tag:theconversation.com,2011:/columns/susan-lawler-146This thing called life – The Conversation2017-07-09T05:49:00Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/807352017-07-09T05:49:00Z2017-07-09T05:49:00ZThe Gateway Bug: a documentary about the future of food<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/177438/original/file-20170709-29486-1g9edpa.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Terese Pagh eating a banana flavoured eXo Protein bar made out of cricket powder.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/0B7BH_k6vcavOdEo4aVFhVnM5MEE">provded by The Gateway Bug</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>I’ve had the privilege of getting a sneak preview of a movie called The Gateway Bug, which is a documentary about feeding humanity in an uncertain age. It will be shown in Melbourne next weekend as part of the <a href="http://mdff.org.au/">Melbourne Documentary Film Festival</a>.</p>
<p>I wrote that <a href="https://theconversation.com/eating-insects-good-for-you-good-for-the-environment-14337">eating insects is a good idea</a> back in 2013, shortly after the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) released a report suggesting that using insects for food and feed would increase food security for our planet. </p>
<p>Following the publication of that article, I was contacted by people who wanted to know how to start farming insects. They were looking for people to contact, for information on regulations. I was invariably unhelpful. I didn’t know the answers, and felt inadequate, but now I know that nobody knew the answers back then. We were at the very beginning of a journey.</p>
<p>The Gateway Bug is a documentary about that journey, following the nascent industry in North America producing insects for human consumption. Insects provide an alternative to our current food systems that use too much water, too much land, produce mountains of organic waste and create vast clouds of greenhouse gases. </p>
<p>Film makers Johanna B. Kelly (director) and Cameron Marshad (cinematographer and editor) began making the film in 2015 at the first meeting of the American Edible Insect Coalition in Detroit. By interviewing 50 professionals in this new industry, the film makers have claim that they can convert viewers into activists. </p>
<p>The film begins with a rush of frightening statistics about the dangers surrounding the future of food, made entertaining by their choice of music: <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AGFbS_jdSl0">Pollution by Tom Lehrer</a>. Within the first 10 minutes they have brought the audience up to speed on the problem with our food systems. They spend the next hour and a quarter listening to the people who are working on potential solutions and providing detail about the challenges they face.</p>
<p>Surprisingly, convincing people to understand the potential health benefits and to like the taste of insects does not seem to be one of those challenges. There are no signs of disgust on the faces of people eating insects for the first time, who say they taste like chips or popcorn. A protein powder made from crickets is said to be “nutty with a hint of shrimp”. When crickets were offered as a topping on gourmet hot dogs in Youngstown Ohio, the restaurant struggled to keep up with demand. </p>
<p>No, the challenges were logistic rather than ideological. Cricket farms must find feed that does not compromise the taste of their product. Grinding the grain to a powder fine enough for baby crickets and caring for thousands of charges at a time is labour intensive. Sadly, one business goes under when millions of crickets die off due to contaminated town water. </p>
<p>What I found deeply surprising was the diversity of viewpoints of the people involved. One California business, which started by growing crickets on spent mash from a nearby brewery, gave up when it became apparent that their product could not be used as fish feed in the aquaculture industry. </p>
<p>Tyler Isaac, co-founder of Slightly Nutty, closed his business in 2016 because, “..we did not want to feed rich millennials cricket powder”. For him, the main problem is the unsustainable food system and unless he was changing that, he did not feel like he was making a difference. </p>
<p>Other companies are all about finding ways to get Americans to eat crickets: as protein bars (eXo), in chocolate bars (Chapul), or as chips quaintly renamed Chirps (Six foods). Also concerned about climate change, the lack of water resources, and food systems, the people that run these companies are nevertheless content to use their products as a gateway to using bugs in everyday foods.</p>
<p>I loved the way the film makers used old footage to express certain attitudes toward food and insects. It cleverly sent the message that although the words sounded perfectly reasonable, these ideas are already part of our past. The graphics were simple and useful, expressing concepts in a way the viewer didn’t have to work too hard to understand. </p>
<p>The Gateway Bug is really a discussion of food and how critical it is to our future on this planet. That may sound somewhat trite, but this film makes you sit down and think seriously about where our food comes from and where it will come from in a more crowded future earth. </p>
<p>Before seeing this movie, I didn’t even know that “entomophagist” was a word, but as an advocate of entomophagy, I suppose I am one. I was surprised and moved by this documentary, which did not pull any punches but also did not preach or condescend. But beware, after watching it, you are probably going to want to eat some bugs.</p>
<p>The Gateway Bug will be screened at Cinema Nova, Melbourne on 16 July 2017 at 3 pm. Buy tickets <a href="http://www.moshtix.com.au/v2/event/australian-features-cinema-nova-sun-16-july/95671">here</a></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/80735/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
I’ve had the privilege of getting a sneak preview of a movie called The Gateway Bug, which is a documentary about feeding humanity in an uncertain age. It will be shown in Melbourne next weekend as part…Susan Lawler, Associate Professor, Department of Ecology, Environment and Evolution, La Trobe UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/698912016-12-05T06:14:46Z2016-12-05T06:14:46ZTipping the scales on Christmas Island: wasps and bugs use other species, so why can’t we?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/148581/original/image-20161205-19388-198c1fi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">These red and yellow blobs are yellow lac scale insects that feed crazy ants. A tiny wasp could reduce both populations.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Parks Australia</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>A couple of days ago I published <a href="https://theconversation.com/a-tiny-wasp-could-save-christmas-islands-spectacular-red-crabs-from-crazy-ants-69646">an article</a> with Peter Green about the imminent release of a tiny wasp that will be used for biological control of a bug that feeds the crazy ants that kill red crabs on Christmas Island. </p>
<p>It is understandable that people are nervous about the introduction of exotic species to manage wildlife in a natural setting. It turns out that ecologists are even more nervous than the public about this, so if they have decided to do it anyway, then there is a remarkably good reason. </p>
<p><strong>Parasitoid wasps use scale insects</strong></p>
<p>The release of the wasp has concerned some readers because they imagine swarms of biting insects setting up their nests in the back garden. The truth is that the wasps that will be released are tiny and unlikely to be noticed at all. </p>
<p>First of all, <em>Tachardiaephagus somervillei</em> are only 2 mm long and cannot sting humans or other animals. They do not form colonies, they do not swarm, and they do not build nests. In fact, they won’t be at all interested in hanging around human habitations unless there is a tree nearby containing a colony of the yellow lac scale insect (<em>Tachardina aurantiaca</em>).</p>
<p>This is because these wasps are <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parasitoid">parasitoids</a> – a type of parasitic organism that kills its host species. They don’t need a nest or a colony because the scale insects they target are both their food source and their home.</p>
<p>The specificity of the wasp for this particular type of scale insect can be seen in the first part of their Latin names: <em>Tachardiaephagus</em> literally means “eater of <em>Tachardina</em>”. </p>
<p><strong>Scale insects use ants</strong></p>
<p>Scale insects are a type of true bug (in the Order Hemiptera) that line up along tree branches like barnacles, sucking sap from the tree and in their mature form, releasing a sweet liquid known as honeydew from their backsides for the benefit of ants. They don’t do this for nothing. Their strategy is to use the ants as body guards. </p>
<p>In a situation where scale insects are relatively rare this increases the number of the ants who will in turn protect the scale insects. On Christmas Island, where the introduced yellow lac scale insects have become common because they do not have any natural predators, the invasive crazy ants have access to large quantities of honeydew. In this case, the crazy ants are using the yellow lac scale insects as a super abundant food source.</p>
<p>The super colonies that have formed as a result have instigated an environmental disaster. The crazy ants kill red crabs and other species mostly due to their extremely high densities driven by the abundance of honeydew. </p>
<p>Any detractors concerned about the dangers of yet another invasive species have not fully grasped the consequences of doing nothing. Chemical baiting of the ants is ongoing but has consequences for other animals and is not environmentally desirable or sustainable.</p>
<p><strong>People using wasps</strong></p>
<p>If the scale insects can use the ants as bodyguards and the ants can use the scale insects as a free food source, why can’t we use a tiny wasp as a biological control?</p>
<p>Unlike birds, lizards or other predators that may be deterred by ants crawling all over the scale insects, the tiny parasitoid wasps can slip through and lay their eggs in a scale insect without being noticed by the ants. Their eggs hatch and develop inside the scale insect, emerging as adult wasps that are ready to lay their eggs in another scale insect nearby. </p>
<p>In essence, the wasp uses the scale insect as a one-stop nursery, food source and conveniently located launching pad for the next generation. Inside a scale insect colony, they are likely to find another scale insect less than a centimetre from where they were born. </p>
<p>Consider how this will allow the wasp population to quickly grow and, perhaps, reduce the scale insect colony density so that the wasps will eventually have to fly further and further to find another scale insect. At some point the effort to find more scale insects will balance the benefit of finding an insect, and the two populations (wasp and scale insect) will reach a new equilibrium at a lower density.</p>
<p><strong>How will the crazy ants respond?</strong></p>
<p>The wasp will not run out of food, nor will the scale insects become extinct, but the ants will find themselves deprived of excess honeydew and will have to adjust their populations accordingly. </p>
<p>How do you empirically test the response of the ants to the removal of excess honeydew from their environment? Well, you can’t remove the scale insects but you can prevent the ants from getting into the trees where the scale insects live, even though it wasn’t easy. Apparently, doing this involves Glad wrap, Mr Sheen furniture polish, and daily vigilance by a research student. </p>
<p>The result was a 95% decrease in crazy ant activity in a few weeks, an outcome that suggests this approach has every chance of reducing the impacts of crazy ants on Christmas Island. </p>
<p><strong>What happens next?</strong></p>
<p>I understand that the team is gathering in Malaysia today to pack up some wasps and fly them to Christmas Island. The release will not happen right away, as the wasps will be acclimatised and grown up in large numbers in a dedicated facility. Monitoring programs are planned to observe the impacts, both short and long term, on the scale insects, the ants, the crabs and the forest structure. </p>
<p>The research to understand the ecology of Christmas Island sufficiently to identify a biological control agent started decades ago, and many scientists were involved along the way. It is not possible to provide links to all the research articles produced thus far, but here is a <a href="http://www.agriculture.gov.au/SiteCollectionDocuments/biosecurity/risk-analysis/policy-scientific-reviews/final-ra-tachardiaephagus-somervillei.pdf">link</a> to the final risk report.</p>
<p>I am not involved with the research but am familiar with it and in my view there are two things that could happen next. Either the wasp will fail to reduce the scale insect populations and nothing changes, or they will reduce the scale insect populations which could kick start a cascade of beneficial environmental outcomes for Christmas Island. </p>
<p>We are all really hoping that it is the latter.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/69891/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<h4 class="border">Disclosure</h4><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Susan Lawler has received funding from the Australian Research Council in the past. </span></em></p>A couple of days ago I published an article with Peter Green about the imminent release of a tiny wasp that will be used for biological control of a bug that feeds the crazy ants that kill red crabs on…Susan Lawler, Senior Lecturer, Department of Ecology, Environment and Evolution, La Trobe UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/633342016-08-01T06:17:00Z2016-08-01T06:17:00ZLichens may be a symbiosis of three organisms; a new Order of fungus named<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/132590/original/image-20160801-28357-vr7bmb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Lichen is made up of two types of fungus and an algae, that's one more species than previously thought.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d0/Green_Lichen.jpg ">wikimedia</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>There is big news in the world of lichens. These slow growing organisms have long been known to be a collaboration between a fungus and a photosynthetic algae or cyanobacteria. A <a href="http://science.sciencemag.org/content/sci/early/2016/07/20/science.aaf8287.full.pdf">recent publication</a> in Science may have changed all that.</p>
<p>Researchers have discovered another fungus living in the tissues of lichens. Unlike the dominant fungal type, also known as Ascomycetes, the new fungus is a Basidiomycete that exists as single cells, more closely related to yeast. A survey has found these new fungal cells in 52 genera of lichens, raising the prospect of a previously undetected third partner in the ancient symbiosis.</p>
<p>Interestingly, despite many attempts, it has never been possible to synthesise lichen in the laboratory by combining the two known partners, and now we might know why. Lichenologists have always recognised a mycobiont (fungal partner) and a photobiont (the photosynthetic organism that makes food) and now we may have to find a word for the new fungal component.</p>
<p>Toby Spribille of the University of Graz in Austria and his colleagues were trying to understand why two species of lichen that were made up of the same species of mycobiont and photobiont were differently coloured and contained varying levels of a toxin known as vulpinic acid. </p>
<p>Using an approach that examined the messenger RNAs produced by the organism, they tried to find the genes that produced the toxin, but neither the mycobiont or the photobiont had genes that matched the transcript. By broadening their search to include other types of fungi, they found genes belonging to a rare fungus called a Cystobasidiomycete. </p>
<p>Unable to see the cells responsible for this unusual finding, they used fluorescent in situ hybridisation (FISH) to light up cells containing genes for the algae, the ascomycete and the cystobasidiomycete. By linking different colours to each organism, they produced <a href="http://gizmodo.com/weve-been-wrong-about-lichen-for-150-years-1783981617">videos</a> showing the distribution of each cell type. The new fungus existed as single cells inside the cortex, where it may play a structural role as well as providing chemical defence.</p>
<p>It is hard to overstate the importance of this discovery. Spribille was quoted in the <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/22/science/lichen-symbiotic-relationship.html?_r=0">New York Times</a> as saying that lichens are as diverse as vertebrates. And yet we did not know until now that the symbiosis that allows lichens to exist has more than two partners.</p>
<p>The authors have described a new order of fungi called the Cyphobasidiales. It is not everyday that scientists are able to add new taxa at such a high level. It is like discovering the Primates. By creating a phylogenomic tree and applying a molecular clock, they found that this group has been around for 200 million years, probably since the beginning of lichens. </p>
<p>The 52 genera that have been examined thus far are widespread (on six continents) but are still a small portion of lichens, so there may be more to discover. Interestingly, the continent that is not included is Australia. Perhaps we do not have enough lichenologists to provide samples to the international community. It is possible that some lichens do not contain this new order of fungi. What is not in doubt is that now scientists will be looking at lichens more closely.</p>
<p>Lichens grow very slowly. Individuals can be hundreds or even thousands of years old. Now it seems that our knowledge of this ancient symbiosis has also grown slowly, as it has taken 150 years to find the third partner. </p>
<p>Given the sophisticated techniques required to untangle this conundrum, I suppose it was not possible to know about the silent partner, the yeast in the mix, until now. But it certainly gives rise to some exciting science.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/63334/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
There is big news in the world of lichens. These slow growing organisms have long been known to be a collaboration between a fungus and a photosynthetic algae or cyanobacteria. A recent publication in…Susan Lawler, Senior Lecturer, Department of Ecology, Environment and Evolution, La Trobe UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/612092016-06-17T05:11:24Z2016-06-17T05:11:24ZSpiny crayfish and their flatworm friends: an ancient partnership revealed<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/127049/original/image-20160617-30196-swh6dx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Flatworms of the genus Temnosewellia liivng on the Orbost spiny crayfish (Euastacus diversus).</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Andrew Murray</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>I am so proud of <a href="http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/283/1831/20160585">our recent publication</a>, mostly because it has been a long time coming. We received an Australian Research Council grant in the year 2000 to work on this so it has taken us some time to achieve our goal. </p>
<p>The characters in this story are the Australian freshwater spiny crayfish and their flatworm friends, which are called temnocephalans. These worms spend their entire lives living on the bodies of the crayfish, and in many cases, one species of flatworm is found on only one species of crayfish. </p>
<p>Their partnership has endured for 100 million years. To put that in perspective, our own species <em>Homo sapiens</em> has occupied the earth for 0.2 million years, so we are a blink compared to these ancient creatures. There are three genera discussed in our paper: one genus of crayfish and two types of temnocephalans. I will introduce them in turns.</p>
<p><strong>Spiny crayfish (genus <em>Euastacus</em>)</strong></p>
<p>The genus <em>Euastacus</em> are cool-climate specialists who live in leafy upland rivers, where they hide under rocks and burrow into the banks. The genus originated on the ancient continent of Gondwana and persists only in eastern Australia.</p>
<p>Unlike their more familiar relatives such as yabbies, spiny crayfish grow slowly and live for a long time. The larger species, such as the Murray Cray, take up to 7 years to become sexually mature and can live for 50 years or more. Nobody knows exactly how long, and really large specimens (which could be very old indeed) are increasingly difficult to find. </p>
<p>Fishing pressure and habitat alteration has caused serious declines in many species, while climate change puts all of them at risk. No less than 75% of the <em>Euastacus</em> species are endangered. Those most at risk reside on isolated mountains in northern Queensland.</p>
<p>We collected 37 different species of <em>Euastacus</em> for our study. Each one lives in a different river system or National Park, and some were collected by hand, others using nets. Patience and persistence were required in every case.</p>
<p>I remember one trip in particular, when David, Kim, my husband and I were in the Grampians National Park on New Year’s Eve 2003 – after a day of collecting we set up our microscopes on a picnic table in the campsite to pick worms from our crayfish and label our specimens. Members of the public were intrigued and after looking down our microscope, one young camper presented us with a drawing of a crayfish (probably <em>Euastacus bispinosus</em>) that has hung on my office wall ever since.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/127044/original/image-20160617-30162-16rjupw.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/127044/original/image-20160617-30162-16rjupw.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=793&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/127044/original/image-20160617-30162-16rjupw.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=793&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/127044/original/image-20160617-30162-16rjupw.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=793&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/127044/original/image-20160617-30162-16rjupw.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=997&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/127044/original/image-20160617-30162-16rjupw.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=997&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/127044/original/image-20160617-30162-16rjupw.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=997&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Drawing of a spiny crayfish by Daniel Artus, age 5.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Original artwork, Daniel Artus</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p><strong>Temnocephalans – ectosymbiotic flatworms</strong></p>
<p>I have written about temnocephalans before, and it is worth looking at the video in my article <a href="https://theconversation.com/flatworms-that-live-on-crayfish-are-adorable-in-their-own-right-20608">here</a> to see how they move. </p>
<p>Basically, they look like little hands with eyeballs and they stay attached to the crayfish using large suction discs. The “fingers” are tentacles that they use to catch prey from the water. </p>
<p>We have no evidence that they harm the crayfish, so we say that they are symbiotic (meaning the relationship is probably of mutual benefit). It may be that temnocephalans keep the crayfish clear of other parasites and that crayfish stir up sediment providing sources of food for the worms. </p>
<p>There are two genera of temnocephalans in our study: <em>Temnohaswellia</em> have six tentacles and are usually white, while the genus <em>Temnosewellia</em> are brown and have five tentacles. The former genus was named after William Haswell, a director of the Queensland Museum, while the latter was named after our own co-author Kim Sewell.</p>
<p>Some temnocephalan species live on more than one crayfish species, a pattern common among the <em>Temnohaswellia</em>. Others are found exclusively on one species of crayfish, a pattern common among the _Temnosewellia. _This is true especially among the far northern populations, which are most at risk of extinction.</p>
<p>In order to complete this study, we dissected individual worms so we could send samples to London for DNA analysis and keep enough of the animal in Australian so we could identify each species. </p>
<p>In some cases, the temnocephalans we found did not even have names. Kim, Lester and David had to complete careful microscopic and taxonomic work and publish species descriptions before we could continue. </p>
<p><strong>Co-evolution</strong></p>
<p>By analysing DNA sequences from 37 crayfish species and 33 species of temnocephalans, we were able to describe the ancient association between them. </p>
<p>The evolutionary history was reconstructed in matched evolutionary trees (called a co-phylogeny) allowing us to see patterns of divergence over a period of time that included extensive climate change as continents separated and drifted north. </p>
<p>Host-shifts are evident in the patterns revealed, meaning when one group diverged (as in when a new crayfish species formed) the other followed (a new temnocephalan species was born). There are few datasets available of this type and they are of great interest to evolutionary biologists.</p>
<p><strong>Co-extinction</strong></p>
<p>Unfortunately, the close association between crayfish and flatworm species means that if one goes extinct the other is likely to follow. Our analysis suggests that if all the endangered _Euastacus _species go extinct, then 60% of temnocephalan species will follow suit. </p>
<p>Both types of organisms are so unique and special they deserve protection, but climate change will make this challenging due to their reliance on clear cold water and shady habitats. </p>
<p>It is our hope that by highlighting these issues, more people will care about the future of freshwater crayfish and the tiny animals (there are others) that live on them or in their burrows. In any case, we are delighted to be able to offer this unique insight into the phenomenon of co-evolution.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/61209/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<h4 class="border">Disclosure</h4><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Susan Lawler and co-authors received funding from the Australian Research Council.</span></em></p>I am so proud of our recent publication, mostly because it has been a long time coming. We received an Australian Research Council grant in the year 2000 to work on this so it has taken us some time to…Susan Lawler, Senior Lecturer, Department of Ecology, Environment and Evolution, La Trobe UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/587872016-05-03T06:26:07Z2016-05-03T06:26:07ZCarpageddon: what you need to know about the release of carp herpes in Australia<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/121480/original/image-20160506-441-1dlgqqj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Carp are a major threat to Australia's rivers. </span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/melbournewater/4762008997/">Melbourne Water/Flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/">CC BY-NC-ND</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Yesterday’s <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-05-01/herpes-to-eradicate-carp-in-murray-river-pyne-says/7373736">announcement</a> of funding for a National Carp Control Plan – including the release of the carp herpes virus – has generated a lot of interest in the media. I welcome plans to release the virus by the end of 2018. In January I wrote an article <a href="https://theconversation.com/we-could-reduce-pest-carp-in-australian-rivers-using-a-disease-that-came-from-israel-53492">here</a> explaining the concept and why I think it could work in Australia.</p>
<p>Since the announcement I’ve listened to discussions on radio and television highlighting the concerns of the public. I hope to address some of the confusion and set the record straight.</p>
<p><strong>What will we do with piles of dead fish?</strong></p>
<p>Among people who live near the Murray River or one of its tributaries, this is the main objection to the release of the virus. This in itself suggests that those close to the rivers understand the implications of carp being 80% of the biomass in the Murray Darling Basin. Many people have lived through black-water events (where oxygen levels drop resulting in large fish kills) and they know how unpleasant it is to have a lot of dead fish at one time.</p>
<p>Their concerns are justified. Fortunately, Science Minister Christopher Pyne is aware that hundreds of thousands, possibly millions of tonnes of dead carp will need to be cleaned up, and this will require community consultation and potential legislative changes. Pyne says we can use dead carp as fertiliser, as pet food or bury them in large graves. It is interesting to note that the fertiliser company Charlie Carp welcomes the move and <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-05-02/carp-eradication-program-could-cause-pollution-problems/7374658">may expand</a> their business into South Australia so they can respond to large fish kills there. </p>
<p>The trick will be disposing of the fish quickly because after 48 hours they will begin to rot and will not be suitable for use. My reading of the announcement suggests that planning for this one time big carp kill will be a large part of the $15 million spent over the next two years. </p>
<p><strong>How is the virus transmitted?</strong></p>
<p>There were some giggles about how this virus is transmitted among fish, given that herpes is a sexually transmitted disease in humans. However, all the fish have to do is bump into one another to transmit the virus, and they can also be infected by the virus that lives in the water, although the virus will only survive for a few days outside of the body of a fish.</p>
<p>Once infected, any survivors will carry the carp-specific herpes virus for life. Stress can re-activate the virus, causing it to persist in the carp population and allowing it to spread rapidly under crowded conditions. </p>
<p><strong>What a waste – we could have sold these fish overseas!</strong></p>
<p>It is true that Australians resist eating carp due a perception that they are “junk” fish. Some say they have a muddy flavour, or that they are too bony. Neither of these issues stop people in Europe, the Middle East and Asia eating carp, where they are a common part of the diet. </p>
<p>There are two problems with the suggestion that we are missing a commercial opportunity here. The first is the economic viability of shipping fish to the other side of the world. We cannot get them there alive so we will need to freeze or can the carp, and once we’ve done that, consumers must pay enough to cover the processing and shipping. </p>
<p>I was on a committee with the NSW Department of Fisheries 15 years ago that was looking for markets for carp products. Enthusiastic investors with support from government could not find a way to make money with this export.</p>
<p>The second problem is that any industry relying on carp as a product will not remove carp from our rivers. Carp are causing enormous damage to the ecology of rivers and lakes across our continent and fishing alone will never remove enough of them to return those ecosystems to health.</p>
<p><strong>But biological control never works, does it?</strong></p>
<p>“Myxomatosis and cane toads – need I say more?” was a text to my local ABC radio station by someone concerned about the failure of biological control in the past. Yes, cane toads were a disastrous introduction to Australia and it is now clear that the problem was insufficient research prior to release. The carp herpes virus has been researched in Australian laboratories for 7 years so far. See my <a href="https://theconversation.com/we-could-reduce-pest-carp-in-australian-rivers-using-a-disease-that-came-from-israel-53492">previous article</a> for more on why this looks like a safe bio-control option.</p>
<p>Myxomatosis actually worked beautifully, killing 500 million rabbits in two years after the first release in 1950. Resistance did increase in the decades to follow and in 1996 another virus (calicivirus) was released to further reduce rabbit populations. </p>
<p>The rabbit plague of 1860 onward was the fastest spread of any mammal in the world. Rabbits had an enormous environmental and economic impact right across Australia, leading us to build the rabbit-proof fence. In 1887 the state of New South Wales was offering a reward of £25,000 for any successful method not previously known for exterminating rabbits. Although srabbits were useful for food in the depression and to make lots of hats, nobody wants to return to pre-myxomatosis times. </p>
<p>And no, we didn’t kill all the rabbits, just like we will not kill all the carp. However, a virus transmitted by water may be more effective as suggested by the government’s goal of a 95% carp reduction by 2045.</p>
<p><strong>Carp are natural by now – our native fish rely on them for food</strong></p>
<p>Australian native fish have been seriously impacted by carp. Many of them are visual predators, such as the magnificent Murray Cod. The turbidity created by carp reduces their ability to hunt and thrive, even though the high biomass of carp may give them plenty to eat. </p>
<p>The muddy river that runs through my home town is a hazard for swimmers and boaters because you can’t see the snags. This is due almost entirely to the presence of carp. None of us can remember when the Murray River ran clear and native fish were more common than introduced fish, but Senator Anne Ruston, Assistant Minister for Water Resources, recalls her mother and grandmother talking about being able to see the bottom of the river. </p>
<p>If you cannot imagine why anybody cares what type of fish are living in our rivers, remember that native Australian fish and plants are not adapted to the muddy rivers we have now. Let’s give them a chance to grow and thrive again in an environment more similar to the natural situation.</p>
<p><strong>Sounds like a waste of money</strong></p>
<p>Our Deputy Prime Minister Barnaby Joyce says that carp cost the economy up to $500 million per year. I don’t know how he got that figure but it may include the extra water treatment we need for river towns like mine and tourism losses due to reduced biodiversity and frequent algal blooms. Even if it is only half of that, spending $15 million to remove carp from the system seems like a sound investment. </p>
<p>The future of Australia’s waterways are at stake. Is there anything more precious than clean, fresh water? </p>
<p><em>The image on this article was corrected on May 6 2016. It previously incorrectly showed a different species of fish.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/58787/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
Yesterday’s announcement of funding for a National Carp Control Plan – including the release of the carp herpes virus – has generated a lot of interest in the media. I welcome plans to release the virus…Susan Lawler, Senior Lecturer, Department of Ecology, Environment and Evolution, La Trobe UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/578002016-04-14T01:36:26Z2016-04-14T01:36:26ZThe Resilience Project: finding those rare people with genetic disease mutations who are healthy<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/118637/original/image-20160414-22072-1bzlenw.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Finding specific mutations in humans means sorting through a lot of chrormosomes.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=7853183">National Human Genome Research Institute</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>An article published this week in <a href="http://www.nature.com/nbt/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nbt.3514.html">Nature Biotechnology</a> may require me to make a few changes to next week’s lectures on Mendelian genetics. An international group of geneticists have found people who have genetic mutations for severe childhood diseases but remain healthy. </p>
<p>This means that what I teach my first year biology students at University is demonstrably wrong. Mendelian genetic diseases are caused by alterations to the DNA code of a single gene. Depending on the pattern of inheritance (dominant or recessive), one or two copies of a particular mutation are all it takes to ensure a lifetime of illness. </p>
<p><strong>What is a Mendelian genetic disease?</strong></p>
<p>That’s the simple message we teach about cystic fibrosis, for example, although we know that it is a bit more complicated than that. For example, there are more than 1800 different mutations that can cause cystic fibrosis, and some of these produce different symptoms. The severity of those symptoms can vary as well, so no two people with this genetic condition have exactly the same journey. </p>
<p>However, all of those people will have a mutation in the same gene, known as CFTR, which stands for cystic fibrosis trans-membrane conductance regulator. This gene codes for a protein that transports molecules (ions) across cell membranes, and it is critical to good health.</p>
<p>Ironically, we often name genes for the things that go wrong when they are broken, rather than for the function they perform in healthy individuals. This is because we only recognised the gene as essential to our health when we found individuals in whom those genes were not working. Thus the “cystic fibrosis” gene sounds like something you don’t want to have, when in fact what you want is a functional copy of the membrane protein CFTR. </p>
<p>Geneticists thus think in a kind of backward way about genes and how they work. I often find my students confused about the way we use terminology and I recognise that this is because we identify genes by what happens when they are not working properly. This would be like calling your computer a “frustration generator” – it does not begin to explain what happens when it is working well.</p>
<p><strong>Finding a needle in a haystack?</strong></p>
<p>The resilience project had a bold idea – to look for people who carried a mutation that we think invariably causes incurable genetic disease who nevertheless do not have the disease. The researchers were able to do this by using data-sets that were collected by other people for other reasons. They would never have been able to get the project off the ground otherwise as they were challenging a long held paradigm.</p>
<p>By accessing several large data-sets they were able to look at the genes of 589,306 people, where they found 15,597 mutations associated with 163 diseases. The diseases they were looking for were ones that are usually detected in childhood, have a simple genetic cause and for which there is no known cure. Given that all the people in the data-sets were over 18 years old, the assumption was that these individuals would know by now if they had a particular genetic disease.</p>
<p>After applying a range of filters designed to remove false positives, the researchers found 13 examples of individuals who had a mutation that should make them sick who were nevertheless not sick. There were eight different diseases on the list: three mutations for cystic fibrosis, three mutations that cause atelosteogenesis, two for Smith-Lemli-Opitz syndrome, one for Pfeiffer syndrome, and four other conditions that are both rare and difficult to spell. </p>
<p><strong>Special people exist, but we can’t find them</strong></p>
<p>The authors rightly suggest that potential cures for these conditions are more likely to follow research on such individuals, in which we might identify factors that provide protection from the symptoms. One might think that the next step is to lure those 13 people into a hospital or laboratory for a thorough examination.</p>
<p>Unfortunately, the retrospective nature of the study prevents this. Each database had its own process for getting permission so that people who donated blood or saliva for gene sequencing either cannot be identified or cannot be contacted due to quite reasonable regulations about privacy and consent.</p>
<p>So this study is a proof of concept. It is also an example of thinking outside of the box. Knowing that there is more than a 20 in a million chance that a genetic mutation will not inevitably lead to disease means that there is now a new source of hope. </p>
<p>Further research will no doubt follow, but in the meantime I will be modifying my lectures next week. Mendelian genetic diseases are no longer inevitable, proving the long standing rule of science that there are exceptions to every rule.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/57800/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
An article published this week in Nature Biotechnology may require me to make a few changes to next week’s lectures on Mendelian genetics. An international group of geneticists have found people who have…Susan Lawler, Senior Lecturer, Department of Ecology, Environment and Evolution, La Trobe UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/571172016-04-01T03:42:16Z2016-04-01T03:42:16ZLearn more about the insects and mini-beasts in your own backyard<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/117058/original/image-20160401-15137-1dok130.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Can you tell which of the above is the cricket, fly, beetle, bug, moth or wasp? </span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/74/Insect_collage.pn">Bugboy 52.40</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>I recently wrote about how important it is to be able to <a href="https://theconversation.com/identification-of-animals-and-plants-is-an-essential-skill-set-55450">identify plants and animals</a>. Knowing the names of species that live around us helps us to connect to nature. </p>
<p>Yes, you can enjoy greenery and birdsong without knowing which species are involved, but recognising the call of a magpie while walking under a lemon-scented gum can enrich your experience. It makes nature more personal and accessible.</p>
<p>The most diverse and common group of animals in your neighbourhood (and mine) are the insects. Children are often drawn to these mini-beasts and are too often warned away by well-meaning adults who are afraid they might get stung. </p>
<p>The fact is that knowing your insects is a gateway to developing a relationship with the natural world. Who has not marvelled at a trail of ants carrying crumbs, enjoyed the sound of cicadas on a hot summer day, or watched bees pollinate flowers? </p>
<p>Insects are found everywhere and are incredibly diverse. They are critical to the health of any ecosystem, including your backyard or garden. Knowing enough to tell the main groups apart is a great way to learn about animals.</p>
<p><strong>Insect swarm at my place</strong></p>
<p>We had an interesting experience in our garden last week. Several wattle birds were swooping overhead and then half a dozen magpies arrived and started pecking at the grass at our feet. This was unusual behaviour so we watched closely and eventually noticed a swarm of insects above the vegetable patch. </p>
<p>There were both small and large insects in the swarm and I guessed that the large ones were predators, enjoying the feast along with the birds, but I was wrong. After finding the sweep net and collecting a few we realised that we were looking at a termite mating swarm. The larger insects were the females, and every now and then pairs dropped to the grass to do the deed.</p>
<p>Many people when they hear this story will cringe at the implications of having termites near the house, but most termite species do not eat wood and are not a danger to infrastructure. We placed a few dozen into a mesh enclosure along with some water, newspaper, wood and a jar of soil. The next day they had all burrowed into the soil, so we think they hatched out of our garden compost. </p>
<p>How did I know they were termites? Because termites belong to the order Isoptera, which literally means “same wings”. Unlike most insects, their four wings are all the same size and shape. Once you know this it is easy to distinguish between them and winged ants (who have four wings of different sizes) or flies (who have only two wings). A little bit of knowledge is a powerful thing.</p>
<p><strong>Learning more about bug</strong>s</p>
<p>How will you learn to identify insects? A new book called Miniature Lives: identifying insects in your home and garden, by Michelle Gleeson would be a good start. It was mentioned on the <a href="https://blog.csiro.au/miniature-lives-identifying-insects-home-garden/">CSIRO blog</a> just a few days ago. </p>
<p>If you look around, you may find activities like <a href="http://www.necma.vic.gov.au/News-Events/Events/ArtMID/461/ArticleID/229/Bring-Ya-Bug-Along">Bring Ya Bug Along</a>, which will be run by a friend of mine in our home town in a few weeks.</p>
<p>Of course, not every bug will be a bug. This sounds odd but there is an order of insects known as “true bugs” (Hemiptera). They have sucking mouthparts which they use to pierce plants or prey. So even the word “bug” has some linguistic problems and how you use it depends on who you are talking to. </p>
<p>Beetles are the most common insect order (Coleoptera), and most people can recognise them from the hard wing covers. Probably the most popular insect order is the Lepidoptera (moths and butterflies). Yes, they are beautiful but their caterpillars can be bad for the garden.</p>
<p>Lacewings (order Neuroptera) are also beautiful in their adult form. As juveniles they are called ant-lions, which are fearsome little predators that eat garden pests. You can even buy <a href="http://www.bunnings.com.au/eco-organic-garden-backyard-buddies-eco-gracey-lacewing-eggs_p2960994">lacewings eggs from Bunnings</a> to add to the garden. </p>
<p>I could go on but if I have sparked your interest, just <a href="http://www.publish.csiro.au/pid/7264.htm">buy a book</a> or go online to start learning. Using insects as a gateway to connect with nature is something everyone can do.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/57117/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
I recently wrote about how important it is to be able to identify plants and animals. Knowing the names of species that live around us helps us to connect to nature. Yes, you can enjoy greenery and birdsong…Susan Lawler, Senior Lecturer, Department of Ecology, Environment and Evolution, La Trobe UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/561432016-03-11T05:17:07Z2016-03-11T05:17:07ZThe good, the bad and the ugly: research funding flows to big and beautiful mammals in Australia<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/114798/original/image-20160311-11261-17avotv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">As a rodent, my pet Mitchell's Hopping Mouse is considered an "ugly" mammal</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Geoff Edney</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>You might think that scientists are rational, logical creatures, but it turns out we are biased and lazy. A recent publication by Trish Fleming and Phil Bateman in <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/mam.12066/epdf">Mammal Review</a> has analysed how research on Australian mammals is distributed, and the results are not pretty.</p>
<p>What is being reported <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/12186901/Ugly-animals-are-being-shunned-by-scientists-study.html">in the media</a> is that ugly animals are at greater risk of extinction because research funding is more often directed towards species that are considered cute and cuddly. Having read their publication, I will argue this is not entirely true, but the researchers did find that Australian mammals fell into three broad categories that they called the good, the bad and the ugly.</p>
<p>The researchers used a tool called a species h-index: basically they compared research on various species by assessing how often they are mentioned in publications and how often those papers were cited by other scientists. </p>
<p><strong>The Good: Monotremes and marsupials</strong></p>
<p>Australia is well known for its unusual and unique mammalian fauna, and of course the stars of the show either lay eggs or have pouches. Echidnas and platypus are of great interest biologically because they are the only extant monotremes: they lay eggs and feed their babies with milk. There is nothing like them anywhere else on the planet, so it makes sense that even though they are only 0.6% of the mammal species in Australia, they are in 4% of publications.</p>
<p>Our native marsupials are also well researched. Kangaroos, koalas, Tasmanian devils, possums and their relatives constitute 49% of Australian mammals. They are also well researched, as they are in 73% of the publications assessed.</p>
<p><strong>The Bad: Introduced eutherians</strong></p>
<p>Eutherians are the placental mammals like ourselves. No pouches, no eggs, and relatively common outside of Australia. Most of our feral pests fall into this category and they attract a lot of research interest and funding because of their disproportionate economic impacts. Rabbits, house mice, foxes, cats and deer fall into the category of “bad” mammals. They represent 6% of mammal species in Australia and are mentioned in 12% of the publications.</p>
<p>Controversially, the authors decided to categorise the dingo as an introduced mammal, even though many of us consider it to be an important component of a healthy ecosystem. Other research shows that when dingo numbers are healthy, foxes and cats have less of an impact on small native mammals. </p>
<p><strong>The Ugly: Native eutherians</strong></p>
<p>Many people do not realise that we have a large number of native mammals that are not marsupials. These species found their way to our continent millions of years ago and have adapted to conditions here. Unfortunately, these are the rodents and bats, which have a bad reputation even though in most cases they are not interested in infesting your home or your hair.</p>
<p>The native eutherians represent no less than 45% of Australian mammals, but they are only in 11% of publications, which is less than the introduced ferals. The researchers put them in the “ugly” category despite the fact that many of these are quite cute.</p>
<p>For example, we keep Mitchell’s hopping mice as pets and I can assure you that they are adorable. Everyone who is lucky enough to visit after dark (they are nocturnal so only come out at night) has agreed. They jump, they play, they have personalities. So nobody is going to convince me that they belong in the ugly category.</p>
<p>What they are is small and cryptic. Given the difficulty of finding them in their cage during the day, I can only imagine how difficult it would be to observe them in the wild. Bats are even more difficult as their sleeping quarters are high up in trees or deep in rocky crevices. </p>
<p><strong>Most research on big animals with large ranges</strong></p>
<p>Unsurprisingly, given the challenges, the animals that attract the most research attention are large and are distributed over a large geographic range. This may be in part because these are the species that are of more interest to the public and therefore attract more funding, but it also makes scientists look lazy. </p>
<p>It is far easier to survey koalas than it is to survey microbats, but when we consider that the microbats are eating insects for us, while koalas are more likely to kill trees, there may be good reason to shift our focus. (By the way, you can build a microbat roosting box to attract them to your house, see <a href="http://www.backyardbuddies.net.au/mammals/tree-dwellers/microbats">here</a>). </p>
<p><strong>Where should the funding go?</strong></p>
<p>Of most concern is that there was no correlation between a species’ IUCN status (endangered, threatened, etc.) and the amount of research interest. Given the large number of species that are data deficient, this means that vulnerable species are not getting enough attention. </p>
<p>Australia has suffered the greatest loss of native mammals globally and many of us want that to change. Unfortunately, good intentions are not enough. We need research funding, and this is not evenly distributed. Australia belongs to the 40 most underfunded countries for conservation. One researcher has suggested the shortfall is over $350 million AUD, and yet we do not receive international biodiversity funding aid.</p>
<p>Here’s hoping the ugly mammals of Australia are not made to suffer the ultimate fate of extinction, just because we are unable to take a step back and set priorities based on evidence rather than emotion.</p>
<p>Perhaps we need to start an <a href="http://uglyanimalsoc.com/">Ugly Animal Preservation Society</a>, like they have in the UK.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/56143/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
You might think that scientists are rational, logical creatures, but it turns out we are biased and lazy. A recent publication by Trish Fleming and Phil Bateman in Mammal Review has analysed how research…Susan Lawler, Senior Lecturer, Department of Ecology, Environment and Evolution, La Trobe UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/554502016-02-26T05:34:50Z2016-02-26T05:34:50ZIdentification of animals and plants is an essential skill set<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/113019/original/image-20160226-26679-2zepk0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">La Trobe University students learning how to identify plants near Falls Creek</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Susan Lawler</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>I have recently been made abundantly aware of the <a href="https://www.timeshighereducation.com/comment/opinion/save-field-biology-skills-from-extinction-risk/2018721.article">lack of field skills</a> among biology students, even those who major in ecology. By field skills we mean the ability to identify plants and animals, to recognise invasive species and to observe the impact of processes such as fire on the landscape.</p>
<p>My colleague Mike Clarke calls it <a href="http://www.latrobe.edu.au/big-fat-ideas/latest-episodes/ecological-illiteracy">“ecological illiteracy”</a>, and identifies it as a risk for nature at large. While people spend more times indoors in front of screens, we become less aware of the birds, plants and bugs in our backyards and neighbourhoods. This leads to an alienation of humans from nature that is harmful to our health, our planet and our spirit.</p>
<p>On a more practical, academic level, I was in a meeting this week where an industry representative complained that biology graduates are no longer able to identify common plants and animals. This limits their employment prospects and hampers the capacity of society to respond to changes in natural ecosystems predicted by climate change.</p>
<p><strong>Field taxonomy vs. Bloom’s taxonomy</strong></p>
<p>So what is going on? Why don’t ecology students get this information during the course of their University degrees? </p>
<p>Practical sessions teaching scientific names of animals or plants can be perceived to be boring and dry. Students may be asked to collect and pin a range of insects or press and identify certain plants as part of their training in biological diversity, but these activities are time consuming and expensive. As we strive to be more flexible and efficient, classes and assessments relying on identification skills are quickly dropped. </p>
<p>Ironically, the dogma that has been so detrimental to field taxonomy is known as Bloom’s taxonomy. University lecturers are told to apply an educational theory developed by <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloom%27s_taxonomy">Benjamin Bloom</a>, which categorises assessment tasks and learning activities into cognitive domains. In Bloom’s taxonomy, identifying and naming are at the lowest level of cognitive skills and have been systematically excluded from University degrees because they are considered simplistic. </p>
<p>The problem is that identifying a plant or insect is not simple at all. Not only do you need to know which features to examine (nuts, leaves, roots, spines, eye stripes or wing venation), you need to adopt a whole vocabulary of terms designed to provide precision in the observation of specific traits. Examining the mouthparts of insects requires knowing the difference between a mandible, maxilla and rostrum. Hairs on a leaf can be described as glaucous, glabrous, or hirsute. </p>
<p>Such detail cannot be taught without a student passionate enough to embrace the task and having a passionate mentor who can make the discipline come alive. </p>
<p><strong>Photographs are not enough</strong></p>
<p>In this digital age some people seem to think that photographs can replace the collection of specimens. I know a bit about crayfish, and where in the past a fisher might show up with an animal in an esky, these days people like to send me a photo and ask what species that was. I cannot identify a crayfish from a photo, nor can I easily explain to an interested amateur how to count the mesal carpal spines. </p>
<p>There is a reason that scientists must collect specimens and take them back to the lab or lodge them with a museum. Biological organisms are extremely complex, and the critical feature that distinguishes one from another relies on careful comparison. </p>
<p>A recent discovery of a rare kingfisher in Guadalcanal caused controversy in the <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/10/12/a-scientist-found-a-bird-that-hadnt-been-seen-in-half-a-century-then-killed-it-heres-why/?tid=pm_national_pop_b">Washington Post</a> when the researchers photographed, then killed and collected the animal. I understand why they felt they needed to document their finding with a specimen, and I understand the outrage of nature lovers who decry the need for more than a photo. </p>
<p><strong>Australian species are poorly known</strong></p>
<p>A <a href="http://stamfordsyrpher.blogspot.com.au/2016/02/a-loss-of-field-skills.html">recent article</a> by an author in Britain points out the difference between taxonomy and field skills. Trends in biological recording are changing due to electronic and photographic recording and the availability of complete field guides. However, the situation in the United Kingdom does differ from Australia.* </p>
<p>It is true that in some parts of the world the species have all been named and catalogued, but Australia is not one of those places. Any shake of a shrub will produce un-named insects. Every <a href="http://www.bushblitz.org.au/">Bush Blitz</a> expedition discovers new species or new records of known species. </p>
<p><strong>Young people need field trips</strong></p>
<p>I spent last week in the Victorian alps with biology students from La Trobe University. As part of their research project they needed to identify plants and insects. We had some impressive expertise among our staff, people who knew the Latin names of every plant at first glance. The trick is to transmit that knowledge to the next generation.</p>
<p>Accordingly, we made the students tape leaves into their notebooks and write names next to each one. We brought the insects back to the lodge and sat in front of microscopes for hours. Using keys, identification books and each other we were able to describe the particular community at each study site. </p>
<p>Some of the students came away excited about different groups of organisms. The excitement of the camp may lead them to spend time away from their desks staring at gum leaves, listening for bird calls or popping bugs in jars for later inspection. </p>
<p>I hope that some of them becom obsessed enough to turn themselves into experts, but I also want all young people to have more exposure to nature and all of its parts. </p>
<p>Not everyone can spend time in the alps, but everyone can learn the names of the trees in a nearby park. Can you identify the birds calling in your backyard? Do you know the difference between a moth and a butterfly, or between a worm and a grub?</p>
<p>Take the time to engage with both the little and big things growing around you and discover the joy of re-connecting with nature.</p>
<p><em>*This paragraph was corrected on March 1.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/55450/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
I have recently been made abundantly aware of the lack of field skills among biology students, even those who major in ecology. By field skills we mean the ability to identify plants and animals, to recognise…Susan Lawler, Senior Lecturer, Department of Ecology, Environment and Evolution, La Trobe UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/542412016-02-05T04:35:26Z2016-02-05T04:35:26ZHow we can help nature adapt to climate change<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/110404/original/image-20160205-11964-nzzpjo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">These everlasting flowers in Victoria's alps may not last forever.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Susanna Venn</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Last October, I attended a <a href="http://static1.squarespace.com/static/560c8e3fe4b0c2b900495f38/t/56a859c305f8e263f7b0f10f/1453873614458/symposium-ManagingBiodiversityClimate-Change.pdf">symposium</a> about managing biodiversity in Victoria under climate change. One of the outcomes of that conference is a new website called <a href="http://vicnature2050.org/">VicNature 2050</a>, which provides a list of 10 things all of us can do to help nature adapt to change over the next 35 years. </p>
<p>Critically, most of these suggestions are about working with other people and staying positive. Caring for Victoria’s natural diversity is going to be a big challenge in coming decades and everyone will have a role to play.</p>
<p><strong>But I already recycle and use my own shopping bags!</strong></p>
<p>The <a href="http://vicnature2050.org/">10 things you can do for nature</a> are not merely changes to your daily routine, like recycling. They are more likely to be changes to your attitude, approach and focus. </p>
<p>Climate change is a process that will amplify environmental problems, increase risks for native species and alter familiar ecosystems. Thinking about the future climate can be depressing and overwhelming, especially if we stay narrowly focused on what it will mean for ourselves. </p>
<p>I find it helpful to spare a thought for the species that live outside our windows – the millions of native plants and animals that make Victoria unique and give us a sense of place. They will not be able to retreat to air conditioned comfort on extremely hot days. Fires and floods will not only alter their distributions, it will challenge their evolutionary trajectories. </p>
<p>If you want to make a difference that lasts longer than your lifetime, now is a good time to become an active nature lover. Conservation and preservation of natural habitats is no longer enough, because they are going to change. Common species will decline, rare species will become common, and many will be forced to move across the landscape to survive.</p>
<p>Protecting nature will be a dynamic endeavour in which we confront an increasingly complicated series of choices. We will have to learn how to support the process of adaptation rather than preserving old patterns. To do this properly we need to become flexible, collaborative and proactive.</p>
<h2>Victorian climate in 2050</h2>
<p>Australian scientists have been at the forefront of climate research for decades. One of the leading researchers at the symposium told us that predictions have not changed markedly in 25 years, so our vision of the future is clear. This does not mean that the science is irrelevant or incomplete, so I was sorry to see the news that CSIRO will be <a href="https://theconversation.com/csiro-is-poised-to-slash-climate-research-jobs-experts-react-54170">undergoing drastic cuts in the area of climate research</a>. But I digress.</p>
<p>By 2050, average temperatures will be up to 2.5 degrees warmer, with fewer frosts, more heatwaves and more fires. The hottest summers we remember now will be the new normal. We can expect more intense storms in summer and less rain in winter and spring. Sea levels will rise and coastal flooding will increase. To learn more about the future climate of your home town, use the Climate Analogue tool at <a href="http://www.climatechangeinaustralia.gov.au/en/climate-projections/">this website</a>.</p>
<p>In the coming decades we will be living in a world that is outside of our experience. Our current understanding of best practice will no longer apply. We need transformational change, which means working in ways that are unlike anything we are currently used to. </p>
<p>How can we prepare for and manage such change? The ten things list was put together by ecologist <a href="http://ianluntecology.com/">Ian Lunt</a> from presentations and discussions at the October symposium. Based on scientific evidence and input from people who have spent their careers managing nature in one way or another, the ten things are a great place to start.</p>
<h2>Ten things you can do</h2>
<p><strong>1. Listen, engage and work with people</strong> </p>
<p>People with different backgrounds and experiences will have to come together to take action. Join a local group, get active, and find common ground. Respect other people’s values, especially the original Australians, and do what you can to get children outdoors to create a new generation of nature lovers.</p>
<p><strong>2. Accept that natural areas will change</strong></p>
<p>The environments we are used to will change as new species move in to fill gaps created by once familiar species that can no longer cope. This new mix of species must be allowed to thrive because they are going to provide natural systems that are resilient to the new conditions. This will be a challenge, because species that we might have considered weeds or invaders may become valuable.</p>
<p><strong>3. Protect reserves and look after nature on private land</strong></p>
<p>National Parks, state lands and other reserves must remain undisturbed, where natural processes can create the new natural for each part of our state. But remnants and plantings on private land will be critical. Plant a native garden or create habitat on your property, choosing species that are most likely to survive. </p>
<p>We will need long-term funding stream for such projects that is flexible and responsive to local conditions, so campaign for increased conservation spending.</p>
<p><strong>4. Remove threats such as clearing, weeds and feral animals</strong></p>
<p>More natural areas will be needed as climate change intensifies, so it will be essential to manage threats such as clearing, pollution, development, unsustainable harvesting, weeds, grazing, feral animals and unsuitable fire regimes. </p>
<p><strong>5. Use natural processes like fires and floods to promote diversity</strong></p>
<p>Wetlands require both floods and dry years, estuaries need tides, forests and heath-lands rely on specific fire regimes. For resilient ecosystems, we must manage natural processes so they promote natural diversity. We may have to replenish key habitat features by introducing shade, hollows, and aquatic plants.<br>
<strong>6. Connect landscapes and use climate-ready plants</strong></p>
<p>Landscapes that allow species to move far and move quickly will allow them to respond to change when they need to. We can plant trees to connect areas of native vegetation, or create shade along rivers and creeks. We can also build flyways and fish ladders to remove human-created barriers to dispersal. </p>
<p>Climate-ready plants are species likely to survive in a new climate. They will also have high genetic diversity, which improves the ability of species to adapt. Creating a list of suitable plants will take time and effort.</p>
<p><strong>7. Welcome nature into our cities</strong></p>
<p>Many threatened species live in urban areas, and by supporting parks and reserves we can protect them and improve livability for people as well. Cities are often in the most productive and biologically diverse parts of Australia and as they grow they invade endangered ecosystems. Connecting with nature is good for people. Research suggests that a green view from the office window improves productivity. </p>
<p><strong>8. Record changes in our local area</strong></p>
<p>Long-term monitoring gives us information about how species are affected by climate change and what might protect them. The more we know, the more we can anticipate and respond. There are many projects where citizen scientists can assist in the collection of data critical to land managers. Make a difference by joining nature based citizen science projects for <a href="http://aussiebirdcount.org.au/">birds</a>, <a href="http://koalacount.org.au/">koalas</a>, [fungi](https://fungimap.org.au/0, [marine life}(http://www.redmap.org.au/), or <a href="http://vnpa.org.au/page/volunteer/naturewatch">national parks</a>.</p>
<p><strong>9. Promote diversity in all that we do</strong></p>
<p>Diverse populations are more likely to be self-sustaining. Having many different species in our oceans, paddocks and parklands makes those ecosystems more resilient. Genetic diversity is important within species, so we need to select appropriate seed stocks and promote inter-breeding when we can.</p>
<p>Diversity in human communities is also key to ensuring that we have the range of skills and ideas needed in a changing world. </p>
<p><strong>10. Keep positive, informed and engaged</strong></p>
<p>Staying positive inspires others to help nature adapt to big changes. Not everyone has the same skills and interests, but everyone can make a difference. By doing what we can we remind ourselves that we are not helpless. By joining with others we remain part of the solution and benefit from being part of a community.</p>
<p>My summary of the ten things has been necessarily brief. Taken together they are the beginning of a process of developing more thoughtful and complex solutions for managing nature in Victoria. If you want to know more, visit <a href="http://vicnature2050.org/">VicNature 2050</a>.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/54241/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
Last October, I attended a symposium about managing biodiversity in Victoria under climate change. One of the outcomes of that conference is a new website called VicNature 2050, which provides a list of…Susan Lawler, Senior Lecturer, Department of Ecology, Environment and Evolution, La Trobe UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.