A deadly fungus threatens to wipe out 100 frog species – here’s how it can be stopped

Deborah Bower, University of New England and Simon Clulow, Macquarie University

What would the world be like without frogs? Earth is in its sixth mass extinction event and amphibians are among the hardest hit.

But in the island of New Guinea, home to 6% of the world’s frog species, there’s a rare opportunity to save them from the potential conservation disaster of a chytrid fungus outbreak.

The amphibian chytrid fungus is a microscopic, aquatic fungus that infects a protein in frog skin. It interferes with the balance of electrolytes and, in turn, effectively gives frogs a heart attack.

---

Read more:
Tiny frogs face a troubled future in New Guinea’s tropical mountains

---

If the amphibian chytrid fungus invades New Guinea, we estimate 100 species of frogs could decline or become extinct. This disease, which emerged in the 1980s, has already wiped out 90 species of frogs around the world.

The New Guinean horned land frog, Sphenophryne cornuta, with young. These frogs are under threat from a fungus that has wiped out 90 frog species around the world.
Stephen Richards

Collaborating with 30 international scientists, we developed a way to save New Guinea’s frog species from a mass extinction, one that’s predictable and preventable. We need urgent, unified, international action to prepare for the arrival of the deadly fungus, to slow its spread after it arrives and to limit its impact on the island.

It’s rare we can identify a conservation disaster before it occurs, but a long history of amphibian declines in Australia and South America has equipped us with the knowledge to protect areas where the amphibian chytrid fungus is yet to reach.

Why we should care about frogs

Like Australian frogs, New Guinea frogs may be particularly vulnerable to the chytrid fungus. These frogs share a close genetic relationship suggesting that, if exposed, New Guinea frogs may respond similarly to Australian ones, where around 16% of frog species are affected.

Impacted frogs include corroboree frogs, Australian lacelid frogs and green and golden bell frogs.

---

Read more:
Australian endangered species: Southern Corroboree Frog

---

Losing so many species can have many terrible impacts. Tadpoles and frogs are important because they help recycle nutrients and break down leaf litter. They are also prey for larger mammals and reptiles, and predators of insects, invertebrates and small vertebrates. They help keep insect plagues, such as those from flies and mosquitoes, in check.

Frogs are also an important source of human medical advancements – they were even used for a human pregnancy test until the 1950s.

A call to action to protect frogs

Frogs are one of the most threatened groups of species in the world – around 40% are threatened with extinction.

And species conservation is more expensive once the species are threatened. They can be more costly to collect and more precious to maintain, with a greater need for wider input from recovery groups to achieve rapid results.

In our study, we highlight the increased costs and requirements for establishing captive breeding for two species of closely related barred frog, one common and one threatened. We determined that waiting until a species is threatened dramatically increases the costs and effort required to establish a successful breeding program. The risks of it failing also increase.

Our research draws on lessons learned from other emerging diseases and approaches taken in other countries. By addressing the criteria of preparedness, prevention, detection, response and recovery, we detail a call for action to protect the frogs of New Guinea. It will require dedicated funding, a contingency plan for the likely, eventual arrival of the disease and a task force to oversee it.

---

Read more:
Frogs v fungus: time is running out to save seven unique species from disease

---

This task force would oversee active monitoring for disease and prepare an action plan to implement on the disease’s arrival. We have already begun to establish facilities that can handle captive breeding and gene banking for frogs in collaboration with PNG counterparts.

The need for amphibian conservation in New Guinea also presents an opportunity for investment and training of local scientists. More species unknown to science will be described and the secret habits of these unique frogs will be discovered before they are potentially lost.

Conservation in New Guinea is complicated

The island of New Guinea is governed by Papua New Guinea on the eastern side and Indonesia on the western side. So it will take a coordinated approach to reduce risks in both countries for successful biosecurity.

Historically, New Guinea has had little import or tourism. But as the country develops, it becomes more at risk of emerging diseases through increased trade and and entry of tourists from chytrid-infected regions, especially with little biosecurity at entry ports.

What’s more, many species there are unknown to science and few ecological studies have documented their habitat requirements. Unlike Australia, many of New Guinea’s frogs have adapted for life in the wet rainforest.

Rather than developing into tadpoles that live in water, more than 200 frog species in New Guinea hatch from their eggs as fully formed baby frogs. It’s difficult for us to predict how the amphibian chytrid fungus will affect these frogs because Australia has only a handful of these types of species.

We don’t know how to remove the amphibian chytrid fungus from large areas once it has invaded, so strict biosecurity and conservation contingency planning is needed to protect New Guinea’s frogs.

---

Read more:
Friday essay: frogwatching – charting climate change’s impact in the here and now

---

For example, all incoming goods into New Guinea should be inspected for possible hitchhiker frogs that could carry chytrid. Camping or hiking equipment carried by tourists should also be closely inspected for attached mud, which could harbour the pathogen, as is the case in Australia.

International researchers have experience in emerging amphibian diseases. Papua New Guineans and Indonesians have traditional and ecological expertise. Together we have the opportunity to avert another mass decline of frogs. Without taking action, we could lose a hundred more species from the world and take another step towards mass extinction.

Deborah Bower, Lecturer in Ecosystem Rehabilitation, University of New England and Simon Clulow, MQ Research Fellow, Macquarie University

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

Advertisement

Sexual aggression key to spread of deadly tumours in Tasmanian devils

Both male and female Tasmanian devils can become very violent during sexual interactions.
Shutterstock/PARFENOV

David Hamilton, University of Tasmania; Elissa Cameron, University of Tasmania; Menna Elizabeth Jones, University of Tasmania, and Rodrigo Hamede, University of Tasmania

Tasmanian devils have a reputation as a fearsome animal – most of the time this is undeserved. When it comes to the mating season, however, it’s a fair judgement. Between February and April, mating can be incredibly aggressive, with male and female devils prone to biting one another both during and after the act.

That could be deadly for the devils, according to new research published online in the journal Behavioral Ecology.

Unfortunately, biting drives the spread of devil facial tumour disease (DFTD) a transmissible cancer that has been afflicting the species since the mid-1990s.

---

Read more:
Survival of the fittest? Perhaps not if you’re a Tasmanian devil

---

DFTD is highly unusual for a cancer because it can transfer between individual devils and grow in its new host.

The fact that devils regularly bite one another around the mouth means tumour cells can easily transfer from an infected devil to an open wound on a healthy devil. This makes the buildup of wounds in devils extremely important to our understanding of this disease.

When devils mate

In our study, we examined the accumulation of bite wounds in a population of wild devils in northwest Tasmania.

We found males were much more likely than females to pick up high numbers of bite wounds. But these wounds appear to be related to the amount of time males spent in mating season interactions with females, as opposed to fights with other males (as we had previously thought).

In the mating season, after male devils have mated with females, they spend an extended period either confining the female in a den, or closely following her to make sure other males are unable to mate with her.

During our study we found this behaviour could go on for up to two weeks in the wild. The process is known as “mate guarding” and is relatively common in the animal kingdom.

We found the longer males spent engaging in mate guarding behaviour, the more bite wounds they received. This would seem to put successful males, who mate with a high number of females, in the firing line when it comes to acquiring DFTD.

But no pattern of sex bias in DFTD prevalence has ever been observed in the wild.

So how does this fit with our study on the increased vulnerability in males?

A Tasmanian devil with the Devil Facial Tumour Disease.
Menna Jones/PLOS ONE, CC BY

Disease transfer

A crucial unknown in the DFTD transmission process involves directionality – which way the deadly disease is passed on by a devil. There are two possibilities:

1. an infected devil bites an uninfected animal, transferring tumour cells (from its teeth or saliva) directly into the wound it causes

2. an uninfected devil bites into tumours on an infected animal, and cells transfer into an open wound inside the biter’s mouth.

The reality is likely to involve a combination of the two.

Our results indicate that most disease transmission occurs during extended mating season interactions, when females appear to be causing high numbers of wounds to their mates.

If DFTD can transfer in either direction during these encounters, then both the males receiving the wounds and the females causing them would be equally at risk of acquiring the disease.

Future of the devil

We have highlighted mating season encounters between the sexes as crucial transmission points for the spread of DFTD. The behaviour of male devils appears to be driving patterns that support transmission of the disease.

This information is important for potential disease management options, as it pinpoints males in good condition – who are likely to be reproductively successful – as targets for management interventions, such as vaccinations.

Most importantly, these results add one more piece to the puzzle of rapid evolution in the Tasmanian devil, in response to the strong evolutionary pressure DFTD is placing on this iconic species. With almost 100% mortality once devils reach breeding age, any advantage an individual devil might have to survive a little longer and reproduce should – over time – spread through the population.

The species has already shown remarkably rapid shifts in their life history and genome, while some are able to mount an immune response and recover from the tumours.

DFTD is spread through biting so we can expect strong evolutionary pressure for devils to become less aggressive towards each other over time.

With these new results, we can now pinpoint for the first time who (healthy, successful males) and when (guarding females after mating) the intense selection pressure on aggressive behaviour in devils will operate.

---

Read more:
Could Tassie devils help control feral cats on the mainland? Fossils say yes

---

Ultimately, devils will solve the DFTD problem themselves by evolving resistance, tolerance and changing their behaviour. One of the best things we can do is let evolution take its course, giving a helping hand along the way via well guided management actions.

David Hamilton, PhD Candidate in Zoology, University of Tasmania; Elissa Cameron, Professor of Wildlife Ecology, University of Tasmania; Menna Elizabeth Jones, Associate Professor in Zoology, University of Tasmania, and Rodrigo Hamede, Post Doctoral Research Fellow, Conservation Biology and Wildlife Management, University of Tasmania

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

Deadly frog fungus has wiped out 90 species and threatens hundreds more

The Mossy Red-eyed Frog is among hundreds of species threatened with extinction at the hands of chytrid fungus.
Jonathan Kolby/Honduras Amphibian Rescue and Conservation Center

Benjamin Scheele, Australian National University and Claire Foster, Australian National University

It started off as an enigma. Biologists at field sites around the world reported that frogs had simply disappeared. Costa Rica, 1987: the golden toad, missing. Australia, 1979: the gastric brooding frog, gone. In Ecuador, Arthur’s stubfoot toad was last seen in 1988.

By 1990, cases of unexplained frog declines were piling up. These were not isolated incidents; it was a global pattern – one that we now know was due to chytridiomycosis, a fungal disease that was infecting and killing a huge range of frogs, toads and salamanders.

Our research, published today in Science, reveals the global number of amphibian species affected. At least 501 species have declined due to chytrid, and 90 of them are confirmed or believed extinct.

---

Read more:
Where did the frog pandemic come from?

---

When biologists first began to investigate the mysterious species disappearances, they were at a loss to explain them. In many cases, species declined rapidly in seemingly pristine habitat.

Species declines typically have obvious causes, such as habitat loss or introduced species like rats. But this was different.

The first big breakthrough came in 1998, when a team of Australian and international scientists led by Lee Berger discovered amphibian chytrid fungus. Their research showed that this unusual fungal pathogen was the cause of frog declines in the rainforests of Australia and Central America.

However, there were still many unknowns. Where did this pathogen come from? How does it kill frogs? And why were so many different species affected?

After years of painstaking research, biologists have filled in many pieces of the puzzle. In 2009, researchers discovered how chytrid fungus kills frogs. In 2018, the Korean peninsula was pinpointed as the likely origin of the most deadly lineage of chytrid fungus, and human dispersal of amphibians suggested as a likely source of the global spread of the pathogen.

Yet as the mystery was slowly but surely unravelled, a key question remained: how many amphibian species have been affected by chytrid fungus?

Early estimates suggested that about 200 species were affected. Our new study reveals the total is unfortunately much larger: 501 species have declined, and 90 confirmed or suspected to have been killed off altogether.

The toll taken by chytrid fungus on amphibians around the world. Each bar represents one species; colours reveal the extent of population declines.
Scheele et al. Science 2019

Devastating killer

These numbers put chytrid fungus in the worst league of invasive species worldwide, threatening similar numbers of species as rats and cats. The worst-hit areas have been in Australia and Central and South America, which have many different frog species, as well as ideal conditions for the growth of chytrid fungus.

Large species and those with small distributions and elevational ranges have been the mostly likely to experience severe declines or extinctions.

Together with 41 amphibian experts from around the world, we pieced together information on the timing of species declines using published records, survey data, and museum collections. We found that declines peaked globally in the 1980s, about 15 years before the disease was even discovered. This peak coincides with biologists’ anecdotal reports of unusual amphibian declines that occurred with increasing frequency in the late 1980s.

Encouragingly, some species have shown signs of natural recovery. Twelve per cent of the 501 species have begun to recover in some locations. But for the vast majority of species, population numbers are still far below what they once were.

Most of the afflicted species have not yet begun to bounce back, and many continue to decline. Rapid and substantial action from governments and conservation organisations is needed if we are to keep these species off the extinct list.

---

Read more:
Saving amphibians from a deadly fungus means acting without knowing all the answers

---

In Australia, chytrid fungus has caused the decline of 43 frog species. Of these, seven are now extinct and six are at high risk of extinction due to severe and ongoing declines. The conservation of these species is dependent on targeted management, such as the recovery program for the iconic corroboree frogs.

The southern corroboree frog: hopefully not a disappearing icon.
Corey Doughty

Importantly, there are still some areas of the world that chytrid has not yet reached, such as New Guinea. Stopping chytrid fungus spreading to these areas will require a dramatic reduction in the global trade of amphibians, as well as increased biosecurity measures.

The unprecedented deadliness of a single disease affecting an entire class of animals highlights the need for governments and international organisations to take the threat of wildlife disease seriously. Losing more amazing species like the golden toad and gastric brooding frog is a tragedy that we can avoid.

Benjamin Scheele, Research Fellow in Ecology, Australian National University and Claire Foster, Research Fellow in Ecology and Conservation, Australian National University

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

Some tropical frogs may be developing resistance to a deadly fungal disease – but now salamanders are at risk

Panamanian golden frogs (Atelopus zeteki) are listed as critically endangered, and may be extinct in the wild.
Jeff Kubina, CC BY-SA

Louise Rollins-Smith, Vanderbilt University

My office is filled with colorful images of frogs, toads and salamanders from around the world, some of which I have collected over 40 years as an immunologist and microbiologist, studying amphibian immunity and diseases. These jewels of nature are mostly silent working members of many aquatic ecosystems.

The exception to the silence is when male frogs and toads call to entice females to mate. These noisy creatures are often wonderful little ventriloquists. They can be calling barely inches from your nose, and yet blend so completely into the environment that they are unseen. I have seen tropical frogs in Panama and native frogs of Tennessee perform this trick, seemingly mocking my attempts to capture them.

My current research is focused on interactions between amphibians and two novel chytrid pathogens that are linked to global amphibian declines. One, Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis ( abbreviated as Bd), has caused mass frog dieoffs around the world. Recently my lab group contributed to a study showing that some species of amphibians in Panama that had declined due to Bd infections are recovering. Although the pathogen has not changed, these species appear to have developed better skin defenses than members of the same species had when Bd first appeared.

This is very good news, but those who love amphibians need to remain vigilant and continue to monitor these recovering populations. A second reason for concern is the discovery of a closely related chytrid, Batrachochytrium salamandrivorans (Bsal), which seems to be more harmful to salamanders and newts.

Amphibian chytrid fungus has been detected in at least 52 countries and 516 species worldwide.
USDA Forest Service

Global frog decline

More than a decade ago, an epidemic of a deadly disease called chytridiomycosis swept through amphibian populations in Panama. The infection was caused by a chytrid fungus, Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis. Scientists from a number of universities, working with the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute in Panama, reported that chytridiomycosis was moving predictably from west to east from Costa Rica across Panama toward Colombia.

I was part of an international group of scientists, funded by the National Science Foundation, who were trying to understand the disease and whether amphibians had effective immune defenses against the fungus. Two members of my lab group traveled to Panama yearly from 2004 through 2008, and were able to look at skin secretions from multiple frog species before and after the epidemic of chytridiomycosis hit.

Many amphibians have granular glands in their skin that synthesize and sequester antimicrobial peptides (AMPs) and other defensive molecules. When the animal is alarmed or injured, the defensive molecules are released to cleanse and protect the skin.

Through mechanisms that remain a mystery, we observed that these skin defenses seemed to improve after the pathogen entered the amphibian communities. Still, many frog populations in this area suffered severe declines. A global assessment published in 2004 showed that 43 percent of amphibian species were declining and 32 percent of species were threatened.

In Panama, Smithsonian scientists operate the largest amphibian conservation facility of its kind in the world.

Signs of resistance

In 2012-2013, my colleagues ventured to some of the same sites in Panama at which amphibians had disappeared. To our great delight, some of the species were partially recovering, at least enough so that they could be found and sampled again.

We wanted to know whether this was happening because the pathogen had become less virulent, or for some other reason, including the possibility that the frogs were developing more effective responses. To find out, we analyzed multiple measures of Bd‘s virulence, including its ability to infect frogs that had never been exposed to it; its rate of growth in culture; whether it had undergone genetic changes that would show loss of some possible virulence characteristics; and its ability to inhibit frogs’ immune cells.

As our group recently reported, we found that the pathogen had not changed. However, we were able to show that for some species, frog skin secretions we collected from frogs in populations that had persisted were better able to inhibit the fungus in a culture system than those from frogs that had never been exposed to the fungus.

The prospect that some frog species in some places in Panama are recovering in spite of the continuing presence of this virulent pathogen is fantastic news, but it is too soon to celebrate. The recovery process is very slow, and scientists need to continue monitoring the frogs and learn more about their immune defenses. Protecting their habitat, which is threatened by deforestation and water pollution, will also be a key factor for the long-term survival of these unique amphibian species in Panama.

If Bsal fungus spreads to North America, it could wipe out species like this Northern Slimy Salamander (Plethodon glutinosus).
Marshal Hedin, CC BY

Salamanders (and frogs) at risk

On a global scale, Bd is not the only threat. A second pathogenic chytrid fungus called Batrachochytrium salamandrivorans (abbreviated as Bsal) was recently identified in Europe, and has decimated some salamander populations in the Netherlands and Belgium. This sister species probably was accidentally imported into Europe from Asia, and seems to be a greater threat to salamanders than to frogs or toads.

Bsal has not yet been detected in North America. I am part of a new consortium of scientists that has formed a Bsal task force to study whether it could become invasive here, and which species might be most adversely affected.

In January 2016 the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service listed 201 salamander species as potentially injurious to wildlife because of their their potential to introduce Bsal into the United States. This step made it illegal to import or ship any of these species between the continental United States, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico or any possession of the United States.

The Bsal task force is currently developing a strategic plan that lists the most urgent research needs to prevent accidental introduction and monitor vulnerable populations. In October 2017 a group of scientists and conservation organizations urged the U.S. government to suspend all imports of frogs and salamanders to the United States.

In short, it is too early to relax. There also are many other potential stressors of amphibian populations including climate change, decreasing habitats and disease. Those of us who cherish amphibian diversity will continue to worry for some time to come.

Louise Rollins-Smith, Associate Professor of Pathology, Microbiology and Immunology, Vanderbilt University

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Why do shark bites seem to be more deadly in Australia than elsewhere?

White sharks’ ability to stay warm in cold water makes them efficient long-range hunters.
Denice Askebrink

Blake Chapman, The University of Queensland

The first thing to say about shark attack deaths is that they are very rare, with only about two per year in Australia. But still, every year without fail, people die from shark bites, both here and around the world.

According to official statistics, the United States records by far the most unprovoked shark bites – an average of 45 per year over the past decade. However, only 1.3% of these incidents were fatal – 0.6 deaths per year.

Australia records fewer bites than the US (an average of 14 per year), but a much greater proportion of them are deadly: (1.5 per year, or close to 11%). So what is it that (relatively speaking) makes Australia more prone to deadly shark attacks?

---

Read more: Not just nets: how to stop shark attacks without killing sharks

---

My new book Shark Attacks: Myths, Misunderstandings and Human Fear addresses this and other questions about sharks, with the aim of dispelling common myths and providing the knowledge needed for decisions made on science rather than fear and emotion.

A perfect storm

In a way, Australia has a “perfect storm” of conditions for serious shark attacks. The first reason is that Australians (and visitors to Australia) love the ocean. Some 85% of Australians live within 50km of the coast, and Australian coastal areas account for the most prominent growth outside of capital cities. Beaches are also favoured recreational destinations in Australia and coastal locations are heavily targeted in tourism, attracting nearly 60% of international tourists.

Next, the sharks themselves. Australia has the world’s highest diversity of sharks and rays, including roughly 180 of the 509 known shark species.

But neither of these factors, even taken together, is enough to explain why deaths are more prevalent in Australia. What we really need to look at is dangerous sharks.

Only 26 shark species have been definitively identified as biting humans without provocation, although the true number is likely to be somewhat higher. Of these 26 species, 22 (85%) are found in Australian waters.

All 11 of the species known to have caused fatal unprovoked bites on humans can be found in Australian waters. And crucially, Australia’s coastal waters are home to all of the “big three” deadly species: white sharks, tiger sharks, and bull sharks.

Australia’s waters are home to all three of the ‘big three’ shark species.
Denice Askebrink

These species account for all but three of the 27 fatal shark attacks worldwide from 1982-2011. All of the big three species are inquisitive, regularly frequent coastal environments, and are formidably big and strong.

They also have complex, unpredictable behaviour. But despite this difficulty, we can identify factors that make them more likely to swim in areas routinely used by humans.

Warming to it

White sharks have a physiological adaptation that allows them to maintain a vast global distribution, and hence are responsible for the northernmost and southernmost recorded shark bites on humans.

Most fish are ectothermic, or cold-blooded, with body temperatures very close to that of the surrounding water. This restricts their range to places where the water temperature is optimal.

In contrast, white sharks and a few other related species can retain the heat generated by their muscles predominantly during swimming, enabling them to be swift and agile predators even in cold water. They do this with the help of bunches of parallel arteries and veins in their brains, eyes, muscles and stomachs that function as “heat exchangers” between incoming and outgoing blood, allowing them to keep these crucial organs warm.

White sharks are so good at retaining heat that their core body temperature can be up to 14.3℃ above the surrounding water temperature. This allows them to move seasonally up and down Australia’s east and west coasts, presumably following migrating prey species.

Getting salty

Bull sharks, meanwhile, are the only sharks known to withstand wide variations in water salinity. This means they can easily move from salty oceans to brackish estuaries and even travel thousands of kilometres up river systems. As a result they can overlap with human use areas such as canals, estuaries, rivers and even some lakes. One female bull shark was observed making a 4,000km round-trip to give birth in a secluded Madagascan estuary rather than the open ocean.

As a result, most bull sharks found in river systems are juveniles, but these areas may also be home to large, pregnant females who need to eat more prey to sustain themselves. As rivers are often clouded by sediment, there is an increased risk that a human may be mistaken for prey in this low-visibility environment.

Bull sharks can roam in rivers as well as oceans.
Albert Kok/Wikimedia Commons

Opportunistic tigers

Tiger sharks mainly stay in coastal waters, although they also venture into the open ocean. Their movements are unpredictable, they eat a wide range of prey, are naturally curious and opportunistic, and can be aggressive to humans.

Tiger sharks are clever too – they are thought to use “cognitive maps” to navigate between distant foraging areas, and have hunting ranges that span hundreds of thousands of square kilometres so as to maintain the element of surprise. As a result, tiger sharks’ distribution in Australian waters covers all but the country’s southern coast.

Tiger sharks like to keep their prey guessing.
Albert Kok/Wikimedia Commons, CC BY-SA

---

Read more: Finally, a proven way to keep great white sharks at arm’s length

---

Taken together, it’s clear that Australia’s waters are home to three predators that can pose a real danger, even if only an accidental one, to humans.

But remember that shark attacks are incredibly rare events, and fatal ones even rarer still. There are also lots of tips we can use to minimise the risk of having a negative encounter with a shark.

Don’t swim in murky, turbid or dimly lit water, as sharks may not be able to see you properly (and you may not be able to see them). Avoid swimming in canals, or far from the shore, or along dropoffs. Swim in designated areas and with others, and avoid swimming where baitfish (or bait) may be present. And of course, always trust your instincts.

Blake Chapman, Adjunct Research Fellow, Science Communicator, The University of Queensland

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

A venomous paradox: how deadly are Australia’s snakes?

Ronelle Welton, University of Melbourne and Peter Hobbins, University of Sydney

Australia is renowned worldwide for our venomous and poisonous creatures, from snakes, spiders and ticks on land, to lethal jellyfish, stingrays and stonefish in our waters. Even the shy platypus can inflict excruciating pain if handled without due care.

Yet while injuries and deaths caused by venomous snakes and jellyfish are often sensationalised in the media, and feared by international visitors, a recent review found that very few “deadly” Australian animals actually cause deaths. Between 2000 and 2013, there were two fatalities per year from snake bites across Australia, while the average for bee stings was 2.2 and for jellyfish 0.25, or one death every four years. For spiders – including our notorious redbacks and Sydney funnel-webs – the average was zero.

Snakes nevertheless strike fear into many people who live in or visit Australia. When we have a higher risk of injury or death from burns, horses, bee stings, drownings and car accidents, why don’t we fear these hazards as we do the sight of a snake?

Snakes and statistics through history

James Bray, Venomous and Non-Venomous Reptiles (1897).
State Library of NSW/Peter Hobbins

When settlers arrived in Australia in the late 18th century, they believed that Australian snakes were harmless. By 1805 it was accepted that local serpents might kill humans, but they were hardly feared in the same way as the American rattlesnake or Indian cobra.

Until the 1820s, less than one human death from snake bite was recorded each year; in 1827 visiting surgeon Peter Cunningham remarked that:

…comparatively few deaths [have] taken place from this cause since the foundation of the colony.

Similar observations were made into the 1840s. What the colonists did note, however, was the significant death toll among their “exotic” imported animals, from cats and sheep to highly valuable horses and oxen.

By the 1850s, living experiments in domestic creatures – especially chickens and dogs – were standard fare for travelling antidote sellers. Given the popularity of these public snake bite demonstrations, from the 1860s, doctors and naturalists also took to experimenting with captive animals. It was during this period that official statistics on deaths began to be collated across the Australian colonies.

One sample from 1864–74, for instance, reported an average of four snake bite deaths per year across Victoria, or one death per 175,000 colonists. In contrast, during the same period one in 6,000 Indians died from snake bites each year; little wonder that around the world, Australian snakes were considered trifling.

The 1890s represented a dramatic period of divergence, though. On one hand, statistical studies in 1882–92 suggested that on average, 11 people died annually from snake bite across Australia. Similar data compiled in Victoria led physician James Barrett to declare in 1892 that snakes posed “one of the most insignificant causes of death in our midst”. On the other hand, by 1895 standardised laboratory studies, aimed especially at producing an effective antivenom, saw a global recognition that Australian snake venoms were among the most potent in the world.

In Sydney, physiologist Charles Martin claimed that Australian tiger snake venom was as powerful as that of the cobra. In 1902, his collaborator Frank Tidswell ranked local tiger snake, brown snake and death adder venoms at the top of the global toxicity table.

Over the ensuing century, this paradox has remained: why do so few Australians die from snake bites when our serpents have the world’s most potent venoms? Why aren’t they more deadly?

Deadly fear

Scientific research has delivered ever-expanding knowledge about venoms, what they do, how they work, how they affect us clinically, and their comparative “potency” based on animal studies. In response we have introduced first aid measures, guidelines, effective clinical management and treatment, which in Australia forms one of the world’s best emergency health care systems.

In contrast, countries where snakebites cause far more deaths generally face challenges in accessing affordable essential medicines, prevention and education options.

Snakes form an essential part of their ecosystems. They do not “attack” humans, mostly being shy animals, but are defensive and prefer to escape.

It would seem that venom potency is not a good measure of deadliness, and it may be a combination of our history, behaviour and belief that creates a cultural fear.

Without understating the potential danger posed by venomous snakes, what we offer instead is reassurance. As nearly two centuries of statistics and clinical experience suggest, most snake bites in Australia are survivable, if managed quickly, calmly and effectively. In fact, encounters with humans all too often prove deadly to the snakes themselves – a paradox that is within our power to change.

---

The authors are presenting on this topic at the upcoming Emerging Issues in Science and Society event at Deakin University’s Downtown campus on 6 July 2017. Sponsored by the Australian Academy of Science and Deakin University’s Science and Society Network.

The event brings together scientists with humanities and social science scholars to discuss common questions from different angles. For more information on the event and to book tickets see the event’s website.

Ronelle Welton, Scientist, University of Melbourne and Peter Hobbins, ARC DECRA Fellow, University of Sydney

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Why bats don’t get get sick from the deadly diseases they carry

Michelle Baker, CSIRO

Bats are a natural host for more than 100 viruses, some of which are lethal to people. These include Middle Eastern Respiratory Syndrome (MERS), Ebola and Hendra virus. These viruses are among the most dangerous pathogens to humans and yet an infected bat does not get sick or show signs of disease from these viruses.

The recent Ebola outbreak in West Africa showed the devastating impact such diseases can have on human populations.

As treatments in the form of therapeutics or vaccines rarely exist for emerging diseases, future outbreaks of disease have the potential to result in similar outcomes.

Understanding disease emergence from wildlife and the mechanisms responsible for the control of pathogens in their natural hosts provides a chance to design new treatments for human disease.

The path to discovery

Until recently, bats were among the least studied groups of mammals, particularly in regard to their immune responses.

But even early studies of virus-infected bats provided clues that there may be differences in the immune responses of bats. It was observed that some bats were capable of clearing viral infection in the absence of an antibody response.

Antibodies are one of the hallmarks of the immune response and allow the host to respond more rapidly to subsequent infection when the same pathogen invades the body. The absence of a detectable antibody response within the bat was striking and drew our attention to the earliest stages of the immune response, called the innate immune system.

The recent sequencing of the first bat genome provided some of the first clues that the innate immune system may be key to the ability of bats to control viral infection. There is intriguing evidence for unique changes in innate immune genes associated with the evolution of flight, and bats are the only mammal capable of sustained flight.

Flight is energetically expensive and results in the production of oxygen radicals. In the research we speculated that bats have made changes to their DNA repair pathways to deal with the toxic oxygen radicals.

A number of innate immune genes intersect with the DNA repair pathways. These genes have also undergone changes, so it appears that the evolution of flight may have had inadvertent consequences for the immune system.

Bat super immunity

In humans and other vertebrates, infection with viruses triggers the induction of special proteins called interferon.

This is one of the first lines of defence following infection. It starts the induction of a variety of genes, known as interferon-stimulated genes. These genes play specific roles in restricting viral replication in infected and neighbouring cells.

Humans and other mammals have a large family of interferons, including multiple interferon-alpha genes and a single interferon-beta gene. People have 17 type I interferons, including 13 interferon-alpha genes.

Analysis published today of the interferon region of the Australian black flying fox reveals that bats have fewer interferon genes than any other mammal sequenced to date. They have only ten interferon genes, three of which are interferon-alpha genes.

This is surprising given that bats have this unique ability to control viral infections that are lethal in people and yet they can do this with a lower number of interferons.

Although interferons are essential for clearing infection, their expression is also tightly regulated. This is to avoid over-activation of the immune system, which can have negative consequences for the host.

The expression of interferon-alpha and interferon-beta proteins, which account for the majority of the antiviral response generated following viral infection, is normally undetectable in the absence of infection. It is rapidly induced following detection of a pathogen.

Yet we again see a difference in bats. The three interferon-alpha genes are continuously expressed in bat tissues and cells in the absence of any detectable pathogen. Bats appear to use fewer interferon-alpha genes to efficiently perform the functions of as many as 13 interferon-alpha genes in other species. And they have a system that is constantly ready to respond to infection.

Continual activation of the interferon response in other species can lead to over-activation of the immune response. This frequently contributes to the detrimental effects associated with viral infection, including tissue damage. In contrast, bats appear able to tolerate constant interferon activation and are continually primed for viral infection.

The bat approach in others

We are familiar with the important role bats play in the ecosystem as pollinators and insect controllers. They are now demonstrating their worth in potentially helping to protect people from infectious diseases.

The ability of bats to tolerate a constant level of interferon expression is poorly understood at the moment. But the identification of the unique expression pattern of interferons in bats is a first step in identifying new ways of controlling viruses in humans and other species.

If we can redirect other species’ immune responses to behave in a similar manner to that of bats, then the high death rate associated with diseases such as Ebola could be a thing of the past.

---

Peng Zhou was a co-author of this article. He’s a researcher in pathogen discovery and antiviral immunity, formerly employed at Duke–National University of Singapore Medical School and CSIRO.

Michelle Baker, Research scientist, CSIRO

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Deadly but cuddly? Australia’s venomous creatures don’t actually deter tourists

Bruce Prideaux, CQUniversity Australia

Part of the allure of visiting Australia is its unique animals. Cuddly koalas, inquisitive kangaroos and colourful birds are often featured in international promotions.

However, not all Australian animals are as friendly as kangaroos and koalas. Snakes, sharks, spiders, poisonous fish, marine stingers and crocodiles can cause serious injury or death.

Tourism is Australia’s largest service sector export industry, accounting for nearly 10% of total export earnings. The industry directly employs over 500,000 people.

Keeping tourists safe is important if the industry is to continue to thrive. So do Australia’s deadly animals deter visitors?

At a national level the presence of deadly animals does not appear to affect the capacity of the country to attract international tourists. After a long period of low growth, which had more to do with the high value of the Australian dollar than deadly wildlife, international arrivals are again on the rise.

Recent figures from Tourism Australia show that in the last 12 months international arrivals increased by 7% to reach 6.7 million. Spending rose by 13% to A$34.8 billion.

Keeping tourists safe

The results of just published research into swimming in the sea in Cairns give some insights into the concerns tourists have about deadly animals.

The majority of respondents were worried about dangerous marine animals, with 80% nominating crocodiles as posing the greatest danger to swimmers, closely followed by marine stingers. Concerns about sharks and stingrays were also high.

The results of the research confirmed that tourists are at least somewhat aware that they may encounter deadly animals in some areas of Australia. The vast majority of respondents (82%) reported they were aware that marine stingers might be encountered during their trip to Cairns.

However, the presence of dangerous animals did not deter people from swimming: 60% of domestic visitors and 83% of international reported going swimming. However, respondents did report taking precautions. Most (81%) chose to swim in beach enclosures and over half reported wearing a stinger-proof swimsuit while swimming.

Not all respondents particularly liked stinger-proof suits. One respondent reported that it was like wearing a full-body condom.

Apart from educating tourists about the potential to encounter deadly animals there is also a need to protect them.

In northern Queensland, as in other parts of the country, coastal communities have developed a range of strategies to protect tourists and members of the local community. Strategies generally include education, lifeguard patrols, warning signs and the installation of stinger-resistant swimming enclosures.

Measures of this nature are effective only if tourists, and locals, restrict their swimming activities to protected areas. The evidence from this research indicates that most tourists have recognised the dangers and do swim in protective enclosures.

What about the locals?

Elsewhere in Australia, the main threats are posed by sharks, crocodiles and, to a lesser extent, snakes.

In a recent article on shark attacks in Australia over the period 2002 to June 2014, Australian Geographic reported that there had been 22 fatal attacks. Almost all victims were Australian residents.

Over the same period 13 fatalities were attributed to saltwater crocodiles. Deaths from marine stingers were much lower with only four recorded fatalities

Crocodile attacks are relatively rate. However, because the coastal rivers and beaches of northern Australia that tourists find so enticing may also overlap with salt water crocodile habits, caution is required.

Protecting tourists and locals against shark and crocodile attacks is more difficult than against stingers. Once again education is a key element and based on the evidence of the low overall number of attacks each year appears to have been effective in keeping tourists, and locals, safe.

While many tourists are concerned about dangerous animals it does not deter them from visiting Australia. The message for the nation’s tourism industry is that it is important to tell tourist that there are dangerous animals and assure them that strategies have been put into place to protect them. It is also important to tell tourists that they need to adopt sensible precautions such as wearing stinger-proof swimsuits and swimming in areas that are protected.

From a destination perspective it is important to ensure that funding is sufficient to maintain protective infrastructure such as stinger nets, warning signs and consumer education programs.

It is also important to ensure that emergency services are adequately funded and that staff are trained to assist tourists who may not understand English.

This article is part of our series Deadly Australia. Stay tuned for more pieces on the topic in the coming days.

Bruce Prideaux, Professor of Tourism & Director, Centre for Tourism and Regional Opportunities, CQUniversity Australia

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Australia: Our Deadly Animals

The link below is to an article that takes a brief look at our most dangerous animals.

For more visit:
http://www.australiangeographic.com.au/journal/top-30-deadly-animals-in-australia.htm

Tasmanian Devil: Vaccine Near?

The link below is to an article reporting on the Tasmanian Devil and a possible vaccine in the near future for the deadly facial tumour disease that is wiping out the species.

For more visit:
http://www.australiangeographic.com.au/journal/one-step-closer-to-tassie-devil-vaccine.htm