonstrate the need to control local sources of stress while addressing the root causes of global climate change,” said Robert Richmond, director of the Kewalo Marine Laboratory and co-author of the study. “The findings show the need to track biodiversity at multiple levels.”
While the loss of coral colonies and species is easy to see with the naked eye, molecular tools are needed to uncover the effects of stressors on the genetic diversity within coral reef populations. “This study shows the value of applying molecular tools to ecological studies supporting coral reef management,” stated Kaho Tisthammer, lead researcher on the paper.
The work was a collaborative effort among researchers at the university’s Kewalo Marine Laboratory, Pacific Biosciences Research Center, and the Hawaii Institute of Marine Biology. “This work highlights the importance of limiting pollution, sediment, and agricultural runoff to nearshore coral reefs,” says Dan Thornhill, a program director in NSF’s Division of Ocean Sciences. “Protecting biodiversity is essential, as that diversity is needed in helping corals and other marine life adapt to changing oceans. Selecting for resilience to pollution may eliminate coral genotypes that resist disease, tolerate higher temperatures, and continue to grow in more acidic and oxygen-depleted waters.”
9 April 2020
Currents are strong around the Torres Strait Islands, lying between Australia’s northern-most tip and Papua New Guinea. When the tidal conditions are right and the waters relatively still, though, up to 230 islanders – a sizeable percentage of the islands’ roughly 4,000 indigenous inhabitants – will board small boats and head out to the surrounding reefs. There they will dive down and search the underwater outcrops for lobsters, grabbing the crustaceans by hand. It’s laborious work compared with lobster fishing in other parts of Australia, where fishers bait “pots”, then simply pull up the pots with lobsters inside. The tropical rock lobsters of the Torres Strait, however, are sensitive creatures and generally won’t crawl into a trap. By hand is the only sure way to catch them. But, until a few weeks ago, it has been worth it. A fisher can sell a live lobster from these waters for $65-95 a kilogram. That makes it worth holding them in water-filled crates and then flying them to wholesalers in Cairns. There they are processed and transported to domestic and international markets.
The most lucrative market is China. Its appetite for live rock lobster makes up about half the value of Australia’s seafood exports (A$660 million of A$1.4 billion). Now, though, lobster fishers are staying home. There hasn’t been a regular lobster shipment to China since January 26. With the Wuhan coronavirus suspected to have originated from wild animals in the city’s Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market, Chinese authorities have temporarily banned all wild animal trade. Lobster and other wild-caught aquatic products are exempt from the ban, but demand has plummeted due to people staying home and avoiding both markets and restaurants.This collapse has come at a time that would normally be one of peak demand, and peak prices, due to Chinese New Year festivities. Our industry sources report prices for live lobsters are down 50% to 80%.
It’s a huge blow to the economy of Torres Strait, along with the rest of Australia’s live seafood export industry.
Lobster fishing is among the highest-value economic activities in the strait. Indigenous islanders have limited alternatives to make money, given their geographical isolation. As scientists fortunate to work closely with traditional owners in the Torres Strait over the past decade, we’re saddened to see this devastating impact on livelihoods.
CSIRO researchers have worked in the strait for more than three decades to help local people sustain their traditional way of life and conserve the marine environment for future generations. This is no easy feat, considering the resources are also shared with an Australian non-Islander sector and traditional owners from Papua New Guinea. The region’s wild marine fisheries have been thriving thanks to good management and a strong sense of custodianship by the Islanders.
New harvest strategies for fishing lobster and bêche-de-mer (sea cucumbers) were implemented in December 2019. These took years of research and consultation. This included augmenting scientific surveys with information from fishers to work out sustainable catches. The new strategies followed a disastrous lobster-fishing year in 2018, when our scientific surveys suggested the lobster population was in trouble due to conditions created by extreme El Niño events. The fishery had to be closed two months early, with substantial economic impact. It was nonetheless an example of Torres Strait Islanders putting sustainability before short-term gain.
Now they have the coronavirus to contend with. The loss of income from those in the fishing business affects other small businesses and ripples throughout the local community. Selling to the frozen seafood market is an option, but prices are much lower, and there’s a point at which the time, effort and cost of catching a tropical rock lobster make it uneconomical. Boat fuel, for one thing, is expensive. Sales of frozen seafood to China have also taken a dive. For some Australian fisheries it’s possible taking fewer fish this season will mean a larger fish population next year. So next year’s catch quotas could be adjusted up without jeopardising the marine population. This could partially offset losses this year. But that’s not an option for the Torres Strait lobster fishery. That’s because by the time a lobster is big enough to catch, usually in its third year of life, it is also ready to migrate, walking several hundred kilometres to the east of the fishery area. So catching fewer lobsters this year won’t mean they are around to catch next year. It is a unique fishery in this regard.
This impact of the coronavirus on Torres Strait Islanders shows how connected global trade now is. What it also demonstrates is the importance of deliberate and distributed growth in export markets for them to be sustainable. Heavy dependence on a single market carries a big risk. As things stand, we can expect demand for seafood in China will remain low for some time to come. This is an opportune time to rethink sustainable export growth strategies.
19 February 2020
As Australians look forward to the summer beach season, the prospect of shark encounters may cross their minds. Shark control has been the subject of furious public debate in recent years and while some governments favour lethal methods, it is the wrong route.
Our study, published today in People and Nature, presents further evidence that lethal shark hazard management damages marine life and does not keep people safe.
We examined the world’s longest-running lethal shark management program, the New South Wales Shark Meshing (Bather Protection) Program, introduced in 1937. We argue it is time to move on from shark nets and invest further in lifeguard patrol and emergency response.
In NSW, 51 beaches between Newcastle and Wollongong are netted. The nets don’t provide an enclosure for swimmers. They are 150 metres long and suspended 500 metres offshore. In the process of catching targeted sharks they also catch other animals including turtles, rays, dolphins, and harmless sharks and fish.
Catching and killing sharks might seem a commonsense solution to the potential risk of shark bite to humans. But the story is not so simple.
Multiple factors influence shark bite incidence, including climate change, prey species distribution and abundance, water quality, human population, beach-use patterns, and lifeguard patrols.
Most research and public debate focuses on human safety or marine conservation. Our research sought to bring the two into conversation. We considered a range of factors that contribute to safety and conservation outcomes. This included catch of target and non-target species in nets, damage to marine ecosystems, global pressures on oceans, changing beach culture, human population growth and changes in lifeguarding and emergency response. Here’s what we found.
As the graph below shows, shark catch in the NSW netting program has fallen since the 1950s. This includes total shark numbers and numbers of three key target species: white shark (also known as great white or white pointer), tiger shark and bull shark.
Our analysis shows shark bite incidence is also declining over the long term. The trend isn’t smooth; trends rarely are. The last two decades have seen more shark bites than the previous two. This is not surprising given Australia’s beach use has again grown rapidly in recent decades.
But if we take a longer term view, we see that shark bite incidence relative to population is substantially lower from the mid-20th century than during the decades before.
The decline in shark bite incidence is great news. But key points are frequently overlooked when society tries to make sense of the figures.
In NSW, lifeguard beach patrol grew over the same time period as the shark meshing program. More people swam and surfed in the ocean from the early 20th century as public bathing became legal. The surf lifesaving and professional lifeguard movements grew rapidly in response.
Today, 50 of the 51 beaches netted through the shark meshing program are also patrolled by lifeguards or lifesavers. Yet improved safety is generally attributed to the mesh program. The role of beach patrol is largely overlooked.
So, claims that shark bite has declined at netted beaches might instead be interpreted as decline at patrolled beaches. In other words, reduced shark interactions may be the result of beach patrol.
More good news is that since the mid-20th century the proportion of shark bites leading to fatality has plummeted. This is most likely the result of enormous improvements in beach patrol, emergency and medical response.
Debate over shark management is often polarised, pitting human safety against marine conservation. We have brought together expertise from the social sciences, biological sciences and fisheries, to move beyond a “people vs sharks” debate.
There is no reliable evidence that lethal shark management strategies are effective. Many people oppose them, institutions are moving away from them, and threatened species are put at risk.
The NSW Department of Primary Industries, manager of the shark meshing program, is investing strongly in new non-lethal strategies, including shark tagging, drone and helicopter patrol, personal deterrents, social and biophysical research and community engagement. Our study provides further evidence to support this move.
Investing in lifeguard patrol and emergency response makes good sense. The measures have none of the negative impacts of lethal strategies, and are likely responsible for the improved safety we enjoy today at the beach.
Leah Gibbs, Senior Lecturer in Geography, University of Wollongong; Lachlan Fetterplace, Environmental Assessment Specialist, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, and Quentin Hanich, Associate Professor, University of Wollongong
4 December 2019
A Sea Shepherd beach clean-up campaign in Northeast Arnhem Land has further exposed the catastrophic impact of marine plastic pollution on mainland Australia.
The Shocking Reality
Over seven tonnes of marine plastic pollution was removed by ten volunteers from Sea Shepherd Australia and Indigenous Rangers from the Dhimurru Aboriginal Corporation in a two-week-long collaboration at Djulpan Beach on the shores of the Gulf of Carpentaria, Northern Territory.
During the campaign, Sea Shepherd conducted scientific surveys across the 14-kilometre stretch of beach in collaboration with marine plastic pollution expert Dr Jennifer Lavers.
Findings from the surveys concluded that there were an estimated 250 million pieces of marine debris present.
Untrashing Djulpan: the Campaign
So remote and untouched by human contact is Djulpan Beach, Rangers cut a 4WD track from the nearest road to allow access for vehicles and equipment. The volume and density of plastic pollution removed from Djulpan was at a scale that the Sea Shepherd volunteers had not seen before on a mainland Australian beach, despite having facilitating over 600 clean-ups in the past three years.
Around 4.5 tonnes of the debris removed were consumer items including:
● plastic lids, tops and pump sprays (14494 pieces)
● plastic drink bottles (6054 pieces)
● cigarette lighters (3344 pieces
● personal care and pharmaceutical packaging (4881 pieces)
● thongs (3769 pieces)
● toothbrushes, hair brushes and hair ties (775 pieces) and
● toys such as chess pieces (64 pieces)
In many cases, the plastic items were so degraded that when volunteers went to pick them up, they crumbled into plastic dust.
The remaining 2.5 tonnes was made up of 72 different types of discarded fishing nets or ghost nets, some of which contained turtle bones.
Hundreds of plastic items were found with multiple animal bites, including those from fish and turtles. The stretch of coast that Djulpan is located on is home to six of the seven species of marine turtles which are all listed as ‘Vulnerable’ or ‘Endangered’ under the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act
Much of the trash found along Cape Arnhem originates from ocean currents and trade winds above Australia that pushes the debris into the Gulf of Carpentaria in a clockwise direction before washing ashore.
“The marine debris littering our beaches saddens us. Not only is it killing our turtles and other marine life, it also pollutes some of our sacred areas. The rangers work hard to try and keep the beaches clean, but we need to stop the rubbish going into the ocean in the first place.” -- Managing Director of the Dhimurru Aboriginal Corporation Mandaka Marika.
“What we found when we arrived at the beach on day one looked like something out of Armageddon, with plastic pieces visible across the entire beach as far as the eye could see. This campaign clearly shows that even in a remote place like Arnhem Land, that nowhere is safe from human-induced plastic pollution” -- Sea Shepherd Australia’s National Marine Debris Coordinator Liza Dicks.
What can you do?
Australia simply cannot turn a blind eye to the impacts that plastic pollution is having – whether it be on Australian shores or at the regional or global level. We need to come together and act now as a collective to ensure there is a solution to this increasing global environmental issue.
First published by SeaShephard: https://www.seashepherd.org.au/latest-news/untrashing-djulpan/
22 Sep 2019
The rise in sea levels is not the only way climate change will affect the coasts. Our research, published today in Nature Climate Change, found a warming planet will also alter ocean waves along more than 50% of the world’s coastlines.
If the climate warms by more than 2℃ beyond pre-industrial levels, southern Australia is likely to see longer, more southerly waves that could alter the stability of the coastline.
Scientists look at the way waves have shaped our coasts – forming beaches, spits, lagoons and sea caves – to work out how the coast looked in the past. This is our guide to understanding past sea levels.
But often this research assumes that while sea levels might change, wave conditions have stayed the same. This same assumption is used when considering how climate change will influence future coastlines – future sea-level rise is considered, but the effect of future change on waves, which shape the coastline, is overlooked.
Waves are generated by surface winds. Our changing climate will drive changes in wind patterns around the globe (and in turn alter rain patterns, for example by changing El Niño and La Niña patterns). Similarly, these changes in winds will alter global ocean wave conditions.
Further to these “weather-driven” changes in waves, sea level rise can change how waves travel from deep to shallow water, as can other changes in coastal depths, such as affected reef systems.
Recent research analysed 33 years of wind and wave records from satellite measurements, and found average wind speeds have risen by 1.5 metres per second, and wave heights are up by 30cm – an 8% and 5% increase, respectively, over this relatively short historical record.
These changes were most pronounced in the Southern Ocean, which is important as waves generated in the Southern Ocean travel into all ocean basins as long swells, as far north as the latitude of San Francisco.
Given these historical changes in ocean wave conditions, we were interested in how projected future changes in atmospheric circulation, in a warmer climate, would alter wave conditions around the world.
As part of the Coordinated Ocean Wave Climate Project, ten research organisations combined to look at a range of different global wave models in a variety of future climate scenarios, to determine how waves might change in the future.
While we identified some differences between different studies, we found if the 2℃ Paris agreement target is kept, changes in wave patterns are likely to stay inside natural climate variability.
However in a business-as-usual climate, where warming continues in line with current trends, the models agreed we’re likely to see significant changes in wave conditions along 50% of the world’s coasts. These changes varied by region.
Less than 5% of the global coastline is at risk of seeing increasing wave heights. These include the southern coasts of Australia, and segments of the Pacific coast of South and Central America.
On the other hand decreases in wave heights, forecast for about 15% of the world’s coasts, can also alter coastal systems.
But describing waves by height only is the equivalent of describing an orchestra simply by the volume at which it plays.
Some areas will see the height of waves remain the same, but their length or frequency change. This can result in more force exerted on the coast (or coastal infrastructure), perhaps seeing waves run further up a beach and increasing wave-driven flooding.
Similarly, waves travelling from a slightly altered direction (suggested to occur over 20% of global coasts) can change how much sand they shunt along the coast – important considerations for how the coast might respond. Infrastructure built on the coast, or offshore, is sensitive to these many characteristics of waves.
While each of these wave characteristics is important on its own, our research identified that about 40% of the world’s coastlines are likely to see changes in wave height, period and direction happening simultaneously.
While some readers may see intense waves offering some benefit to their next surf holiday, there are much greater implications for our coastal and offshore environments. Flooding from rising sea levels could cost US$14 trillion worldwide annually by 2100 if we miss the target of 2℃ warming.
How coastlines respond to future climate change will be a response to a complex interplay of many processes, many of which respond to variable and changing climate. To focus on sea level rise alone, and overlooking the role waves play in shaping our coasts, is a simplification which has great potential to be costly.
The authors would like to acknowledge the contribution of Xiaolan Wang, Senior Research Scientist at Environment and Climate Change, Canada, to this article.
Mark Hemer, Principal Research Scientist, Oceans and Atmosphere, CSIRO; Ian Young, Kernot Professor of Engineering, University of Melbourne; Joao Morim Nascimento, PhD Candidate, Griffith University, and Nobuhito Mori, Professor, Kyoto University
20 Aug 2019
One hectare of ocean in which fishing is not allowed (a marine protected area) produces at least five times the amount of fish as an equivalent unprotected hectare, according to new research published today.
This outsized effect means marine protected areas, or MPAs, are more valuable than we previously thought for conservation and increasing fishing catches in nearby areas.
Previous research has found the number of offspring from a fish increases exponentially as they grow larger, a disparity that had not been taken into account in earlier modelling of fish populations. By revising this basic assumption, the true value of MPAs is clearer.
Marine protected areas are ocean areas where human activity is restricted and at their best are “no take” zones, where removing animals and plants is banned. Fish populations within these areas can grow with limited human interference and potentially “spill-over” to replenish fished populations outside.
Obviously MPAs are designed to protect ecological communities, but scientists have long hoped they can play another role: contributing to the replenishment and maintenance of species that are targeted by fisheries.
Wild fisheries globally are under intense pressure and the size fish catches have levelled off or declined despite an ever-increasing fishing effort.
Yet fishers remain sceptical that any spillover will offset the loss of fishing grounds, and the role of MPAs in fisheries remains contentious. A key issue is the number of offspring that fish inside MPAs produce. If their fecundity is similar to that of fish outside the MPA, then obviously there will be no benefit and only costs to fishers.
Traditional models assume that fish reproductive output is proportional to mass, that is, doubling the mass of a fish doubles its reproductive output. Thus, the size of fish within a population is assumed to be less important than the total biomass when calculating population growth.
But a paper recently published in Science demonstrated this assumption is incorrect for 95% of fish species: larger fish actually have disproportionately higher reproductive outputs. That means doubling a fish’s mass more than doubles its reproductive output.
When we feed this newly revised assumption into models of fish reproduction, predictions about the value of MPAs change dramatically.
Fish are, on average, 25% longer inside protected areas than outside. This doesn’t sound like much, but it translates into a big difference in reproductive output – an MPA fish produces almost 3 times more offspring on average. This, coupled with higher fish populations because of the no-take rule means MPAs produce between 5 and 200 times (depending on the species) more offspring per unit area than unprotected areas.
Put another way, one hectare of MPA is worth at least 5 hectares of unprotected area in terms of the number of offspring produced.
We have to remember though, just because MPAs produce disproportionately more offspring it doesn’t necessarily mean they enhance fisheries yields.
For protected areas to increase catch sizes, offspring need to move to fished areas. To calculate fisheries yields, we need to model – among other things – larval dispersal between protected and unprotected areas. This information is only available for a few species.
We explored the consequences of disproportionate reproduction for fisheries yields with and without MPAs for one iconic fish, the coral trout on the Great Barrier Reef. This is one of the few species for which we had data for most of the key parameters, including decent estimates of larval dispersal and how connected different populations are.
We found MPAs do in fact enhance yields to fisheries when disproportionate reproduction is included in relatively realistic models of fish populations. For the coral trout, we saw a roughly 12% increase in tonnes of caught fish.
There are two lessons here. First, a fivefold increase in the production of eggs inside MPAs results in only modest increases in yield. This is because limited dispersal and higher death rates in the protected areas dampen the benefits.
However the exciting second lesson is these results suggest MPAs are not in conflict with the interests of fishers, as is often argued.
While MPAs restrict access to an entire population of fish, fishers still benefit from from their disproportionate affect on fish numbers. MPAs are a rare win-win strategy.
It’s unclear whether our results will hold for all species. What’s more, these effects rely on strict no-take rules being well-enforced, otherwise the essential differences in the sizes of fish will never be established.
We think that the value of MPAs as a fisheries management tool has been systematically underestimated. Including disproportionate reproduction in our assessments of MPAs should correct this view and partly resolve the debate about their value. Well-designed networks of MPAs could increase much-needed yields from wild-caught fish.
July 4 2019
Hundreds of juvenile corals bred at the Australian Institute of Marine Science (AIMS) have survived being transplanted on the Great Barrier Reef, in a promising early test to help corals increase their resilience to marine heatwaves. The trial aims to show young coral offspring produced from mixing corals from warm northern reefs, with cooler central corals, can survive in cooler environments. This is the first test to assess the feasibility of the technique called Assisted Gene Flow at this larger scale on the Great Barrier Reef. The seven-month-old corals have one parent from the warmer northern reaches of the Reef and the other from the cooler central Reef.
AIMS marine scientist Dr Kate Quigley says research has shown the offspring inherit heat tolerance from their northern parents, and in time, they may pass on these heat tolerant genes and make reefs more resistant to future marine heat waves. “Last year we collected corals from the far north of the Great Barrier Reef that survived previous heat waves, and we flew them nearly 1000km to AIMS in Townsville,” Dr Quigley said.
“We have cross-fertilised them with corals from the middle of the Reef to see if the heat tolerance is passed on.”
Dr Line Bay, who leads AIMS’ research into reef recovery, adaptation and restoration, said Assisted Gene Flow, was helping nature to do what it does naturally, and is one of several techniques being developed at AIMS to help coral survive higher future ocean temperatures in coming decades. “When corals get too hot they are damaged and bleach, and this can lead to extensive mortality as we have recently seen on the Great Barrier Reef,” Dr Bay said. “If corals are to persist into the future, they have to cope with these increasing temperatures, and because of the rate of warming, they will have to become more tolerant fast. “We are focussed on developing new solutions for managing our coral reefs in a warming future.”
AIMS researchers took the same species of corals from three sites in the northern region, and two sites on the central Great Barrier Reef and cross-fertilised them in climate-controlled tanks at the National Sea Simulator in Townsville, to produce dozens of distinct genetic crosses. The National Sea Simulator is the world’s most advanced research aquarium. These crosses were then settled onto terracotta tiles and moved to a site on the Great Barrier Reef, in March.
This first expedition to check on these coral juveniles has just returned, and researchers are analysing the results. “We found many of the warm-adapted corals have survived the now quite cool waters of the central Reef,” Dr Quigley said. “This early result supports further testing of Assisted Gene Flow as a management action tool for corals in a warming future.” The field tests will add to results from experiments in the National Sea Simulator which showed these juvenile corals with at least one parent from the far northern Great Barrier Reef, are significantly more likely to survive high temperatures. AIMS researchers plan to return to the test site in October to check in again on how the corals are growing and surviving.
This research is partly funded by the partnership between the Australian Government’s Reef Trust and the Great Barrier Reef Foundation.
First published by AIMS July 2 2019
As concern grows over human-induced climate change, many scientists are looking back through Earth’s history to events that can shed light on changes occurring today. Analyzing how the planet’s climate system has changed in the past improves our understanding of how it may behave in the future.
It is now clear from these studies that abrupt warming events are built into Earth’s climate system. They have occurred when disturbances in carbon storage at Earth’s surface released greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. One of the grand challenges for climate scientists like me is to determine where these releases came from before humans were present, and what triggered them. Importantly, we want to know if such an event could happen again.
In a recently published study, my colleagues Katie Harazin, Nadine Krupinski and I discovered that at the end of the last glacial era, about 20,000 years ago, carbon dioxide was released into the ocean from geologic reservoirs located on the seafloor when the oceans began to warm.
This finding is a potential game-changer. Naturally occurring reservoirs of carbon in the modern ocean could be disturbed again, with potentially serious effects to Earth’s oceans and climate.
One of the best-known examples of a rapid warming caused by release of geologic carbon is the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum, or PETM, a major global warming event that occured about 55 million years ago. During the PETM, the Earth warmed by 9 to 16 degrees Fahrenheit (5 to 9 degrees Celsius) within about 10,000 years.
Climate scientists now consider the PETM to be an analog for environmental changes taking place today. The PETM happened over a longer period and without human involvement, but it shows that there is inherent instability in the climate system if carbon from geologic reservoirs is released rapidly.
Scientists also know that atmospheric carbon dioxide levels rose rapidly at the end of each of the late Pleistocene ice ages, helping to warm the climate. During the most recent warming episode, 17,000 years ago, the Earth warmed by 9 to 13 degrees Fahrenheit (5 to 7 degrees Celsius).
However, hundreds of scientific studies have failed to establish what caused the rapid carbon dioxide increases that ended each ice age. Researchers agree that the ocean must be involved because it acts as a large carbon capacitor, regulating the amount of carbon that resides in the atmosphere. But they are still searching for clues to understand what influences the amount of carbon in the ocean during abrupt climate changes.
Over the past two decades, ocean scientists have discovered that there are reservoirs of liquid and solid carbon dioxide accumulating at the bottom of the ocean, within the rocks and sediments on the margins of active hydrothermal vents. At these sites, volcanic magma from within the Earth meets superheated water, producing plumes of carbon dioxide-rich fluids that filter through crevices in the Earth’s crust, migrating upward towards the surface.
When a plume of this fluid meets cold seawater, the carbon dioxide can solidify into a form called hydrate. The hydrate forms a cap that traps carbon dioxide within the rocks and sediments and keeps it from entering the ocean. But at temperatures above roughly 48 degrees Fahrenheit (9 degrees Celsius), hydrate will melt, releasing buoyant liquid or gaseous carbon dioxide directly into the overlying water.
Scientists have thus far documented reservoirs of liquid and hydrate carbon dioxide in the western Pacific near Taiwan and in the Aegean Sea. In shallower waters, where ocean temperatures are warmer and pressure is lower, researchers have observed pure carbon dioxide emanating directly from sediments as a gas and rising to the ocean’s surface.
These discoveries are changing scientists’ understanding of the marine carbon system. Climate scientists have not included deep sea carbon reservoirs in current models that explore the potential impacts of future warming, because little is known about the size and distribution of these carbon sources.
In fact, there is virtually no data that documents how much carbon dioxide is currently being released from these reservoirs into the ocean. This makes the geologic history critically important: It confirms that these types of reservoirs have the capacity to release vast amounts of carbon when they are disturbed.
Analogous carbon reservoirs have also been identified in terrestrial environments. In 1979, Indonesia’s Dieng volcano suffocated 142 people when it released nearly pure carbon dioxide. In 1986, a carbon dioxide reservoir at the bottom of Lake Nyos in Cameroon erupted, killing 1,700 local villagers and hundreds of animals.
Carbon dioxide is also venting around Mammoth Mountain, California, at spots where magma rises through Earth’s crust and stalls at shallow depths. High concentrations of carbon dioxide in the soil have killed more than 100 acres of trees. Scientists are working to identify and characterize other sites on land where such releases could occur.
It is much more challenging to quantify the carbon dioxide stored in ocean reservoirs. Vast regions of the seafloor contain sites of active volcanism and hydrothermal venting, but scientists know virtually nothing about how much carbon dioxide is accumulating in surrounding rocks and sediments. In my view, there is an urgent need to study marine settings where carbon dioxide is likely accumulating, and then to assess how susceptible they may be to destabilization.
This is not an endeavor that should be deferred. Earth’s oceans are warming rapidly, and climate models project that they will warm fastest near the poles, where deep currents form that carry warming waters downward from the surface.
As these warm waters sink into the ocean’s interior, they transport excess heat towards sites where carbon dioxide reservoirs can form. Those warmer waters will eventually destabilize the hydrate seals that keep liquid carbon dioxide trapped.
One such reservoir occurs in the western Pacific west of the Okinawa Trough in the East China Sea. The temperature of the bottom waters at this location is 37 to 39 degrees Fahrenheit (3 to 4 degrees Celsius), which means the hydrate cap is within about 4-5 degrees Celsius of its melting point.
Importantly, warm hydrothermal fluids are rising from below the carbon dioxide reservoir toward the surface. As the oceans continue to warm, the temperature difference between cold ocean waters and warmer hydrothermal fluids will decrease. This will cause the hydrate to thin, potentially to a point where it will no longer keep liquid carbon dioxide from escaping.
To date there has been no research to assess whether these ocean carbon dioxide reservoirs are vulnerable to rising ocean temperatures. But Earth’s pre-historic record clearly demonstrates that geologic reservoirs can be destabilized – and that when they are, it leads to rapid increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide and global warming. In my view, this represents an important unknown risk that cannot be ignored.
9 May 2016
Humans have a long history of living on water. Our water homes span the fishing villages in Southeast Asia, Peru and Bolivia to modern floating homes in Vancouver and Amsterdam. As our cities grapple with overcrowding and undesirable living situations, the ocean remains a potential frontier for sophisticated water-based communities.
The United Nations has expressed support for further research into floating cities in response to rising sea levels and to house climate refugees. A speculative proposal, Oceanix City, was unveiled in April at the first Round Table on Sustainable Floating Cities at UN headquarters in New York.
The former tourism minister of French Polynesia, Marc Collins Chen, and architecture studio BIG advanced the proposal. Chen is involved with the Seasteading Institute, which is seeking to develop autonomous city-states floating in the shallow waters of “host nations”.
While this latest proposal has gained UN attention, it is an old idea we have repeatedly returned to over the past 70 years with little success. In fact, the Oceanix City proposal has not reached the same level of technical sophistication as previous models.
The architecture community was fascinated with marine utopias between the 1950s and ’70s. The technological optimism of this period led architects to consider whether we could build settlements in inhospitable places like the polar regions, the deserts and on the sea.
The Japanese Metabolists put forward incredible projects such as Kenzo Tange’s 1960 Tokyo Bay Plan and the marine city proposals of Kikutake and Kurokawa.
These proposals were directed at solving the impending urban crises of overpopulation and pressures on land-based resources. Many were even sophisticated enough to be patented.
The arc of this global architectural discussion was captured during the first UN Habitat conference (“Habitat I”) in Vancouver in 1976. In many ways, the UN has returned to the Vancouver Declaration from Habitat I to “[adopt] bold, meaningful and effective human settlement policies and spatial planning strategies” and to treat “human settlements as an instrument and object of development”.
We are seeing a pivoting that began in 2008 with Vincent Callebaut’s “Lilypad” - a “floating ecopolis for ecological refugees”.
Where floating cities were once dismissed as too far-fetched, the concept has been repackaged and is re-emerging into public consciousness. This time in a more politically viable state - as a means of addressing the climate emergency.
No floating settlements have ever been created on the high seas. Current offshore engineering is concerned with how cities can locate infrastructure, such as airports, nuclear power stations, bridges, oil storage facilities and stadiums, in shallow coastal environments rather than in deep international waters.
Two main types of very large floating structures (VLFS) technology can be used to carry the weight of a floating settlement.
The first, pontoon structures, are flat slabs suitable for floating in sheltered waters close to shore.
The second, semi-submersible structures (such as oil rigs), comprise platforms that are elevated on columns off the water surface. These can be located in deep waters. Potentially, oil rigs could be repurposed for such floating cities in international waters.
Oceanix City is based on the pontoon structure. This would restrict it to shallower waters with breakwaters to limit the impacts of waves. This sort of structure could serve as an extension of a coastal city, as a life raft for island communities inundated by rising waters, or to provide mobile essential services to residents of flood-prone slums.
While some early marine utopian proposals were responses to emerging urban issues, many proposals conceptualised “seaborne leisure colonies”. These communities would be independent city-states allowing inhabitants to circumvent tax laws or restrictions on medical research in their own countries.
This sort of floating city was conceived of as a micronation with sovereignty and ability to provide citizenship to its occupants. The example was set by the Principality of Sealand, off the coast of Britain.
None of these proposals have succeeded. Even modern attempts such as the Freedom Ship and the Seasteading Institute’s plans for an autonomous floating settlement under French Polynesian jurisdiction have stalled. A recent attempt at creating a sovereign micronation (seastead) off Thailand led to its proponents becoming fugitives, potentially facing the death penalty.
Technology is not a barrier to floating cities in international waters. Advances in technology enable us to create structures for habitation in deep sea waters. These schemes have never really taken off because of political and commercial barriers.
While this time round proponents are packaging floating cities in a more politically viable concept as a life raft for climate refugees, commercial barriers remain. Apart from the UN, few organisation have the economic and political influence or reason to deliver a satellite floating city in the ocean.
In my view, the future of ocean cities is in technology campuses and in tourism. Given the significant risk of a community in extreme isolation in international waters, the solution to bringing people together in mid-ocean requires us to think about what connects us: technology, work and play. In these three elements we see, perhaps, the two lowest-hanging fruits (or the most buoyant of possibilities) for ocean cities.
The first is in floating tech campuses where large technology companies set up floating data centres and campuses in international waters. Situated outside national jurisdictions, these campuses could circumvent increasingly onerous privacy regimes or offer innovative technological services without having to negotiate regulatory barriers.
The second prospect is a return to the seaborne leisure colonies of the past. Companies like Disney could expand on their cruise offerings to build floating theme parks. These resorts could be sited in international waters or hosted by coastal cities.
Given our fascination with living on water, even if Oceanix City does not suceed, it won’t be long before we see another floating city proposal. And if we get the mix of social, political and commercial drivers right, we might just find ourselves living on one.
3 June 2019
New research has revealed that marine turtle hatchlings entering the ocean close to jetties have a high likelihood of being eaten. The study, published today in Biological Conservation, found structures such as jetties are an attractive shelter for hungry fish as they lie in wait for an easy evening meal. Lead author Phillipa Wilson, a PhD candidate at The University of Western Australia (jointly supervised through the Australian Institute of Marine Science), said the study provides evidence that jetties near turtle nesting beaches increase the predation of turtle hatchlings.
“Jetties attract large numbers of predatory fish, such as mangrove jack. They provide an artificial shelter for the fish, and when located near turtle nesting beaches can greatly increase the threat to hatchlings,” she said.
“Nearly three quarters of the hatchlings entering the sea for the first time were taken by fish while still close to shore. This means that baby turtles were seven times more likely to be preyed upon than at a beach nearby with no jetty”.
Dr Scott Whiting, from the Western Australian Department of Biodiversity, Conservation and Attractions’ marine science program said this research provides evidence to assist decision making around coastal developments near turtle-nesting beaches such as jetty installation or decommissioning of infrastructure.
“As coastal development is one of the primary threats to marine turtles around the world, understanding the effects of jetties will be extremely useful to managers when advising on environmental impacts associated with these structures,” he said.
The team of scientists from UWA, AIMS, DBCA and Pendoley Environmental tracked flatback turtle hatchlings on Thevenard Island off Australia’s north west coast. This marine turtle species nests only on Australian beaches and is classified as ‘vulnerable’ by the EPBC Act.
Small, sound-emitting tags were attached to 61 recently hatched flatback turtles to monitor their movements in the ocean. Signals from the tags were detected by a grid of underwater receivers, allowing scientists to track them as they swam out to sea.
Dr Michele Thums, co-author from the Australian Institute of Marine Science, pioneered the use of the tiny tags to remotely track turtle hatchlings in water, which allowed for predation rates of hatchlings to be measured remotely for the first time.
“Only a very small proportion of turtle hatchlings survive to maturity – this may be as low as one in one thousand. As the hatchlings represent the next generation, any increase in mortality, as we document here, can effect turtle population numbers in the future,” she said.
Ms Wilson said it was normal for turtle hatchlings to swim quickly in a straight line away from the beach, out to the relative safety of the open ocean.
“However, the baby turtles we tracked behaved differently by swimming parallel to the beach and many of them resided under the jetty during the day. This is when we realised we were no longer tracking swimming hatchlings, but tagged hatchlings inside the stomach of the fish that ate them,” she said.
The predatory fish used the jetty as shelter during the day, and at night they left the jetty to feed on hatchlings along the nearshore zone.
The paper ‘High predation of marine turtle hatchlings near a coastal jetty’ was published today in Biological Conservation.
The project was a collaboration between the Australian Institute of Marine Science and The University of Western Australia with the Department of Biodiversity, Conservation and Attractions and Pendoley Environmental. Project funding was provided predominantly from DBCA through the Northwest Shelf Flatback Turtle Conservation Program.
first published by AIMS: https://www.aims.gov.au/docs/media/latest-releases
22 May 2019
One of the ocean’s top predators – the tiger shark - has been revealed as a relaxed and sometimes lazy hunter by scientists studying their behaviour. Researchers from the Australian Institute of Marine Science (AIMS) and Murdoch University’s Harry Butler Institute attached specialist tags which combined cameras with motion and environmental sensors, to 27 tiger sharks in the Ningaloo Reef off the coast of Western Australia.
Collecting 60 hours of footage, the tags revealed the 3D movements of the sharks in relation to their prey, showing a number of target species including turtles, large fish and other sharks performing escape manoeuvres when a tiger shark showed interest.
AIMS PhD graduate Dr Samantha Andrzejaczek said tiger sharks were surprisingly lazy predators.
“Our tagged sharks just continued on their courses without attempting to predate on the alert individual even if they were right in front of them,” said Dr Andrzejaczek, a lead author on a research paper released today.
“We found the sharks were more likely to use stealth to sneak up on their prey.”
AIMS senior researcher and shark expert Dr Mark Meekan said the cameras they attached to the sharks gave them an unprecedented view of the role of tiger sharks in coral reef environments. “We can begin to understand not just what the animals are eating, but how they alter the behaviours of the prey around them and how this may impact the coral reef,” Dr Meekan said. “As we come up with strategies to manage and conserve these systems into the future, we need to understand how they are controlled from the top down, meaning we need to understand how these top predators are using these reefs.”
Dr Adrian Gleiss of Murdoch University’s Harry Butler Institute compared tiger sharks to lions.
“They don’t waste energy stalking prey that are already aware of them and can easily escape,” Dr Gleiss said. “These sharks minimise energy output and chances of success by sneaking up on unsuspecting turtles and large fish.”
The tags revealed the tiger sharks frequently hunted in the shallow sandflat habitats of Ningaloo Reef.
Clamped to the dorsal fins of the sharks by hand, the tags automatically detached after 24 to 48 hours. The floating tags were tracked down using a radio antenna, and the data downloaded, providing the researchers with a day or more in the life of the shark.
The project was conducted by scientists from the Australian Institute of Marine Science, Murdoch University, the University of Western Australia and Stanford University in California.
The research paper “Biologging Tags Reveal Links Between Fine-Scale Horizontal and Vertical Movement Behaviors in Tiger Sharks” was published in Frontiers in Marine Science.
First published by AIMS (https://www.aims.gov.au/docs/media/latest-news)
1 May 2019
More than 70% of recreational fishers support no-take marine sanctuaries according to our research, published recently in Marine Policy.
This study contradicts the popular perception that fishers are against establishing no-take marine reserves to protect marine life. In fact, the vast majority of fishers we surveyed agreed that no-take sanctuaries improve marine environmental values, and do not impair their fishing.
No-take marine sanctuaries, which ban taking or disturbing any marine life, are widely recognised as vital for conservation. However, recent media coverage and policy decisions in Australia suggest recreational fishers are opposed to no-take sanctuary zones created within marine parks.
This perceived opposition has been reinforced by recreational fishing interest groups who aim to represent fishers’ opinions in policy decisions. However, it was unclear whether the opinions expressed by these groups matches those of fishers on-the-ground in established marine parks.
To answer this, we visited ten state-managed marine parks across Western Australia, South Australia, Queensland and New South Wales. We spoke to 778 fishers at boat ramps that were launching or retrieving their boats to investigate their attitudes towards no-take sanctuary zones.
Our findings debunk the myth that recreational fishers oppose marine sanctuaries. We found 72% of active recreational fishers in established marine parks (more than 10 years old) support their no-take marine sanctuaries. Only 9% were opposed, and the remainder were neutral.
We also found that support rapidly increases (and opposition rapidly decreases) after no-take marine sanctuaries are established, suggesting that once fishers have a chance to experience sanctuaries, they come to support them.
Fishers in established marine parks were also overwhelmingly positive towards marine sanctuaries. Most thought no-take marine sanctuaries benefited the marine environment (78%) and have no negative impacts on their fishing (73%).
We argue that recreational fishers, much like other Australians, support no-take marine sanctuaries because of the perceived environmental benefits they provide. This is perhaps not surprising, considering that appreciating nature is one of the primary reasons many people go fishing in the first place.
In the past opposition from recreational fishing groups has been cited in the decision to scrap proposed no-take sanctuaries around Sydney, to open up established no-take sanctuaries to fishing and to reduce sanctuaries within the Australia Marine Parks (formerly the Commonwealth Marine Reserve network).
Our findings suggest that these policy decisions do not reflect the beliefs of the wider recreational fishing community, but instead represent the loud voices of a minority.
We suggest that recreational fishing groups and policy makers should survey grass roots recreational fishing communities (and other people who use marine parks) to gauge the true level of support for no-take marine sanctuaries, before any decisions are made.
Despite what headlines may say, no-take marine sanctuaries are unlikely to face long lasting opposition from recreational fishers. Instead, our research suggests no-take marine sanctuaries provide a win-win: protecting marine life whilst fostering long term support within the recreational fishing community.
Matt Navarro, Post-doctoral Fellow, University of Western Australia; Marit E. Kragt, Senior Lecture in Agricultural and Resource Economics, and Tim Langlois, Research Fellow, University of Western Australia
Feb 18 2019
Much of the Great Barrier Reef is legally protected in an effort to conserve and rebuild the fragile marine environment. Marine reserves are considered the gold standard for conservation, and often shape our perception of what an “undisturbed ecosystem” should look like.
However our research, published today in Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, suggests that “no-take” marine reserves may be failing shark populations on the Great Barrier Reef.
After 40 years of protection, the average amount of reef sharks in no-take reserves (areas where fishing is forbidden but people can boat or swim) was only one-third that in strictly enforced human exclusion areas. The difference, we argue, is down to poaching, raising serious questions about the effectiveness of no-take reserves.
Three species of shark are dominant on Indo-Pacific coral reefs: grey reef sharks, blacktip reef sharks, and whitetip reef sharks. All three of these species are considered high-level predators, but the combination of slow reproductive rates and high fishing pressure has depleted reef shark populations across much of their range.
Well-designed and enforced no-take marine reserves help rebuild reef shark populations, but it is not known whether these reserves can facilitate full recovery to baseline (unexploited) levels, or how long the recovery process might take.
No-take marine reserves are firmly advocated as an effective way to combat overfishing. With few exceptions, well-enforced no-take marine reserves result in rapid increases in target fish populations, leading to flow-on benefits such as better fisheries in outlying areas.
In many cases, no-take marine reserves are considered to have intact ecology and therefore drive our perceptions of what undisturbed ecosystems should look like.
The entire Great Barrier Reef was open to fishing until 1980, when no-take reserves were established. More reserves were created over the next two and a half decades, resulting in reserves that vary in age from 14-39 years. A small number of no-entry reserves, which are completely off limits to humans, were also implemented during this period to guard against the potential effects of activities such as boating and diving.
Given that fishing is prohibited in both no-take and no-entry reserves, we expected shark populations to be similar in both areas. Due to the exclusion of humans from no-entry reserves, shark populations within these areas are largely unknown and have only been assessed once, 10 years after protection.
Read more: Killing sharks is killing coral reefs too
This past research revealed that shark populations were much greater inside no-entry reserves compared to no-take reserves, but this does not allow us to determine whether recovery is ongoing or complete. The diverse ages of marine reserves within the GBR provide a unique opportunity to investigate the potential recovery of reef shark populations and evaluate the performance of no-entry and no-take reserves as tools for shark conservation.
Using underwater survey data from 11 no-take reserves and 13 no-entry reserves, we reconstructed reef shark populations through the past four decades of protection. Surprisingly, we found shark populations were substantially higher – with two-thirds more biomass – in no-entry reserves than in no-take reserves, indicating that the latter do not support near-natural shark populations.
We looked at potential drivers of shark abundance and found that coral cover, habitat complexity, reef size, distance to shore, and the distance to the nearest fished reef could not explain the large differences between no-take and no-entry reserves.
We argue the disparity between no-entry and no-take reserves is likely due to poaching in no-take reserves. Recent research found up to 18% of recreational fishers admit to fishing illegally.
Enforcement of no-entry reserves is much easier than no-take reserves as evidence of fishing is not required for prosecution. On the other hand, vessels are allowed to be present in no-take reserves, leaving these areas susceptible to poaching. Given the slow reproductive rate of reef sharks, even small amounts of fishing may reduce their populations.
The Great Barrier Reef is one of the most intensely managed marine parks in the world. Despite this, our results reveal that no-take reserves fall well short of restoring shark populations to near-natural levels, and that up to 40 years of strong protection is required to rebuild shark populations.
These results also highlight that no-take marine reserves inadequately reflect ecological baselines and that we may need to reevaluate what we consider to be a natural, intact reef ecosystem.
While the creation of more and larger no-entry reserves may solve the problem, this approach is likely to be unpopular and politically undesirable. An alternative approach, would be to tackle poaching by enlisting fishing communities in the fight against illegal fishing, better education, and increasing enforcement.
February 1 2019
The devastating bleaching on the Great Barrier Reef in 2016 and 2017 rightly captured the world’s attention. But what’s less widely known is that another World Heritage-listed marine ecosystem in Australia, Shark Bay, was also recently devastated by extreme temperatures, when a brutal marine heatwave struck off Western Australia in 2011.
A 2018 workshop convened by the Shark Bay World Heritage Advisory Committee classified Shark Bay as being in the highest category of vulnerability to future climate change. And yet relatively little media attention and research funding has been paid to this World Heritage Site that is on the precipice.
Shark Bay, in WA’s Gascoyne region, is one of 49 marine World Heritage Sites globally, but one of only four of these sites that meets all four natural criteria for World Heritage listing. The marine ecosystem supports the local economy through tourism and fisheries benefits.
Around 100,000 tourists visit Shark Bay each year to interact with turtles, dugongs and dolphins, or to visit the world’s most extensive population of stromatolites – stump-shaped colonies of microbes that date back billions of years, almost to the dawn of life on Earth.
Commercial and recreational fishing is also extremely important for the local economy. The combined Shark Bay invertebrate fishery (crabs, prawns and scallops) is the second most valuable commercial fishery in Western Australia.
However, this iconic and valuable marine ecosystem is under serious threat. Shark Bay is especially vulnerable to future climate change, given that the temperate seagrass that underpins the entire ecosystem is already living at the upper edge of its tolerable temperature range. These seagrasses provide vital habitat for fish and marine mammals, and help the stromatolites survive by regulating the water salinity.
Shark Bay received the highest rating of vulnerability using the recently developed Climate Change Vulnerability Index, created to provide a method for assessing climate change impacts across all World Heritage Sites.
In particular, extreme marine heat events were classified as very likely and predicted to have catastrophic consequences in Shark Bay. By contrast, the capacity to adapt to marine heat events was rated very low, showing the challenges Shark Bay faces in the coming decades.
The region is also threatened by increasingly frequent and intense storms, and warming air temperatures.
To understand the potential impacts of climatic change on Shark Bay, we can look back to the effects of the most recent marine heatwave in the area. In 2011 Shark Bay was hit by a catastrophic marine heatwave that destroyed 900 square kilometres of seagrass – 36% of the total coverage.
This in turn harmed endangered species such as turtles, contributed to the temporary closure of the commercial crab and scallop fisheries, and released between 2 million and 9 million tonnes of carbon dioxide – equivalent to the annual emissions from 800,000 homes.
Some aspects of Shark Bay’s ecosystem have never been the same since. Many areas previously covered with large, temperate seagrasses are now bare, or have been colonised by small, tropical seagrasses, which do not provide the same habitat for animals. This mirrors the transition seen on bleached coral reefs, which are taken over by turf algae. We may be witnessing the beginning of Shark Bay’s transition from a sub-tropical to a tropical marine ecosystem.
This shift would jeopardise Shark Bay’s World Heritage values. Although stromatolites have survived for almost the entire history of life on Earth, they are still vulnerable to rapid environmental change. Monitoring changes in the microbial makeup of these communities could even serve as a canary in the coalmine for global ecosystem changes.
Despite Shark Bay’s significance, and the seriousness of the threats it faces, it has received less media and funding attention than many other high-profile Australian ecosystems. Since 2011, the Australian Research Council has funded 115 research projects on the Great Barrier Reef, and just nine for Shark Bay.
The World Heritage Committee has recognised that local efforts alone are no longer enough to save coral reefs, but this logic can be extended to other vulnerable marine ecosystems – including the World Heritage values of Shark Bay.
Safeguarding Shark Bay from climate change requires a coordinated research and management effort from government, local industry, academic institutions, not-for-profits and local Indigenous groups – before any irreversible ecosystem tipping points are reached. The need for such a strategic effort was obvious as long ago as the 2011 heatwave, but it hasn’t happened yet.
Due to the significant Aboriginal heritage in Shark Bay, including three language groups (Malgana, Nhanda and Yingkarta), it will be vital to incorporate Indigenous knowledge, so as to understand the potential social impacts.
And of course, any on-the-ground actions to protect Shark Bay need to be accompanied by dramatic reductions in greenhouse emissions. Without this, Shark Bay will be one of the many marine ecosystems to fundamentally change within our lifetimes.
Matthew Fraser, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, University of Western Australia; Ana Sequeira, ARC DECRA Fellow, University of Western Australia; Brendan Paul Burns, Senior Lecturer, UNSW; Diana Walker, Emeritus Professor, University of Western Australia; Jon C. Day, PSM, Post-career PhD candidate, ARC Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies, James Cook University, and Scott Heron, Senior Lecturer, James Cook University
February 8 2019
There has been a striking decline in the number of large sharks caught off Queensland’s coast over the past 50 years, suggesting that populations have declined dramatically.
Our study, published today in the journal Communications Biology, used historical data from the Queensland Shark Control Program.
Catch numbers of large apex sharks (hammerheads, tigers and white sharks) declined by 74-92%, and the chance of catching no sharks at any given beach per year has increased by as much as seven-fold.
Coinciding with ongoing declines in numbers of sharks in nets and drum lines, the probability of recording mature male and females has declined over the past two decades.
Our discovery is at odds with recent media reports of “booming” shark numbers reaching “plague” along our coastlines. The problem with those claims is that we previously had little idea of what the “natural” historical shark population would have been.
Why is the decline of sharks on the Queensland coastline a cause for concern? Large apex sharks have unique roles in coastal ecosystems, preying on weak and injured turtles, dolphins and dugongs, actively scavenging on dead whale carcasses, and connecting coral reefs, seagrass beds and coastal ecosystems.
As a nation, Australia has a long history with sharks. Some of the oldest stories in the world were written by the indigenous Yanyuwa people in the Northern Territory some 40,000 years ago, describing how the landscape of their coastal homeland was created by tiger sharks.
European settlers in the late 18th and early 19th centuries further described Australian coastlines as being “chock-full of sharks”, and upon visiting Sydney in 1895, the US author Mark Twain remarked:
The government pays a bounty of the shark; to get the bounty the fishermen bait the hook or the seine with agreeable mutton; the news spreads and the sharks come from all over the Pacific Ocean to get the free board. In time the shark culture will be one of the most successful things in the colony.
With the rise of Australian beach and surf culture, and the growing population density in coastal communities in the mid-20th century, increasing numbers of unprovoked fatal encounters with sharks occurred along the Queensland and New South Wales coastlines.
White sharks were extensively targeted and killed in “game fishing” tournaments, and harmless grey nurse sharks were hunted almost to extinction through recreational spearfishing in the 1950s and 1960s.
Yet despite this long history of shark exploitation, the historical baseline populations of sharks off Australia’s east coast were largely unknown.
Through mesh nets and baited drumlines, the Queensland Shark Control Program targets large sharks, with the aim of reducing local populations and minimise encounters between sharks and humans. Records of shark catches dating back as far as the 1960s provide a unique window into the past on Queensland beaches.
While we will never know exactly how many sharks roamed these waters more than half a century ago, the data points to radical changes in our coastal ecosystems since the 1960s.
The exact causes of declining shark numbers are difficult to pinpoint, largely because of a lack of detailed records from commercial or recreational fisheries before the 2000s. The Queensland government also acknowledges that the program itself has a direct impact on shark populations by selectively removing large, reproductively mature sharks from the population.
The data indicates that two hammerhead species – the scalloped and great hammerheads, both of which are listed as globally endangered – have declined by as much as 92% in Queensland over the past half century.
Similarly, the once-abundant white sharks have also shown no sign of recovery, despite a complete ban on commercial and recreational fishing in Queensland, implemented more than two decades ago.
The idea that shark populations are reaching “plague” proportions in recent years may represent a classic case of shifting baseline syndrome. Using shark numbers from recent history as a baseline may give a false perception that populations are “exploding”, whereas records from fifty years ago indicate that present day numbers are a fraction of what they once were.
Our results indicate that large shark species are becoming increasingly rare along Australia’s coastline. We should not be concerned about a “plague” of sharks, but rather the opposite: the fact that previously abundant apex shark species are increasingly at risk.
14 December 2018