logo
Experts issue dire warning after thousands of marine animals wash up dead on coastline: 'It's devastating'

Experts issue dire warning after thousands of marine animals wash up dead on coastline: 'It's devastating'

Yahoo15-07-2025
Something disturbing is unfolding along the South Australia coastline — and the pictures alone are crushing. Over the last few months, beaches have become graveyards, with thousands of fish, shellfish, and other marine animals washing ashore lifeless.
A toxic algal bloom, caused by a species known as Karenia mikimotoi, has been destroying marine life in South Australian waters. The algae produce brevetoxins that are lethal to anything with gills, suffocating fish and invertebrates and causing massive die-offs along the coastline.
At least 9,000 animals across more than 390 species have been reported dead so far — and many believe the actual number is much higher, with most deaths going unrecorded.
"This is incredibly sad," one commenter said on Instagram, where footage of the grim scene has circulated widely. "It's devastating," another added.
While such blooms have occurred elsewhere — in China, the North Atlantic, and New Zealand — what makes this one especially alarming is its size, duration, and intensity. Marine biologist Shauna Murray called it "quite unusual," adding that the limited number of harmful algal bloom experts — just five to 10 in the country — made responding quickly even more difficult.
The consequences of this event extend far beyond what's visible on the shoreline. Toxic blooms don't just kill marine life — they disrupt entire ecosystems. In a similar event in Wellington Harbor in the 1990s, it took three to five years for the ecosystem to stabilize. With this outbreak spanning a much larger area, the timeline for recovery could stretch even longer.
What's fueling the bloom is still under investigation, but rising ocean temperatures — even by a single degree — may be a contributing factor. Murray explained that Karenia mikimotoi thrives under specific conditions, and small shifts in temperature, nutrients, and ocean currents can trigger rapid growth. As global waters continue to warm, scientists worry these events may become more frequent and more deadly.
Though local response teams have managed the situation as well as possible given limited resources, experts say long-term solutions are urgently needed. That includes government funding for marine research, improved monitoring systems, and early detection tools to help communities respond before damage is done.
For individuals, reducing runoff from fertilizers and supporting sustainable seafood practices can help limit the conditions that feed harmful algae. Supporting marine science initiatives and habitat restoration programs can also make a big impact over time.
While we can't reverse what's happened on the South Australian coast, there's still time to learn from it — and to act before the next bloom is triggered.
Do you think America does a good job of protecting its natural beauty?
Definitely
Only in some areas
No way
I'm not sure
Click your choice to see results and speak your mind.
Join our free newsletter for good news and useful tips, and don't miss this cool list of easy ways to help yourself while helping the planet.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Matching Occupational Exoskeletons With The Right Work Task
Matching Occupational Exoskeletons With The Right Work Task

Forbes

timean hour ago

  • Forbes

Matching Occupational Exoskeletons With The Right Work Task

Regardless of whether one thinks of industrial exoskeletons as personal protective equipment (PPE), an engineering solution, or something in between, these wearable devices are still an ergonomic solution that needs to be applied to the correct problem. In the decade that this technology has started to see an ever-growing adoption at work sites, the responsibility of matching the exoskeleton with a job task continues to fall on the end user or buyer. This is a persistent hurdle towards mass adoption, with several solutions on the horizon. How it started: Like any new technology, exoskeleton startups had no choice but to sell their products directly. This meant that if a company wanted to select and compare devices, it had to discover each one and establish unique communication channels. This process can be slow and laborious, and the lessons learned by one buyer are often not shared with others. One exception that exists in the public domain is 'The implementation of cobotics and exoskeletal devices for the Australia red meat processing industry,' a 91-page report published by AMPC comparing 19 industrial exoskeletons. Ten years later, the landscape has gone through some dramatic changes. Multiple standards bodies have looked into classifying and evaluating occupational exoskeletons. Fraunhofer IPA, a leading German research institute, has created a series of parcours to evaluate occupational exoskeletons as product families grouping results by task. Another change is the emergence of distributors, which could either be dedicated to one supplier or carry multiple products from different developers. As a quick note, choosing the correct exoskeleton solution (or deciding if a wearable is even the correct solution) for a repetitive work task is just one piece of the puzzle for a successful implementation. Still, it is often the first step in the process, and an error there will cascade down through pilots and long-term adoption efforts (and will most certainly negatively impact any return business). Even with all these changes, the majority of occupational exoskeletons are still sold directly by their producers, with some alternative acquisition and comparison pathways emerging: First, several dedicated consulting companies have sprouted in North America and Europe, which can provide support in choosing the right exoskeleton system for a fee. Second, some distributors carry devices from multiple developers, and their sales team is becoming more experienced with the strengths of each one. Third, some companies go beyond the role of a distributor and have become closer to an integrator that goes on a journey with the end user and buyers, helping them through the entire process of selection, comparison, and setting up a pilot. Last but not least, in the age of AI and digital tools, there have been multiple systems proposed that can collect data from repetitive work tasks, and some are designed specifically for wearables. The challenge with this digital solution is data collection, which can range from cell phone videos to motion tracking or even full EMG studies, but that is not all, because in addition to data collection, data interpretation with these systems is not trivial and requires effort before it can be condensed and summarized into a digestible report. How could things shape up in the future? There are a few likely scenarios on how the complexity of selecting an occupational exoskeleton could be reduced while creating a more positive and streamlined experience for decision makers and buyers. The car dealership route - developers of occupational exoskeletons could continue to consolidate so that each one has a full portfolio. This would be similar to shopping for a car, where car company A would offer sedans through trucks and everything in between, and the dealership next to it would offer the same range of vehicle classes from a different maker. An alternative to that would be an increase in multi-vendor distributors that already carry competing brands. Some examples of this happening right now would be Stanley Handling and FoxInnovation in Europe, The Exoskeleton Store and ExxoVantage in the Americas and Oceania. With this model, buyers have to visit fewer places and can also leverage the experience of the multi-vendor distributors to assist with selection. The final version could be an investment and improvement in digital tools. This could include online comparison tools, such as those found on car or camera equipment websites, or something more custom that can collect and interpret data from job sites and compare it against the known capabilities of different types and brands of industrial exoskeletons. All this work will lead to the formation of a marketplace, allowing buyers and end users to compare and evaluate industrial wearable solutions against data or prior knowledge. This would simplify the buying process considerably and lower the entry barrier for professionals and companies interested in becoming early adopters of wearable devices that provide direct physical support for their jobs.

Horrifyingly Huge New Stick Insect Discovered Exactly Where You Think
Horrifyingly Huge New Stick Insect Discovered Exactly Where You Think

Gizmodo

time2 hours ago

  • Gizmodo

Horrifyingly Huge New Stick Insect Discovered Exactly Where You Think

Australia is famous for hosting the weirdest creatures we've ever seen. Sometimes, these weird creatures also come extra-large—like the newly discovered stick insect that researchers believe may be the heaviest of all Aussie insects. The insect, named Acrohylla alta, is about 15 inches (40 centimeters) long—about the height of a bowling pin—and weighs around 0.1 pounds (44 grams), slightly lighter than the heaviest golf ball. In a recent Zootaxa paper, wildlife researchers Angus Emmott and Ross Coupland describe in stunning detail the new insect, which they found deep within the rainforests of the Atherton Tablelands, an elevated plateau in southeastern Australia that's about 3,000 feet (900 meters) high. A strange photograph of an unknown species sent to the pair prompted the researchers' trip to the Atherton Tablelands. Their outings typically transpired at night, when stick insects tend to be more active compared to the day, when they're at risk of predation from birds. After scouring the forests for hours on end with no luck, they finally managed to spot a lanky creature that matched the image in the mysterious photograph. Quietly, the researchers watched as the insect—which turned out to be female—laid eggs that looked nothing like anything they'd ever seen before. It was at this point that they became certain they were looking at an entirely new species of stick insect, Emmott recalled to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC). So far, scientists have only observed two female Acrohylla alta specimens, one from the researchers' outing and another found in a garden belonging to Emmott's friend. Based on these two discoveries, the researchers surmise that these supersized insects are exceptionally elusive, living in the highest canopies of high-altitude forests. 'Unless a bird knocks one down or you get a cyclone or a storm that knocks one down, we just can't find them up there in the canopy,' Emmott said. As for how they got so big, Emmott believes it may be on account of them living in a cool, wet environment. A larger body mass may have helped them to survive colder temperatures, he explained in a university statement. The new discovery illustrates how much we still don't know about these ancient rainforests, Peter Valentine, an environmental scientist at James Cook University who was not involved in the new work, told ABC. It's always exciting news when we discover new species, but at the same time it raises concerns about how well we're preserving rainforests, Valentine added. Emmott shares this sentiment. 'The scary thing is we may be losing species before we even know they exist,' he said. 'In the world of invertebrates, there is so much that we don't know yet and so many that are yet to be described.' In the meantime, Emmott says he'd like to find a male individual from the species, which would surely reveal even more about these extra-large critters.

Going Wild (Again): Feral Rabbits In Australia Evolve New Morphologies
Going Wild (Again): Feral Rabbits In Australia Evolve New Morphologies

Forbes

time2 hours ago

  • Forbes

Going Wild (Again): Feral Rabbits In Australia Evolve New Morphologies

Is 'feralization' a process of recapitulating what domesticated animals once looked like and once were? How does domestication change wild animals? When domesticated animals return to a wild state, is this 'feralization' a process of recapitulating what these animals once looked like and once were? Even Charles Darwin pondered the effects of domestication in his book, The variation of animals and plants under domestication, initially published in 1869 (ref). But first, let's understand a little better about feralization: what is it? 'Feralization is the process by which domestic animals become established in an environment without purposeful assistance from humans,' explained the study's lead author, evolutionary biologist Emma Sherratt, an Associate Professor at the University of Adelaide, where she specializes in macroevolution and morphometric methods. This study was part of Professor Sherratt's ARC Future Fellowship. To do this study, Professor Sherratt collaborated with a team of international experts to assess the body sizes and skull shapes of domesticated, feral and wild rabbits. Their study revealed that when domesticated rabbit breeds return to the wild and feralize, they do not simply revert to their wild form – instead, they undergo distinct, novel anatomical changes. 'While you might expect that a feral animal would revert to body types seen in wild populations, we found that feral rabbits' body-size and skull-shape range is somewhere between wild and domestic rabbits, but also overlaps with them in large parts,' Professor Sherratt briefly explained. Australia's feral rabbits are descendants of rabbits that newly arriving European colonists brought with them to supply meat and fur. The European rabbit, Oryctolagus cuniculus, or coney, is originally native to the Iberian Peninsula and southwestern France, but currently has an almost global presence. They live in grasslands and are herbivorous, mainly eating grasses and leaves, though they consume all sorts of things, including a variety of berries and even food crops, making them a persistent and formidable agricultural pest. They dig burrows to live in and produce many litters of blind and helpless offspring, known as kits or kittens, every year. The European rabbit is the only rabbit species that has been widely domesticated for meat, fur, wool, or as a pet, so all domesticated rabbits belong to the same species. Paradoxically, this rabbit species is endangered in its native range, despite being an invasive pest just about everywhere else. The goal of Professor Sherratt and collaborators' study was to measure and characterize the morphological differences of the European rabbit skull in wild, feral and domestic animals sampled globally, and contrast those measurements with other rabbit species. To do this, they sampled 912 rabbit specimens held by natural history museums or collected by invasive species control programs. They included wild individuals collected in their contemporary native range in Spain, Portugal and southwestern France, along with independent feral populations and domestic rabbits collected from 20 different worldwide locations (countries, territories, islands). Professor Sherratt and collaborators used well-established scientific methods to quantify shape and size variation in the skull, and to assess size-related (allometric) shape variations that this species acquired through several hundred years of domestication and feralization. Why focus specifically on these animals' skull shapes and sizes? What do these dimensions tell you? '[W]e focus on skull shape because it tells us how animals interact with their environment, from feeding, sensing and even how they move,' Professor Sherratt replied. Professor Sherratt and collaborators examined whether domestic rabbits have predictable skull proportions – relatively shorter face length and smaller braincase size, which are hypothesized to be part of 'domestication syndrome' – and whether feralization has resulted in a reversion to the original wild form. Finally, they compared their measurements to an existing dataset of 24 rabbit species that included representatives of all 11 modern rabbit genera to provide an evolutionary baseline of morphological changes with which to compare wild, feral and domesticated rabbits. Not surprisingly, Professor Sherratt and collaborators discovered that the 121 domesticated study rabbits showed much more variation in skull shape and size than do wild and feral rabbits, with substantial shape differences (figure 1A,B), which is attributed in part to their greater diversity in body size (figure 1C). Why is there so much variation in feral rabbits' skulls? To answer this, Professor Sherratt and collaborators investigated several hypotheses regarding the feralization process. 'Exposure to different environments and predators in introduced ranges may drive rabbit populations to evolve different traits that help them survive in novel environments, as has been shown in other species,' proposed Professor Sherratt. 'Alternatively, rabbits may be able to express more trait plasticity in environments with fewer evolutionary pressures,' Professor Sherratt continued. 'In particular, relaxed functional demands in habitats that are free of large predators, such as Australia and New Zealand, might drive body size variation, which we know drives cranial shape variation in introduced rabbits.' Does the process of feralization follow a precise, predictable pathway? 'Because the range is so variable and sometimes like neither wild nor domestic, feralization in rabbits is not morphologically predictable if extrapolated from the wild or the domestic stock,' Professor Sherratt replied. What surprised you most about this study's findings? 'That feral rabbits can get so big!" replied Professor Sherratt in email. 'Almost double the mass of one from southern Spain.' Why don't rabbits show as much morphological diversity as dogs or cats? For example, a recent study (ref) found that dogs and cats have both been selected to have short faces, so why isn't this seen in rabbits? 'We think this is because the long face of rabbits is a biomechanical necessity for this species,' explained Professor Sherratt in email. 'Important for herbivores.' Why is this research so important? 'Understanding how animals change when they become feral and invade new habitats helps us to predict what effect other invasive animals will have on our environment, and how we may mitigate their success.' What's next? 'Our next paper will look at the environmental factors that have influenced the diversity of skull shapes in Australia,' Professor Sherratt replied in email. '[For example], we have found that temperatures and precipitation have a lot of influence on the traits we see.' Source: Emma Sherratt, Christine Böhmer, Cécile Callou, Thomas J. Nelson, Rishab Pillai, Irina Ruf, Thomas J. Sanger, Julia Schaar, Kévin Le Verger, Brian Kraatz and Madeleine Geiger (2025). From wild to domestic and in between: how domestication and feralization changed the morphology of rabbits, Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 292:20251150 | doi:10.1098/rspb.2025.1150 © Copyright by GrrlScientist | hosted by Forbes | Socials: Bluesky | CounterSocial | LinkedIn | Mastodon Science | Spoutible | SubStack | Threads | Tumblr | Twitter

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store