Jul 122013
 

Media release from University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill at EurekAlert!

"Ocean predator" conjures up images of sharks and barracudas, but the voracious red lionfish is out-eating them all in the Caribbean – and Mother Nature appears unable to control its impact on local reef fish. That leaves human intervention as the most promising solution to the problem of this highly invasive species, said researchers at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

Lionfish (Pterois volitans) close up. Photo: Abel Valdivia

Lionfish (Pterois volitans) close up. Photo: Abel Valdivia

"Lionfish are here to stay, and it appears that the only way to control them is by fishing them," said John Bruno, professor of biology in UNC's College of Arts and Sciences and lead investigator of the study. The research has important implications not just for Caribbean reefs, but for the North Carolina coast, where growing numbers of lionfish now threaten local fish populations.

"Native predators do not influence invasion success of Pacific lionfish on Caribbean reefs" was published July 11 by the journal PLOS ONE.

Lionfish, native to the Indo-Pacific region, have long been popular aquarium occupants, with their striking stripes and soft, waving fins. They also have venomous spines, making them unpleasant fare for predators, including humans—though once the spines are carefully removed, lionfish are generally considered safe to eat, Bruno said.

Lead author and UNC student Serena Hackerott and her study organism. Photo: Katie DuBois

Lead author and UNC student Serena Hackerott and her study organism. Photo: Katie DuBois

They have become big marine news as the latest invasive species to threaten existing wildlife populations. Bruno likened their extraordinary success to that of ball pythons, now eating their way through Florida Everglades fauna, with few predators other than alligators and humans.

"When I began diving 10 years ago, lionfish were a rare and mysterious species seen deep within coral crevices in the Pacific Ocean," said Serena Hackerott, lead author and master's student in marine sciences, also in UNC's College of Arts and Sciences. "They can now been seen across the Caribbean, hovering above the reefs throughout the day and gathering in groups of up to ten or more on a single coral head."

The international research team looked at whether native reef predators such as sharks and groupers could help control the population growth of red lionfish in the Caribbean, either by eating them or out-competing them for prey. They also wanted to evaluate scientifically whether, as some speculate, that overfishing of reef predators had allowed the lionfish population to grow unchecked.

The team surveyed 71 reefs, in three different regions of the Caribbean, over three years. Their results indicate there is no relationship between the density of lionfish and that of native predators, suggesting that, "interactions with native predators do not influence" the number of lionfish in those areas, the study said.

The researchers did find that lionfish populations were lower in protected reefs, attributing that to targeted removal by reef managers, rather than consumption by large fishes in the protected areas. Hackerott noted that during 2013 reef surveys, there appeared to be fewer lionfish on popular dive sites in Belize, where divers and reef managers remove lionfish daily.

Lionfish close up. Photo: Walter Hackerott

Lionfish close up. Photo: Walter Hackerott

The researchers support restoration of large-reef predators as a way to achieve better balance and biodiversity, but they are not optimistic that this would affect the burgeoning lionfish population.

"Active and direct management, perhaps in the form of sustained culling, appears to be essential to curbing local lionfish abundance and efforts to promote such activities should be encouraged," the study concluded.

------------------------------------------------------------------

Bruno acknowledged the key contributions of Hackerott, who performed the work in his lab as part of her UNC undergraduate honors thesis. Click here for Hackerott's blog about her senior-year research experiences.

Other study participants were researchers from Simon Fraser University, British Columbia; Reef Environmental Education Foundation; Florida International University; National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration—Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary; and Dial Cordy & Associates, Miami.

Link to PLOS ONE publication: http://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0068259

Jul 122013
 

Original story by Jarrad Delaney, the West Coast Sentinel

WEST Coast and Eyre Peninsula residents are warned to be on the lookout for a frog species not native to the region.

Populations of the West Australian Spotted Thighed Frog have been spotted across the Eyre Peninsula over the last two years.

Unwelcome guest: Populations of the Western Australian  Spotted Thighed Frog have been spotted around Eyre Peninsula.  Photo: Julian Bentley

Unwelcome guest: Populations of the Western Australian Spotted Thighed Frog (Litoria cyclorhyncha) have been spotted around Eyre Peninsula. Photo: Julian Bentley

A relatively large population was located at the Streaky Bay Area School wetland, and another was collected from the Port Lincoln Racecourse.

Natural Resources Eyre Peninsula’s Landscape Ecologist Greg Kerr said this movement reflects a significant expansion of the frog’s range, which is thought to have been assisted by people.

“There are no frog species to be found on the Nullarbor, this frog naturally occurs around Esperance and Albany in Western Australia,” he said.

“What is concerning is its tolerance to hot and dry conditions, saline water and the fact both the tadpole and adults are predatory of other frog species.”

The Spotted Thighed Frog is very small in size, approximately around 65-88 millimetres in size.

The frog also has green reticulated colouration, with distinct spots along its back, and black with large yellow or white spots on its groin, front side of its thigh and lower legs.

It also has a noticeable call, which is said to be similar to the sound of a motorcycle revving up.

Mr Kerr said the impact of the frog isn’t known yet.

“We don’t yet know what the impact will be if this frog becomes widely established on Eyre Peninsula for local frog populations or other species,” he said.

People are warned the frogs should only be handled when wearing gloves, as its skin excretions are toxic and can cause injury to mucus membranes, including eyes.

Natural Resource Management is currently investigating which wetlands the frogs have already entered.

Anyone who has seen this species or heard its call should contact Greg Kerr on 8688 3111, or at greg.kerr@sa.gov.au.

Jul 112013
 

Media release from Murdoch University

Two new studies have shed light on the health of Busselton’s waterways.

Researchers from Murdoch University spent time in the iconic Vasse-Wonnerup estuary, surveying introduced fish species and measuring nutrient levels in the sediment.

A goldfish, caught in the Vasse-Wonnanup estuary.

A goldfish, caught in the Vasse-Wonnanup estuary.

The introduced fish study and removal program, funded through the Caring For Our Country program, found that introduced fish species were thriving.

"In the estuary, we found 29 species of native fish, along with two introduced freshwater species," said Dr James Tweedley, of Murdoch University.

"Sadly, we found the highly invasive Eastern Gambusia in the estuary and in all four tributary rivers too."

The study also found that goldfish, which are not native to the area, seasonally invade the estuary following winter rains.

"These goldfish are highly mobile and seem to be able to tolerate saltier water," Dr Tweedley said.

"The big concern is that this ability could see goldfish using the estuary as a 'bridge' to colonise other rivers."

To track the goldfish, researchers used the same acoustic technology used to track Great White Sharks off the WA coast. The information gathered will assist future efforts to eradicate the species from the Vasse River and estuary.

The second study, funded by the South West Catchments Council, found that the levels of nutrients in the estuary are a cause for concern.

"The sediment we analysed from the bottom of the estuary was high in nutrients. But sediment collected from the water itself had up to 16 times more nitrogen and phosphorus," Dr Tweedley said.

"If these high levels of nutrients continue, it could result in a collapse of the sea grass meadows in areas of the estuary, with flow on effects to the rest of the ecosystem."

The results of these studies, and its implications, will be discussed at a free public lecture in Busselton on July 17. For more information about this event, please contact Jen Mitchell from GeoCatch on 9781 0111 or jen.mitchell@water.wa.gov.au.

Jul 022013
 

Original story at The West Australian

Even crocodiles are sick to death of cane toads.

Dwarf, pygmy or stone country crocs are a recognised form of the freshwater croc - Crocodylus johnsoni. While there are some genetic differences distinguishing these populations they aren't significant enough to warrant the classification of a separate subspecies.

Dwarf, pygmy or stone country crocs are a recognised form of the freshwater croc - Crocodylus johnsoni. While there are some genetic differences distinguishing these populations they aren't significant enough to warrant the classification of a separate subspecies. Photo: Grahame Webb

Dwarf crocodiles have met their match in the poisonous invader, as new research shows it has wiped out entire populations of the reptile in northern Australia.

Charles Darwin University's Research Institute for the Environment and Livelihoods has studied the effects of the toad on the smallest crocodile species found in northern Australia's upstream escarpments.

Evidence of the destructive effect of the cane toad invasion on one of northern Australia's top predators, the freshwater crocodile, was first found in 2008.

Evidence of the destructive effect of the cane toad invasion on one of northern Australia's top predators, the freshwater crocodile, was first found in 2008. Jake O'Shaughnessy

The growth of the dwarf freshwater crocs is stunted by a lack of food, making them half the size of a typical crocodile.

Cane toads came along and provided the dwarf crocs with a plentiful but deadly dinner, says Senior Research Associate Dr Adam Britton.

"We already know that cane toads kill freshwater crocodiles, but we were concerned that cane toads might have a major impact on dwarf populations because of their small size and lack of alternative food sources," he said in a statement.

Like many other native species, dwarf crocodiles are poisoned when they ingest the bufotoxins in cane toads, which presents a major conservation issue for the entire upstream escarpment ecosystem.

The researchers found there were significant declines in the number of dwarf crocodiles at two of three survey sites following the arrival of cane toads.

"We found dead crocodiles and cane toad carcasses with crocodile bite marks," Dr Britton said.

There's still a long way to go towards understanding how native species cope with destructive invasive species like the cane toad.

But Dr Britton said his study offered an insight into why some populations were entirely wiped out while others were mostly unaffected.

The research team found possible evidence that dwarf crocodiles could adapt their behaviour in the future by only eating the back legs of toads to avoid being poisoned.

The team is conducting further research into the genetics of dwarf freshwater crocodiles to better understand the long-term impacts of cane toads on their populations.

Jul 012013
 
A lionfish (Pterois volitans) in an aquarium Photo by Alexander Klein/AFP/Getty Images

A lionfish (Pterois volitans) in an aquarium Photo by Alexander Klein/AFP/Getty Images

Original Story by Christie Wilcox, Slate

The Worst Marine Invasion Ever

I could not believe what I found inside a lionfish.

"Do you know what this is?" James Morris looks at me, eyes twinkling, as he points to the guts of a dissected lionfish in his lab at the National Ocean Service’s Center for Coastal Fisheries and Habitat Research in Beaufort, N.C. I see some white chunky stuff. As a Ph.D. candidate at the Hawaii Institute of Marine Biology, I should know basic fish biology literally inside and out. When I cut open a fish, I can tell you which gross-smelling gooey thing is the liver, which is the stomach, etc.

He's testing me, I think to myself. Morris is National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's pre-eminent scientist studying the invasion of lionfish into U.S. coastal waters. He’s the lionfish guy, and we met in person for the first time just a few days earlier. We're processing lionfish speared by local divers, taking basic measurements, and removing their stomachs for ongoing diet analyses. Not wanting to look bad, I rack my brain for an answer to his question. It's not gonads. Not spleen. I’m frustrated with myself, but I simply can't place the junk; I've never seen it before. Finally, I give up and admit that I'm completely clueless.

Close-up on the insides of an obese North Carolinian lionfish Photo by Christie Wilcox

Close-up on the insides of an obese North Carolinian lionfish Photo by Christie Wilcox

"It's interstitial fat."

"Fat?"

"Fat," he says firmly. I look again. The white waxy substance hangs in globs from the stomach and intestines. It clings to most of the internal organs. Heck, there's got to be at least as much fat as anything else in this lionfish's gut. That's when I realize why he's pointing this out.

"Wait ... these lionfish are overweight?" I ask, incredulous.

"No, not overweight," he says. "Obese." The fish we're examining is so obese, he notes, that there are even signs of liver damage.

Obese. As if the lionfish problem in North Carolina wasn't bad enough.

Though comparing invasions is a lot like debating if hurricanes are more devastating than earthquakes, it’s pretty safe to say that lionfish in the Atlantic is the worst marine invasion to date—not just in the United States, but globally. Lionfish also win the gold medal for speed, spreading faster than any other invasive species. While there were scattered sightings from the mid-1980s, the first confirmation that lionfish were becoming established in the Atlantic Ocean occurred off of North Carolina in 2000. Since then, they have spread like locusts, eating their way throughout the Caribbean and along every coastline from North Carolina to Venezuela, including deep into the Gulf of Mexico. When lionfish arrive on a reef, they reduce native fish populations by nearly 70 percent. And it’s no wonder—the invasive populations are eight or more times as dense than those in their native range, with more than 450 lionfish per hectare reported in some places. That is a lot of lionfish.

These alien fish didn’t just come here on their own. Early guesses as to how the lionfish arrived ranged from ships’ ballast water to the coastal damage caused by Hurricane Andrew, but now scientists are fairly sure that no ships or natural disasters are to blame. Instead, it’s our fault. Pretty, frilly fins made the fish a favored pet and lured aquarists and aquarium dealers into a false sense of security. We simply didn’t see how dangerous these charismatic fish were—dangerous not for their venom, but for their beauty. We have trouble killing beautiful things, so instead we choose to release them into the wild, believing somehow that this is a better option when, in actuality, it’s the worst thing we can do. Released animals rarely survive in the harsh real world, but it’s even worse when they do. Pet releases and escapees have become problematic invaders all over the country, from the ravenous pythons in Florida to the feral cats of Hawaii. In the case of lionfish, multiple releases from different owners likely led to enough individuals to start an Atlantic breeding population. Rough genetic estimates suggest that fewer than a dozen female fish began what may go down in history as the worst marine invasion of all time.

Lots and lots of lionfish caught by the Discovery Diving crew on one day. Courtesy of Discovery Diving

Lots and lots of lionfish caught by the Discovery Diving crew on one day. Courtesy of Discovery Diving

In North Carolina, the lionfish invasion can be seen at its worst. Offshore, where warm waters from the Gulf Stream sweep up the coast, the lionfish reign. Local densities increased 700 percent between 2004 and 2008. I got to witness the unfathomable number of lionfish firsthand when I dove with the crew of Discovery Diving, a local scuba shop, to compete in North Carolina’s inaugural lionfish derby. I’ve never seen so many lionfish in my life. I didn’t get more than 20 yards from my starting point before I saw hundreds—literally, hundreds. My spear couldn’t fly fast enough to catch them all. On the last day of the tournament, a six-diver team bagged 167 lionfish from one site in two dives, and they didn’t even make a dent in the population on that wreck site. Morris estimates that more than 1,000 lionfish are at this site. Let me tell you, this is what an invasion looks like. An ecological cascade has been set in motion by these Indo-Pacific fish, and scientists are frantically gathering data, learning as much as they can to understand the extent of the damage lionfish will inflict, and figuring out the best responses to protect these fragile marine ecosystems.

Despite the destruction, it’s hard not to be impressed by these colorful aliens. Part of me holds lionfish in the highest regard, with a sort of evolutionary awe. They’re an incredible fish. Given complete creative freedom, I cannot imagine a way to design a marine species more suited to dominance. Sure, they might not be at the top of the food chain like sharks or killer whales, but what they lack in size they make up for in adaptability and reproductive output. The key to their Darwinian success is that they grow fast, mature early, and breed year-round. A single female can release upward of 2 million eggs annually that become larvae capable of floating along currents for more than a month, dispersing for hundreds to thousands of miles. They’ll eat whatever they can get their mouths around, which happens to be any fish or invertebrate just a hair smaller than they are, and they can grow to more than 18 inches long. That means young fish and crustaceans of any species that live where lionfish do are potential targets. And, to top it all off, they are armed with a formidable set of long, sharp venomous spines capable of inducing incapacitating pain. Not surprisingly, nothing seems inclined to eat them. They’re known for their cavalier attitude toward divers, ignoring our presence or possessing the gall to approach us head on, even in the face of a spear. Their cocky resolve is admirable. It’s abundantly clear that these fish fear nothing, not a hungry grouper, not the largest of reef sharks, not even the most effective predators on the planet—us.
The author cuts open a lionfish to remove its stomach. Photo by NOAA intern Dave Matthews

The author cuts open a lionfish to remove its stomach. Photo by NOAA intern Dave Matthews

Of course, we are perhaps the only animal that lionfish should be fearful of, the only species potentially capable of controlling lionfish populations. Scientists, managers, fishermen, and locals from Venezuela to North Carolina are rallying behind “Eat Lionfish” campaigns. Lionfish tournaments have become annual events in some of the most heavily hit areas of the Caribbean and Atlantic. The Reef Environmental Education Foundation released a lionfish cookbook in 2010 to spur culinary interest and inform fishermen and chefs how to clean and prepare this new delicacy. But even with a serious fishery throughout the invasive range, we will likely never evict lionfish from their new homes. Studies have suggested that we’d need to fish more than a quarter of the mature lionfish every month to stunt population growth, let alone reverse it. Our best hope is to keep local populations low enough to protect key commercial and ecological species, a mission that is proving to be harder and harder as we realize just how much lionfish eat.

We’ve always known that lionfish are formidable predators. As slow-moving fish, they have to be pretty effective hunters to get away with such flamboyant looks. After all, it’s not like their prey won’t see them coming. They practically advertise their presence, waving around their frilly, striped fins with a level of arrogance usually reserved for apex predators. In their native range, young fish run from the sight. But in the Atlantic, native fish have never seen such a bizarre-looking predator. They don’t realize that this colorful display is a warning, not only of their potent venom but also of a nearly insatiable appetite. They don’t flee, and they get eaten. And in North Carolina, the lionfish are eating so well they’ve become fat. No, not fat. Obese.

As James Morris and I measured and sliced 247 fish last month, he explained that we have to monitor their diets to understand how lionfish may impact native fish.

So far, more than 70 different species have been found in the stomachs of invasive lionfish, but detailed data on what they regularly eat in many different areas and throughout the year hasn’t been collected—yet. That’s one of the questions Morris is in the process of answering, and that’s what I helped him with while I was in North Carolina collecting samples for my own research on lionfish venom.

The coast of North Carolina is renowned for its seafood. Cold waters from the north and the warm Gulf Stream converge at Cape Hatteras, creating some of the richest fishing grounds on the Eastern Seaboard. More than 60 million pounds of fish and shellfish are pulled out of its waters every year, worth upward of $1 billion to commercial fishermen. Lionfish are eating a lot of something, and if these gluttons are eating key commercial species, there could be a negative ripple effect on the local economy.

Vermillion snapper pulled from a lionfish's stomach. Courtesy of NOAA

Vermillion snapper pulled from a lionfish's stomach. Courtesy of NOAA

One species Morris is particularly concerned about is the vermillion snapper. One of the smallest of the species often labeled as red snapper, vermilion snapper are the most frequently caught snapper along the southeastern United States. Because of their popularity, vermilion snapper populations are closely monitored, and their harvest has been managed in a variety of ways, including limited entry systems, annual quotas, size limits, trip limits, and seasonal closures. So far, government assessments say that the populations are not overfished, but fisheries-watch organizations such as the Monterey Bay Aquarium aren’t convinced. What we know for certain is that vermillion snapper are among the most heavily managed fish in North Carolina, and all of our efforts will be for naught if the lionfish are getting to them first.

So far, it’s not looking good.

I personally pulled vermillion snapper out of lionfish guts last month, along with tomtates and various other reef fish. It’s estimated that lionfish in the Bahamas eat upward of 1,000 pounds of prey per acre per year. Given that lionfish feed largely on small fishes, this equates to hundreds of thousands of individual fish consumed per year by lionfish per acre. But all the interstitial fat I saw suggests that the North Carolinian fish aren’t just eating until they’re full; they’re overindulging on the rich diversity of seafood that North Carolina has to offer. Though lionfish can go weeks between meals, when they don’t have to, they won’t. Scientists have observed lionfish eating at a rate of one to two fish per minute, and their stomachs can expand 30 times their size to accommodate lots of food. To become obese, fish eat upward of 7.5 times their normal dietary intake, which means the abundant North Carolina lionfish could be eating as much as 7,000 pounds of prime North Carolina seafood per acre every year—seafood that we’d much prefer ended up on our plates instead.

In 2010 scientists named the lionfish invasion one of the top 15 threats to global biodiversity. In the three years since, the invasion has only worsened. The only solution is to fight fire with fire, or in this case, pit our bottomless stomachs against theirs. We really do have to eat them to beat them.

Unfortunately, developing a fishery for lionfish isn’t as straightforward as it sounds. They don’t tend to bite hooks and live in complex habitats like reefs and wrecks that can’t be fished with large nets. To catch them, people have to get in the water and spear them one by one—an expensive and tedious way to fish. For lionfish fisheries to turn a profit, demand will have to be high and constant. So far, only a handful of local restaurants have taken the bait, enticing locavores with a truly sustainable menu option. Their business alone isn’t enough, though, to really drive a market.

That’s even assuming that lionfish are completely safe to eat. Recently, the Food and Drug Administration raised flags about lionfish—but not because of their venom. They are concerned that lionfish may contain ciguatoxin, a common tropical poison that causes somewhere between 50,000 and 500,000 cases of ciguatera fish poisoning every year. Ciguatera isn’t unique to lionfish; the disease occurs in tropical waters worldwide. The small lipid ciguatoxins that cause it are made by dinoflagellates, microscopic algaelike animals that live on and near reefs. Animals don’t really break down ciguatoxin, so it bioaccumulates up the food chain, thus large predators that eat high on the food web are most likely to have dangerous levels of ciguatoxin. In areas where the disease is endemic, species such as groupers and barracuda are simply too risky to consume and are often avoided by fishermen. The FDA is concerned that lionfish should also be included on that list, meaning that in areas such as the Virgin Islands, lionfish would be permanently off the menu. Their press release stated that more than a quarter of lionfish sampled contained unsafe ciguatoxin levels, and it issued a warning against eating them.

To other scientists, including myself, the news is baffling. I haven’t seen the actual data (because the FDA has yet to release them), but such high numbers just seem unbelievable. Thousands of lionfish are eaten every year after tournaments, and there hasn’t been a single case of ciguatera from a lionfish. If so many are dangerous, why hasn’t anyone gotten sick? And even if some areas do have ciguatoxic lionfish, surely other areas are safe. After all, we can still eat grouper and other predators from much of the Atlantic and Caribbean. Lionfish shouldn’t be more ciguatoxic than other reef fish—not unless their diet is very, very different.

One of the tough things about ciguatoxin is that we don’t have reliable, direct tests for it. There is a diverse set of indirect assays, all with different methods, different detection levels, and different specificities. All of this makes it hard to compare studies done by different labs and hard to ensure accuracy. Top that off with a species that has never been tested for ciguatoxin before, and things get really messy. This is where my research comes in.

Lionfish possess potent venom that activates sodium channels on the surface of nerve cells, causing a massive influx of calcium. This leads to the release and depletion of the neurotransmitter acetylcholine. This happens to be the exact same thing ciguatoxin does. Which, to me, raises a very important question: What if lionfish venom is getting into ciguatoxin assays? Are venom compounds causing false positives? The venom itself, though excruciating in the form of a sting, is harmless on the plate. Unlike ciguatoxin, it’s readily degraded by heat, so if it is venom and not ciguatoxin causing positive tests, lionfish may be safer to eat than the FDA data suggest. Hopefully, the samples I collected on this trip to North Carolina—where ciguatoxin isn’t an issue—will provide some answers.

James Morris pulling a lionfish's stomach for gut content analyses. Courtesy of NOAA

James Morris pulling a lionfish's stomach for gut content analyses. Courtesy of NOAA

Until we know more, though, promoting fisheries is a potentially dangerous management strategy, at least in certain areas. Some governments have stepped in to promote hunting even without a formal fishery plan, in an attempt to protect their reefs’ future. But many of the small, developing countries in the Caribbean simply don’t have the resources to fund large-scale lionfish removal efforts. For them, steady fisheries would be the only way to get fishermen to catch lionfish instead of currently lucrative species such as grouper.

While we wait to see whether we can drum up the demand, the lionfish are making themselves comfortable. They’re embedding themselves in already fragile ecosystems, restructuring food webs, and pushing reefs toward irreversible ecological cascades. They’re exploring new habitats, discovering the rich resources provided by seagrass meadows and mangroves, even travelling miles inland and upstream in Florida. They’re taking over reefs, wrecks, and rocky territory from the surface to more than 800 feet deep, and they’re gorging themselves on whatever young fish happen to live there. They are, quite literally, growing fat off of our inaction.

That’s not to say there is no hope. Yes, we’re going to have to learn to live with the lionfish. We’re going to have to accept their presence in the Atlantic, Caribbean, and Gulf of Mexico, but we can use science to arm us against this invasion. In the quiet lab in North Carolina, Morris isn’t just studying fish. He’s preparing us for battle. In this endless war with a formidable foe, knowledge truly is power. The power to predict. The power to pre-empt. The power to fight back and save the species we value most. The power to educate and rally reinforcements to drive back invaders. The more we know about the lionfish, the better our strategies will be to deal with them and future invaders and the better our chances of success. The lionfish caught us by surprise, but Morris isn’t going to let them stay one step ahead. Even if we can’t eradicate these gluttonous fish, we may be able to manage them and minimize the damage they do to our precious marine ecosystems.

Considering it’s our fault that lionfish are here in the first place, it’s really a war against ourselves: against our bad habits, against our casual disregard for the ecosystems that protect and sustain us, against the attitudes and mindsets that led to such a devastating invasion to begin with. It’s a war that, as a nation, as a species, we cannot afford to lose. And one thing is for certain: With so much at stake, it’s going to be a bloody one.

Original story by Christie Wilcox at Slate

 

Jun 252013
 

Original story by Laura Glitsos, ScienceNetwork Western Australia

THE WA Department of Fisheries is reporting positive outcomes from the incorporation of new DNA-based monitoring technology to protect and manage our aquatic ecosystems.

Dr Snow says applying real-time polymerase chain reaction can help identify microscopic forms of these pests in water samples so that we can detect their arrival at a very early stage. Image: Cory Doctorow

Dr Snow says applying real-time polymerase chain reaction can help identify microscopic forms of these pests in water samples so that we can detect their arrival at a very early stage. Image: Cory Doctorow

WA DoF supervising research scientist Dr Mike Snow says the application of methods such as real-time polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and DNA barcoding is changing the nature of monitoring and conservation.

DNA barcoding has already been incorporated for the rapid detection and identification of the Asian green mussel, a harmful marine pest which can have significant economic, environmental and even human health issues.

“One of the problems is that we often have to rely on expert taxonomists for identification of a particular species, which may sometimes not even be available in Australia as taxonomy is a traditional skill that is difficult to access these days,” Dr Snow says.

“And it can be particularly difficult to identify some pests like mussels or sea squirts from closely related species that are native to our waters.”

“But with DNA barcoding we can now rapidly identify and confirm these agents and we can take appropriate action, for example, we can turn a vessel around or clean a vessel in a much more efficient way.”

DNA barcoding uses a very short genetic sequence, or marker, from a standard part of the genome, in much the same way as a supermarket scanner distinguishes products using the black stripes of the Universal Product Code.

In addition, Dr Snow says applying real-time PCR can help identify microscopic forms of these pests in water samples so that we can detect their arrival at a very early stage and monitor for their spread.

It can also indicate the quantity of a specific pest in a sample.

This technology is based on amplifying a highly specific region of a pest organism’s DNA millions of times, with its positive amplification generating fluorescent light that can be detected by a laser in real-time.

“It is currently performed in a lab, but maybe one day will be able to be performed on site,” Dr Snow says.

He says that the application of these technologies has been so far very successful, and a scientific paper compiled by the DoF research team is in the process of publication.

Dr Snow says the next step will be building on the concept of “environmental DNA” or eDNA.

This method uses the latest ‘next generation sequencing’ technology to simultaneously identify the barcodes of up to millions of organisms in a sample.

It has shown great promise in identifying species based on the minute traces of DNA shed into the water column by all the animals living in it.

“It’s currently being explored for its practicality for detecting the range of pest or native fish species present in freshwater lakes, and it may be far more efficient than traditional trapping.”

Jun 192013
 

Transcript from broadcast (16/06/2013)

Reporter: Adrienne Francis

Video available at Landline

PIP COURTNEY, PRESENTER: Here is a story about a war over willow trees. They used to be planted to stabilise river banks and eroded gullies. But more recently, many species of willow have been outlawed for their destructive behaviour. Whilst millions are being spent to remove the trees from waterways across the nation, some farmers are now risking everything to plant them back. They've also attracted the support of an Australian icon who shares their unorthodox views on farm regeneration. Adrienne Francis reports.

War of the Willows

War of the Willows

PETER MARSHALL, FORESTER & FARMER: We've had every kind of reception from armed conflict and judgemental activity to people crossing the road so they don't have to walk past me in town, to complete approval. It's been an interesting 16 years.

ADRIENNE FRANCIS, REPORTER: Peter and Kate Marshall left Canberra in 1991. What they're doing on this land near Braidwood is so sensitive they didn't want to reveal the address and they even contemplated moving to New Zealand.

PETER MARSHALL: We wanted to restore broken landscape. So we were looking for a broken old dairy farm, somewhere that was really, really worn out so that we could experiment with restoration techniques.

ADRIENNE FRANCIS: Their techniques attracted a hostile reception. Unwittingly, the Marshalls became embroiled in a controversy dubbed the "War of the Willows".

PETER MARSHALL: One of my concerns about the eradication efforts of willows is that it's convinced people that they're a bad species in any environment. Here, they're an environmental benefit.

ADRIENNE FRANCIS: The trained forester describes the daily pruning, or coppicing, of these New Zealand fodder willows as restoration forestry.

PETER MARSHALL: What we're doing is we're applying old European forestry techniques - coppicing is the big one - where we're actually managing the willows out of the environment in the places where they could cause trouble in the future and we're respecting those that have been strong enough over all these years to hold this place together. We had cracked willow, which is the one that causes trouble in streams because it breaks up and propagates downstream, but we don't have any near the streams on this property. They're only grown in the uplands where they can't spread. We're gradually getting rid of those.

Willows overgrowing the Molonglo River near Canberra, ACT

Willows overgrowing the Molonglo River near Canberra, ACT.
RiverSmart Australia

ADRIENNE FRANCIS: Most species of willow, including the crack willow, are among the worst weeds in the nation. It is illegal to sell and distribute those willows.

PETER MARSHALL: We tried originally to restore the native casuarinas. It was a big failure. The property has been so disturbed that they just couldn't survive the compaction, the frost and the feral animals. So, we realised we'd actually have to use imported species which have been brought into Australia without their pests so they're actually much more productive and fast-growing. So, we actually started propagating from the trees that are on site on the basis that if they'd survive this terrible experience, they might be the ones to go with. And, well, you're standing under a 20-metre tree that wasn't here 12 years ago. It's a willow that was planted by someone's grandma long, long ago to stabilise the gullies. It worked, it was inexpensive, it was on site, so we used it. Now we can actually re-establish the casuarinas, teatrees, blackwood and so forth.

ADRIENNE FRANCIS: The property attracts the interest of Canberra forestry students and the allegiance of unorthodox farmer Peter Andrews.

PETER ANDREWS, FARMER: And just by knowing that plants make soils and all plants contribute to that process, they've got an amazing outcome. ... It is absolutely remarkable in that they've been able to do it just with plants.

ADRIENNE FRANCIS: The Hunter Valley farmer, racehorse breeder and author attracted notoriety when he was featured by ABC TV's Australian Story.

PETER FITZSIMONS, JOURNALIST (Australian Story): There is no doubt Peter Andrews is an extremely good horseman. He has this belief that you can't create a great racehorse without having the right environment.

Weeping willows lining the banks of the Murray River at Mannum, South Australia

Weeping willows lining the banks of the Murray River at Mannum, South Australia.
CSIRO

PETER MARSHALL: Andrews is a visionary. He can see the landscape, he can half-close his eyes and see the landscape as it was before white man arrived and he can look around and he can tell you what it should look like in the future.

ADRIENNE FRANCIS: Peter Andrews was awarded the Order of Australia medal in 2011. For many decades his approach to repairing landscapes has been dismissed and ridiculed.

PETER ANDREWS: It is, yeah, beyond frustrating.

ADRIENNE FRANCIS: You've been described as an antagonist of mainstream science and agriculture. Are you?

PETER ANDREWS: No. I'm just telling 'em the truth. You know, if they see that as antagonism, well I hope I get worse.

ADRIENNE FRANCIS: Peter Andrews is also a long-time advocate for willows. He's stepping up campaigning against their removal across Australia.

PETER ANDREWS: Well we're here on the Molonglo River, which a couple of years ago, I came and it was beautifully vegetated. Today, it's open to winds, evaporation rate is soaring and there are no plants to really prevent that from esculating even further.

ADRIENNE FRANCIS: We have had many years of dry. Many people accuse the willows being greedy with the water.

PETER ANDREWS: Look, it's really false science.

STEVE TAYLOR, PARKS AND CONSERVATION SERVICE: That's just not true. There is a lot of science.

ADRIENNE FRANCIS: Steve Taylor co-ordinates wheat control across the ACT's parks and nature reserves.

STEVE TAYLOR: The CSIRO has shown that when you remove willows from a river system, you increase the numbers of native fish because the numbers of native insect life in the creeks and rivers goes up because you're returning more aeration to the river. Willows are a declared pest species in the ACT. They're a noxious weed in NSW. The Federal Government also classes them as a weed of national significance, which is just another way of saying it's another serious weed for the country. And the seriousness comes from not only their ability to smother native vegetation along waterways, but to build up willow chokes and damage infrastructure.

ADRIENNE FRANCIS: Over the last three decades the ACT Government has spent close to $3 million removing willows. Critics say the practice is ad hoc and misguided.

PETER MARSHALL: Willow management around Lake Burley Griffin, extraordinary business. Millions of dollars spent in tearing out mature trees out of the environment, allowing the river banks to drop into Lake Burley Griffin and quite likely cause blue-green algae downstream seems to me a misallocation of resources, you might say.

STEVE TAYLOR: In the normal year, for the ACT, willow control only represents between 10 to 20 per cent of our budget. Most of our budget gets taken up on blackberry control.

ADRIENNE FRANCIS: This year, the ACT Government is spending $800,000 removing them. Steve Taylor says critics should be more patient with the process.

STEVE TAYLOR: I guess initially things look stark 'cause you've gone from a green vegetation to virtually none. But that will change rapidly as these planted plants grow and as the native reeds come in.

ADRIENNE FRANCIS: Critics also blame political correctness.

PETER ANDREWS: It is the most disgraceful environmental process that's ever been instigated in landscape, no question. It's crazy that we believe that some plants shouldn't be around when the plants that they discriminated against have got seeds that blow everywhere, travel in the wind, on the animals. The process of the environment is as many seeds as possible spread as widely as possible and humans have got the opposite view. It doesn't make any sense. There's absolutely no scientific reason for an idea that native means anything.

PETER MARSHALL: Stop being prescriptive about the control of so-called noxious weeds, stop demonising particular species.

PETER ANDREWS: Peter Andrews, the Marshalls and their supporters are calling for an urgent independent review of willow policy and more research.

PETER MARSHALL: It would be to see if these trees can be managed for social benefit and environmental good, rather than just a drain on national resources.

KATE MARSHALL, FORESTER & FARMER: It's hard to be brave, but I think out of the experimental work that we've done, there is a lot of value and a lot that can be learnt and unless we're brave enough to do - to experiment with our own funds, our own time, our own toil, then we may not be able to learn the lessons.

PETER MARSHALL: I think what will happen is people will look at this environment and realise that the law needs a bitta tweaking.

KATE MARSHALL: I'm glad we stayed 'cause we loved here, we love this community and we love this particular piece of land and it's our life's work.

Willow impacts. Melbourne Water

Willow impacts. Melbourne Water

Jun 092013
 

Original story by Andrew Darby, The Age

They may be a delicacy but Pacific oysters are also an environmental pest.

The usual tool for dealing with an oyster is a stubby-bladed knife, inserted and twisted to prise the bivalve apart and unlock the seafood treasure inside. Instead, Lindsay James uses a sharpened steel star picket, fitted with a home-made wooden handle for ease of use. That, or a crowbar.

''You just have to break the shell,'' he says. ''And then you've killed it.''

Lindsay James has spearheaded the campaign to rid Tasmania's shores of the feral Pacific Oyster (Crassostrea gigas). Photo: Peter Mathew

Lindsay James has spearheaded the campaign to rid Tasmania's shores of the feral Pacific Oyster (Crassostrea gigas). Photo: Peter Mathew

James has ''donged'' vast numbers of oysters, specifically feral Pacifics. A spreadsheet kept by the retired Hobart maths teacher shows that he began in 1998 with 600 at one creek mouth in Tasmania.

By 2009 he was leading a group collection of 3.5 tonnes over four days. In recent years he sometimes opted for the notation: ''too numerous to count''.

Since the Pacific oyster was introduced to Australia from Japan by the CSIRO 60 years ago, it has escaped in three states, altering shorelines with an intensity that the rabbit brought to grazing lands.

This flavoursome gourmet treat has now become an environmental hazard. ''They let the genie out,'' James says. ''If you'd broken a billion glass bottles and scattered them along the shore that would be less dangerous, because the sea would gradually wear down the edges. Pacific oyster shells stay razor sharp. These beautiful shorelines are now a disgusting mess.''

Pacific oyster farm in Coles Bay, Tasmania. Mesa

Pacific oyster farm in Coles Bay, Tasmania. Mesa

James, 74, recalls his younger days when he could swim and kayak from shore, or scramble over rocks collecting mussels in the tree-lined backwater of Barnes Bay, on Tasmania's Bruny Island.

Then a marine farm began to cultivate oysters nearby. ''There was a meeting to reassure us there were no worries about oysters heading to shore,'' he says.

But these reassurances were worth little. ''The farm and farmer are long gone, but the whole shoreline is riddled with oysters. Kids can't muck about on it any more.''

When he found oysters emerging at the creek mouth near a family holiday shack at White Beach, on the Tasman Peninsula, James decided to take a stand.

''I was mortified,'' he says. ''I thought it can't end up like Barnes Bay.'' His and other families joined forces to crunch oysters, and for the past 15 summers on low tides they have seen off more. The rocks at White Beach are today navigable by the young. ''My grandkids can still play in the places that my kids played in,'' James says. But this success is limited. Wherever wave intensity is low enough, Pacific oysters cover shorelines and encrust offshore rocks around Tasmania. They have infested the Derwent River in Hobart, covering docksides and jetties.

Last month in the Tamar estuary, a barefooted yachtsman knocked off his boat by the boom could not reach shore through the oyster beds.

Eventually, Launceston's The Examiner reported, rescuers in a dinghy pulled the 67-year-old out of chest-deep water with lacerated feet.

In New South Wales, feral Pacifics are found in all river estuaries south of Port Macquarie. At Port Stephens, near Newcastle, densities are so high that commercial cultivation is allowed. Elsewhere, their ability to settle on and smother the favoured Sydney rock oysters spurred the NSW Department of Primary Industries to declare them a noxious species. Farmers are permitted to grow only sterile triploid Pacifics.

Along the surf-beaten Victorian shoreline, feral Pacifics so far have been unable to gain a foothold. In 1996, a Victorian government inquiry recommended against farming them because of fears about the ability of wild populations to establish themselves, and their potential environmental impacts.

PIRSA’s Heidi Alleway and Michael Sierp destroy wild oysters near Coffin Bay. Photo: PIRSA

PIRSA’s Heidi Alleway and Michael Sierp destroy wild oysters near Coffin Bay. Photo: PIRSA

But in South Australia, the lesson was slower to be learnt. ''It was thought they wouldn't take off because of the higher salinity levels,'' says Dr Michael Sierp, of Biosecurity SA. Farmed there since the 1980s, feral Pacifics began to appear across the South Australian coast, posing a risk not just to feet and hands, but to biodiversity.

''They outcompete other species,'' Sierp says. ''On an oyster reef, all you find is them, and a few crabs. They can also foul pipeline intakes and jetties, costing a lot in infrastructure maintenance. They scratch and hole vessels. They are quite dangerous.''

Despite their pest status in some areas, feral Pacifics are also morsels of briny brilliance. Farmed Pacific oysters from Coffin Bay, South Australia, regularly win the national competition at the benchmark Sydney Royal Fine Food Show.

The Pacific oyster is the basis of a $60 million to $70 million farm gate industry nationally, and oyster lovers can distinguish between local growing regions and seasons the way others might with fine wines. A South Australian seafood flavour guide describes some as having ''clean ocean, with cucumber and fresh fish notes'' and others with ''intensely sweet ocean, salty and savoury with a hint of asparagus''.

Science from Japan's Watanabe Oyster Laboratory is discovering unexpected health benefits as well.

People fed with its Pacific oyster extract are claimed to report better sleep, greater levels of antioxidants, and, in men, increased sperm concentrations.

So why aren't more people out foraging feral oysters off the rocks?

Truth be told, some do. Across from Lindsay James' childhood Barnes Bay in Tasmania, for example, is a hard-to-reach oyster reef that has been plundered in summer by man and beast. The big old Pacifics chiselled off the rocks there burst in the mouth with the fullness of the entire Southern Ocean.

Attractive though they may be to casual foragers, health authorities warn against eating feral Pacific oysters. Toxic dinoflagellate blooms can concentrate in the shellfish, bringing paralytic or neurotoxic poisoning.

Tasmania's Public Health Service regularly tests its waters and issues warnings against eating wild oysters. It says several cases of mild paralytic poisoning have followed big algal blooms. In an Easter outbreak, about 200 cases of gastroenteritis in Tasmania and Victoria were traced back to a Pacific oyster farm at Dunalley, where stock unwittingly fell foul of a leaking underwater sewage line.

Carriers of illness though they may be, the adaptable Pacific oysters are themselves unharmed by these organisms. Crassostrea gigas (literally the thick-shelled giant oyster, as the Pacific is scientifically known) is even likely to do better than its cousins with climate change.

A 2011 international oyster symposium in Hobart was told that in a late 21st century of elevated ocean temperatures and acidification, the greater metabolic rate and feeding efficiency of the Pacific oyster may be more resilient.

The only thing that seems capable of halting them is a virulent disease, which recently arrived in Australia, called Pacific Oyster Mortality Syndrome.

First detected in sterile farmed Australian Pacifics in Sydney's Georges River in late 2010, the POMS virus had spread to the Parramatta River and then the Hawkesbury by last January, wiping out millions of shellfish. Growers around Australia are keeping an anxious eye on POMS' potential movement.

''We hope it can be contained,'' says Oysters Australia's Bruce Zippel. ''It has the potential to do serious harm if it spreads.''

The disease does not appear to affect Sydney rock oysters, and if Pacifics do die, attention may turn to the reduced, overlooked, native southern mud oyster, Ostrea angasi.

Endemic to southern Australia, the angasi was a staple for Aboriginal people in Tasmania and heavily harvested by colonials in the 19th century.

But a few years after the Pacifics' introduction in the middle of the 20th century, the more robust species replaced angasi populations in such places as the Tamar River, according to a study by Iona Mitchell, for the University of Tasmania.

Meanwhile, the laborious clean-up seems to be the best method of control. Although the scale of infestations in places such as Tasmania and New South Wales make chipping oysters only a temporary local answer, it has succeeded in South Australia.

Michael Sierp led a four-year program, involving all the state's oyster growers, that declared war on feral pacifics from Kangaroo Island to Ceduna.

''We used two tools: a geological hammer, and a generator-driven air chisel,'' he says.

Toiling through four-hour low-tide windows, the teams found they could clear kilometres of coastline.

After breaking the shells open, natural processes would kill the Pacifics. Either they would desiccate in the sun, or be consumed.

''We even found that ants would crawl down the rocks with the ebbing tide to eat them,'' Siep says.

He concluded that Pacifics needed to be grouped in clumps of around 10 to 20 in a small area to keep sustaining themselves. ''As long as you clear about 95 per cent, you've stopped them,'' he says. ''Currently there is no risk they would get out of control.''

 

Jun 032013
 

By Peter Spinks at The Age

Gambusia holbrooki - mosquitofish, plague minnow. Female (large) and male (small) gambusia. Photo: Gunther Schmida.

Gambusia holbrooki - mosquitofish, plague minnow. Female (large) and male (small) gambusia. Photo: Gunther Schmida.

Roll up to any big sporting event and, if you get a quiet moment, ask yourself this: have you temporarily surrendered your individuality as a result of joining the fans? If so, do members of larger groups conform more than those in smaller ones?

In searching for answers to such Saturday-afternoon imponderables, Australian scientists have been scrutinising the movements of schools of mosquitofish, which tolerate extremes of salinity and temperature. Introduced into Australia in 1925, Gambusia holbrooki, as the hardy fish are known, live in areas where other fish could not survive, and are now considered noxious pests.

"We examined the behaviour of individual fish and found that each moves in a different, predictable and consistent way – even though all were approximately the same size, age and health," says Sydney University biological scientist Ashley Ward.

The fish retained their individuality when they were in small groups but assumed a sort of collective identity as group size increased. "The bigger the group, the more they copied one another – and became components rather than individuals," Associate Professor Ward says. This, he adds, helps explain how groups work: "To be effective, they have to be collective."

Automated tracking software was used to measure the behaviour of individual fish. "A computer took the measurements, making them more accurate," Professor Ward says.

Each fish was measured twice: once in a group and once on its own. "The order was randomised," he says. "Then we studied how an individual's movements – including speed, turning rate, and so on – were affected by being in a group."

The scientists found that individuality varied with group size. "As the size of a group increased, the more they conformed," he says. "Larger groups of eight individuals or more had different group-level behaviours than smaller groups, which in turn were different from the movements of solitary individuals."

The point, he explains, is that when individuals conform, the pressure to do so increases as group size increases. "So the size of a group can affect how its individuals behave," Professor Ward says.

The new research has implications for understanding the way individuals mesh together to form a group. "They have to – otherwise the group wouldn't work. Groups also seem to have behaviours almost all of their own."

In the models

Fish motions are co-ordinated. So how do they do it? Working with colleagues in Sweden, Australian scientists studied mosquitofish shoals to ascertain whether they use the rules set by mathematical models.

After filming groups of two, four or eight fish for five minutes, tracking software analysed the motion patterns and trajectories of individuals.

To the biologists' surprise, each fish relied on a relatively simple set of rules to respond to its neighbours. "They use some of the rules of models, but don't use others," says lead researcher James Herbert-Read, originally from Sydney University and now a postdoctoral researcher at Uppsala University in Sweden.

"It turned out to be rather like driving a car," he says. "The fish mainly use visual cues to determine where other group members are, and then adjust their behaviour depending on their neighbours' positions."

Eastern Gambusia, Plague Minnow - Gambusia holbrooki  Australian Museum © Sascha Schulz

Eastern Gambusia, Plague Minnow - Gambusia holbrooki
Australian Museum © Sascha Schulz

The rules, he explains, include accelerating towards neighbours that are far away and decelerating when neighbours are right in front. In other words, fish respond to the position of neighbours through rules relating to short-range repulsion and longer-range attraction.

"We also found that a fish interacts predominantly with a single nearest neighbour at any time," Dr Herbert-Read says.

The research, published in the American journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, demonstrates rules that individual fish use to interact in shoals.

The rules drive processes underlying swarm intelligence, a type of intelligence based on the collective behaviour of self-organised systems. These are collections of small, interdependent units that spontaneously form organised structures or patterns without external intervention by a central authority.

"Groups are better at gathering information than singletons," Dr Herbert-Read says.

But this information needs to be distributed among group members if it is to be useful to all individuals. "The rules we have identified allow this transfer of information."

Question of control

Certain self-organising principles lie at the root of these behaviours, the scientists believe. No one individual always controls what a group does, Dr Herbert-Read says, something scientists call decentralised control. Other examples include web search engines and the stockmarket.

Might decentralised control in the animal kingdom be an example of leaderless behaviour?

"It may be that one fish initiates a movement, and then another takes over, and so on," Dr Herbert-Read says. "There are no consistent leaders in these groups – even though there are instances of leadership – and leadership, when it emerges, is distributed among group members over time."

The scientists are now investigating which individuals initiate changes in direction. "We need to have individuals with information and that therefore lead, and others that don't have information and therefore follow," he says. This can be done by training fish to associate particular stimuli with rewards, and not training others.

In some ways, the collective motion of animals is reminiscent of what happens in a branch of physics called fluid dynamics. It also seems related to an aspect of chaos theory, known as emergent behaviour – namely, self-organisation produced from local rules that determine how individuals interact.

"Both systems are the emergent outcome of the way individuals interact with one another," Dr Herbert-Read says. "Fluids move according to rules governed by the laws of physics, while fish respond to behavioural rules."

Going with the flow

"Biologists have long appreciated the social significance of group behaviour in the animal kingdom, among which they recognise the co-ordination exhibited by creatures such as ants and bees – so-called social insects – as something special and remarkable," writes Philip Ball in his book Flow.

"But only rather recently have these collective motions been seen as something akin to flow."

Professor Ward believes the rules of interaction of most grouping species – from insects to people – may be based on similar principles. "The fish system is the first to be mathematically determined," he says. "This is important because a massive number of species form into groups, including most animals that we commercially exploit – plus, of course, ourselves, when we form crowds."

The challenge now, he explains, is to empirically determine the rules of interactions in other grouping species and to find the similarities and differences. "We expect there to be similarities in the rules used by different species," he says. This includes other animal groups that move in a coherent and co-ordinated fashion, including the way flocks of birds fly in formation and herds of cattle or horses travel in harmony.

"It's likely that the rules used by fish in this study are not a million miles from the rules that you and I use as we interact in a human crowd," he says.

Dr Herbert-Read agrees: "If different species use similar rules, it would suggest the rules are incredibly efficient in driving co-ordinated group movement in different animals."

More questions

The Sydney scientists, along with their Swedish counterparts, are still collecting data. Once finished, they are optimistic that more questions might be answered – such as, if conformity occurs, how does it work? "And do all individuals converge on the average of all their behaviours, or is it more complex than that?" Professor Ward says.

Jun 032013
 

Biosecurity Queensland is encouraging residents in the Burdekin Shire to be on the lookout for the aquatic weed water mimosa (Neptunia spp) after Council officers came across an infestation in a creek south of Home Hill.

Neptunia sp., Water Mimosa.

Neptunia leracea and Neptunia plenaare aquatic nitrogen fixing legumes. The release of nitrogen into water bodies can lead to increased algal blooms and increase the vigour of associated Class 2 pest plants such as water hyacinth, water lettuce and salvinia. The release of nitrogen by Neptunia spp. into water bodies affects water quality and increases water treatment costs. Water mimosa is farmed in South East Asia as a vegetable. Biosecurity Queensland encourages people report this Class 1 pest plant to help stop the establishment, prevent the spread, and to control this pest.

Biosecurity Queensland Weed and Pest Officer Lauren O'Bryan praised Council staff for their keen eye and early reporting of the Class 1 pest.

“In many Asian countries, water mimosa is a popular cooking ingredient but in the wetlands of North Queensland it poses a serious environmental, agricultural and health threat,” Ms O’Bryan said.

“It grows very rapidly into a thick, floating mat which restricts water flow.

“Water mimosa reduces water quality, hinders irrigation, creates a favourable habitat for mosquitoes, and out-competes native plant species, all contributing to the deaths of native fish and submerged water plants.

“In Queensland, there have been three recorded infestations at Logan in the south-east, Cairns and now Home Hill.

“Tropical North Queensland is an ideal habitat for this weed and we really don’t want it to become established here.

“Burdekin Shire Council and Biosecurity Queensland have conducted an initial survey and monitoring will continue where this latest infestation was found to make sure all plants are located and control methods are implemented.

“We’re asking all landholders to be aware of this potential problem and report to Biosecurity Queensland or Burdekin Shire Council any plant species in the area that they are not familiar with.”

Water mimosa is a declared Class1 plant under the Land Protection (Pest and Stock Route Management) Act 2002. It is an offence to introduce, keep or sell Class 1 pests without a permit.

Landholders are required by law to keep their land free of this plant. As a Class 1 species, the aim is to keep Queensland free of this invasive pest. Therefore it is prohibited to be grown, used and/or sold for the purpose of cooking.

Water mimosa is a distinctive floating aquatic herb that attaches to the bank at the waters edge. Stems grow out over the waters surface and have a spongy texture where in contact with water.

Leaves are ‘sensitive’ and close up when touched, and flowers are a yellow puff-ball shape and will start to appear in early summer.

If you think you have found water mimosa, report it to Biosecurity Queensland on 13 25 23 or your local government Pest Officer at Burdekin Shire Council on 4783 9800.

--------------------------------------------------------

For more information about Water Mimosa there's a Pest Profile at DAFF