Wetlands, climate change, and managing mosquitoes

I’ve spent over twenty years sloshing about in wetlands around Sydney and surrounds. They’re changing. They’re changing due to shifts in climate, sea level rise, and urbanisation. The 2019 World Wetlands Day is a time to stop and reflect on the state of wetlands around the world and how we can keep them health under the threat of climate change.

World Wetlands Day is held every year on 2 February,  this day marking the adoption of the Convention on Wetlands on 2 February 1971 in Ramsar, Iran. The theme of the 2019 World Wetlands Day is “Wetlands and Climate Change” and we shouldn’t just think about the impact of climate change on wetlands but also how wetlands can help us as we face the challenges of a changing climate.

Coastal wetlands around Sydney are impacted in many ways. Mangrove forests and saltmarshes are degraded through direct and indirect human activity. There is recent research indicating that sea level rise is impacting mangroves along the Parramatta River in Sydney. This requires active management to ensure substantial degradation and die back occurs, as has been seen elsewhere in Australia.

Some of our research even suggests that degraded mangroves are more productive when it comes to mosquitoes. Effective rehabilitation of these habitats may actually reduce the mosquitoes flying out of these environments and impacting the community nearby. Similarly, urban planning should consider the risk posed by mosquitoes in wetlands adjacent to new and expanding residential developments. This includes major wetland rehabilitation projects.

The challenges facing wetlands isn’t unique to Australia. Released in conjunction with World Wetlands Day preparations was The Global Wetland Outlook. A document that provides “a current overview of global wetlands: their extent, trends, drivers of change and the responses needed to reverse the historical decline in wetland area and quality”.

While we think of rainforests and coral reefs under greatest threat, it is a sobering thought to think that up to 87% of the global wetland resource has been lost since 1700. These are environments that were, until relatively recently, considered wastelands. With this lack of perceived value came greater susceptibility to abuse and degradation.

Along with the unsurprising loss of wetland area and decline in biodiversity associated with these environments come some interesting findings. The most interesting from a mosquito management point of view is that artificial wetlands are actually increasing in some areas. Notwithstanding an assessment of the ecosystem services they provide, they’re more likely to be closer to human habitation, so any mosquitoes associated with them may have relatively greater impact.

In recent years, the value of wetlands has increased. There is an understanding now that these environments provide critical ecosystem services. There is also a growing understanding of the wetland’s roles in mitigating the impacts of climate change. Coastal wetlands in particularly provide protection from increasingly severe storm events and trap valuable carbon stores that assist in mitigating the impacts of climate change.

This then raises the issues of mosquitoes. Mosquitoes are a natural part of wetland ecosystems. While often their pest impacts may indicate the poor health of the wetlands, at other time, abundant mosquito populations are a natural occurrence that fluctuate in their intensity from year to year. How do best manage mosquitoes associated with these wetlands?

I’ve written about how I think mosquito control should actually be considered an important component of coastal wetland rehabilitation. How climate change may be impacting mosquito threats and that even hot and dry summers under the influence of El Nino may not necessarily mean that mosquitoes are less problematic.

Based on the experience during the 2018-2019 summer, mosquitoes seem to persist in plague proportions despite the extreme temperatures being experienced in NSW.

It is important to remember that there are many mosquito species associated with wetlands, especially freshwater habitats, that pose no substantial threat to humans. There are hundreds of mosquitoes in Australia, less than a dozen really pose a substantial pest or public health threat. Many mosquitoes may play an important ecological role in wetland ecosystems. This may include representing a locally important food source for insectivorous wildlife or possibly pollinating plants.

A balance is required. If we’re going to continue squeezing an increasing human population into a narrow stretch of land up against the coast, there are many issues to consider here and they’re not just about how human activity is impacting those coastal wetlands. Pollution is a problem, our physical damage is another. Worst still, we’re taking away the opportunity of these normally resilient habitats to adapt to a rising sea levels and increasingly frequent storm events. Our cities and their infrastructure provide a hard and unforgiving edge against the wetlands.

Our wetlands even battle against themselves sometime. The threat of mangrove incursion into saltmarsh habitats is of increasing concern. Its counter-intuitive but perhaps we need to be pulling out mangroves to save some coastal wetlands.

Expanding, modifying, and creating new coastal wetlands will require local authorities to turn their mind to the issue of mosquitoes. Firstly, consideration needs to be given to what may constitute a tolerable level of mosquito exposure. How many mosquito bites are too many? How many cases of mosquito-borne disease are considered “normal” each year. Once these thresholds are drawn and exceeded, who is responsible for the decisions on active mosquito control? Who pays?

Another ecosystem disservice to consider is how the nuisance-biting of mosquitoes may discourage engagement with local wetlands. less engagement may mean less support for conservation and rehabilitation efforts. Less community interest, support, and activism may then result is less political drive to protect local wetlands by local authorities.

Importantly, decisions regarding the management of coastal wetlands, as well as those peppered throughout the city, need to be made with some consideration of mosquitoes and their potential impact. How do you convince the local community about the overall benefits of carbon sequestration, wildlife conservation, and protection of infrastructure is worthwhile if their quality of life is degraded through summer swarms and nuisance-biting mosquitoes?

More details on managing the risks associated with estuarine mosquitoes is provided in this book chapter included in the free Sydney Olympic Park Authority’s guide to managing urban wetlands.

For more about World Wetlands Day activities in Australia see here.

To stay up to date with my adventures in local wetlands, you can follow me on Instagram here.

 

 

 

Preserve and protect? Exploring mosquito communities in urban mangroves

This is a special guest post from Dr Suzi Claflin. Suzi found herself in Sydney, Australia, (via Cornell University, USA) in 2015 to undertake a research project investigating the role of urban landscapes in determining mosquito communities associated with urban mangroves. She was kind enough to put this post together to celebrate the publication of our research in Wetlands Ecology and Management!

**

Sometimes you’ve got to make hard choices for the greater good. These situations can arise anywhere, but here – as usual – we are concerned with mosquitoes. There’s a balancing act carried out by public health officials and wetland managers trying to both preserve endangered habitat and protect human health. In this guest post, I’ll explain the science behind research I recently published in collaboration with Dr Cameron Webb, and suggest one way forward for addressing human and environmental health concerns in urban wetlands.

During my PhD, I studied how the landscape surrounding small-scale farms affects the spread of a crop virus and the community of insect pests that carry it. When I came to Australia to work with Cameron, I was surprised to find myself applying the same type of landscape ecology to mosquitoes and mangroves in urban Sydney.

The misfortune of mangroves

Mangroves are real team players. They provide a range of services to the surrounding ecosystem and to the humans lucky enough to live near them. Mangroves are extremely effective at protecting the shoreline (but this can sometimes be a problem). They prevent erosion by gripping the soil in their complex root systems and buffer the beach by serving as a wave break. By filtering sediment out of the water that flows over them, mangroves also prevent their neighbouring ecosystems, such as coral reefs and seagrass forests, from being smothered.

Despite all their good work, mangroves have an almost fatal flaw; they prefer waterfront property. Unfortunately for them, so do humans. Urban and agricultural development has eaten away at mangroves, leaving them highly endangered.

The mosquito menace

Mozzies are a public health menace, because they spread human diseases like Ross River virus (RRV). Because of this, public health officials rightly spend time considering how to supress mosquito populations in order to reduce the risk of disease transmission.

Here’s where things get tricky: mangroves are great for mosquitoes.

That leaves public health officials and wetland managers in a difficult position. On the one hand, mangroves are delicate, at-risk ecosystems that need to be preserved. On the other, mangroves and surrounding habitats potentially harbor both the animal carriers of the RRV (e.g. wallabies) and a load of mosquitoes, which means that people nearby may need to be protected.

How can we do both?

 

Dr Suzi Claflin trapping mosquitoes in the mangroves along the Parramatta River, Sydney, Australia.

 

The potential power of prediction

This is a hard question to answer. One approach is prediction: using measurements of the environment, like rainfall and tide level, to estimate what the mosquito community will look like in a given region. The mosquito community determines what management actions, like spraying an insecticide, need to be taken, based on the threat it poses to public health.

We set out to explore how the way we use land (e.g. for residential areas or industrial areas) near urban mangroves affects the mosquito communities that live in those mangroves. The project involved dropping over retaining walls, slipping down banks, and tromping through muddy mangroves along the Parramatta River in Sydney. We set mosquito traps (billy cans of dry ice with a container on the bottom) and left them overnight to capture the mozzies when they are most active. We did this at two points in the summer, to see if there was any change over time.

We found that yes, the way we use land around a mangrove makes a difference. Mangroves with greater amounts of bushland and residential land in the surrounding area had fewer mosquitos, and fewer species of mosquitos. On the other hand, mangroves with greater amounts of industrial land surrounding them had a greater number of mosquito species, and those surrounded by greater amounts of mangrove had more mosquitos.

And, just to muddy the waters a bit more (pun intended), several of these relationships changed over time. These results show that although prediction based on the surrounding environment is a powerful technique for mangrove management, it is more complicated than we thought.

Another way forward: site-specific assessments

Our work suggests another way forward: site-specific assessments, measuring the mosquito community at a particular site in order to determine what management approaches need to be used. This is a daunting task; it requires a fair number of man-hours, and mangroves are not exactly an easy place to work. But it would be time well spent.

By assessing a site individually, managers can be confident that they are taking the best possible action for both the mangroves and the people nearby. It turns out that the best tool we have for striking a balance between environmental and public health concerns, the best tool we have for preserving and protecting, is information. In mangrove management—as in everything—knowledge is power.

Check out the abstract for our paper, Surrounding land use significantly influences adult mosquito abundance and species richness in urban mangroves, and follow the link to download from the journal, Wetlands Ecology and Management:

Mangroves harbor mosquitoes capable of transmitting human pathogens; consequently, urban mangrove management must strike a balance between conservation and minimizing public health risks. Land use may play a key role in shaping the mosquito community within urban mangroves through either species spillover or altering the abundance of mosquitoes associated with the mangrove. In this study, we explore the impact of land use within 500 m of urban mangroves on the abundance and diversity of adult mosquito populations. Carbon dioxide baited traps were used to sample host-seeking female mosquitoes around nine mangrove forest sites along the Parramatta River, Sydney, Australia. Specimens were identified to species and for each site, mosquito species abundance, species richness and diversity were calculated and were analyzed in linear mixed effects models. We found that the percentage of residential land and bushland in the surrounding area had a negative effect on mosquito abundance and species richness. Conversely, the amount of mangrove had a significant positive effect on mosquito abundance, and the amount of industrial land had a significant positive effect on species richness. These results demonstrate the need for site-specific investigations of mosquito communities associated with specific habitat types and the importance of considering surrounding land use in moderating local mosquito communities. A greater understanding of local land use and its influence on mosquito habitats could add substantially to the predictive power of disease risk models and assist local authorities develop policies for urban development and wetland rehabilitation.

Dr Suzi Claflin completed her PhD at Cornell University exploring environmental factors driving the spread of an aphid-borne potato virus on small-scale farms. She is now a postdoctoral research fellow at the Menzies Institute for Medical Research in Hobart, TAS. In her spare time she runs her own blog, Direct Transmission, focusing on disease and other public health issues (check it out here). To learn more about her doctoral research, follow this link!

Taking Australian wetland research to China

My PhD student Jayne Hanford has been super busy this year. Not much more than a year into her candidature and she has already locked away a summer of research and has been presenting her findings at conferences here in Australia as well as overseas.

After recently sharing our research at the Society for Wetland Scientists Annual Conference held in Corpus Christi, Texas, USA and the Mosquito Control Association of Australia conference on the Gold Coast, Jayne is off to China for the 10th INTECOL International Wetlands Conference.

Her research is focused on understanding the links between wetland vegetation, aquatic biodiversity and mosquito populations. Better understanding of these links will assist management strategies that minimise actual and potential pest and public health risks associated with mosquitoes and urban wetlands.

Our abstract for the conference is below:

Is the Biodiversity Value of Constructed Wetlands Linked to their Potential Mosquito-Related Public Health Risks?

Jayne Hanford¹, Cameron Webb², Dieter Hochuli¹

¹School of Life and Environmental Sciences, The University of Sydney, Australia; ²Department of Medical Entomology, Westmead Hospital and The University of Sydney, Westmead, Australia

 Stormwater treatment wetlands constructed in cities can enhance the sustainability of urban biodiversity by providing wildlife refuge areas and habitat connectivity. However, the creation of wetlands for stormwater infrastructure can increase risks to public health and wellbeing by proliferating nuisance-biting and pathogen-transmitting mosquitoes. In severe cases, this proliferation can erode goodwill in the community for creating and protecting valuable wetland systems.  We compared mosquito assemblages at 24 natural and constructed urban wetlands in the greater Sydney region, Australia. Our aim was to determine if stormwater wetlands constructed with the goal to support high biodiversity value also had reduced associated mosquito risks. Wetlands were located across a gradient of urbanisation determined by surrounding human population density, and included sites with different aquatic and riparian habitat complexity and availability. Adult and larval mosquitoes and aquatic macroinvertebrates were sampled on two occasions through summer and autumn. Aquatic macroinvertebrates were used to derive health indices, as well as being a relative measure of aquatic diversity.  Diversity of adult mosquito species was high, and abundance varied greatly between wetlands. Macroinvertebrate assemblages were also highly variable between sites. Wetlands with greater habitat complexity had lower adult mosquito abundance and greater mosquito species diversity, compared to stormwater-specific wetlands with minimal available habitat. As expected, mosquito assemblages did not respond to urbanisation and aquatic macroinvertebrate assemblages per se, but appeared to respond to a complex suite of coarse and fine-scale features that may affect a wetland’s biodiversity value.  Effectively integrating wetlands into cities requires balancing their design for water infrastructure purposes, biodiversity resources and public health and wellbeing requirements. Understanding the risks as well as the benefits will enhance the value of constructed urban wetlands in sustainable cities while minimising public health risks posed by mosquitoes.

Jayne will be speaking in the “The next generation of wetland science: ecosystems, applications, and engineering” session in the Nanhu Room 1520-1530 on Wednesday 21 September.

You can keep an eye on whats happening in China by following Jayne on Twitter and checking the hashtag #IWC10

The Society for Wetland Scientists Annual Conference held in Corpus Christi, Texas, USA back in May included a paper by Jayne titled “Risky Wetlands? Conflicts between biodiversity value and public health” and prompted some great feedback and discussion among wetland scientists at the meeting. It was a successful trip and a timely reminder that I must get to one of the SWS meetings sometime soon, perhaps Puerto Rico?

Keep an eye out for Jayne’s research publications soon!

 

 

 

Moving pictures and managing mosquitoes

For a few months now I’ve been thinking through some future options for the blog and my science communications activities. I’ve been toying around with starting a podcast or video blog about my work in local wetlands.

#MosquitoWeek has just happened in the U.S. and as it coincided with the close of entries with the Entomological Society of America YouTube competition, I thought what better time to play around with putting together a video.

A year or so ago I had the chance to see Karen McKee (aka The Scientist Videographer) talk about social media and the ways she uses video as a critical component of her community engagement and communications. Since I’m already using Instagram to connect followers with my various wetland sites and mosquito studies (as well as other things), I’ve thought video could be a way to go.

Interesting too since images and video are (or are soon to be) increasingly dominant in social media.

I’m an advocate for mosquito control to be part of overall wetland management. I think I’m sometimes seen as the enemy of wetland and wildlife conservation, not surprising given the perception of mosquito control still influenced by the DDT debate. As we push for the construction and rehabilitation of urban wetlands, the pest and public health risks associated with mosquito populations do need to be considered by local authorities.

I’m often arguing that ecologically sustainable mosquito management is actually critical to wetland conservation. If you’re encouraging the community to visit your wetlands, what happens when they’re chased away by mosquitoes? What about the community living around the wetland? Will nuisance-biting erode the good will of the community for wetland conservation?

You can watch my video, “Why is mosquito management important in our local wetlands?”, at YouTube or below:

You can check out some of my other posts of wetlands, mosquitoes and social media below:

Should we start pulling out mangroves to save our wetlands?

Does wetland rehabilitation need mosquito control?

Can social media help track environmental change?

Mosquitoes, constructed wetlands, urban design and climate change: Some workshop resources

Let me know if you’d be interested in seeing more videos! Send me a tweet.

Should we start pulling out mangroves to save our wetlands?

You have no idea how badly I wanted to jump down into the thick black mud.

I don’t remember much about primary school but I do have strong recollections of an assignment on the importance of mangroves to the ecology of the Parramatta River. Perhaps not the assignment itself, but I do remember Mum and Dad taking me down to the river and I drew some pictures of the twists and turns of branches and trunks and the finger-like pneumatophores punching up through the thick dark grey mud. It may only have been 10 minutes drive from home in Western Sydney but it was a glimpse into a world so strange and alluring, how could it not have made an impact on me?

I remember the great disappointment of my parent’s stern words keeping me from jumping down below the high water mark and into the mud. The same feelings of frustration and disappointment when stopped from doing other fun things like playing in stormwater drains, letting off firecrackers or swimming in rips!

Mangroves don’t just attract the attention of young environmental scientists. Exploiting a unique place between the land and sea, mangroves have intrigued and fascinated many before me with the first descriptions, by Greek mariners, thought to date back to 325BC. What were these plants that seemed to defy logic, growing half submerged in salty water?

Almost thirty years after my primary school assignment, with sandshoes replaced by gumboots, that childhood disappointment of adventure squashed is now matched by the realisation that mangroves aren’t perfect. In fact, they’re a threat to some of the other plants and animals found in our local local estuaries.

Now I spend most of my summer coated in that same dark grey mud, covered in mosquito bites and thinking about how important mangrove management will be for the future of our coastal wetlands.

More than mangroves

There is little doubt mangroves are an ecologically important habitat. They provide a home for a wide range of creatures, from bacteria to birds. Rich in nutrients and hiding places, mangroves are perfect nurseries for fish and crustaceans. Bird and bats and rodents and reptiles all find a home here too.

They’re threatened by climate change but they may also play a critical role in protecting our shoreline against sea level rise and storm surges. Sea level rise itself may knock out mangrove forests too but mangroves could also mitigate the impacts of climate change by storing carbon. In fact, the role estuarine wetlands may play in keeping carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere could be critical.

Make no mistake, mangroves are important. Thing is, it is also important to also remember that estuarine wetlands are more than just mangroves.

When we talk about estuarine wetlands, we’re grouping together a number of habitats that  include seagrass, saltmarsh, sedgelands and mudflats as well as mangroves. Each of these habitats play an important role in the functioning of the estuary as a whole but they each, individually, provide something specific to the wildlife that utilise the wetlands.

Saltmarshes are critically important and are in desperate need of conservation. In NSW they’re listed as Endangered Ecological Communities. As well as urbanisation and pollution, a changing climate and sea level rise risk severely degrading the quality of these habitats.

One of the key threats facing saltmarshes is a native plant. A native estuarine wetland plant. Mangroves.

The encroachment of mangroves into saltmashes is a serious problem. This is happening in many parts of the world. It is a strange situation in which one native plant is taking over another and with these ecological shifts, there are knock-on effects to other components of the wetland ecosystem. Most importantly, nesting and feeding shorebirds.

Are mangroves really a threat?

The mangroves are just doing what mangroves do. The reason they’re threatening saltmarshes is due to our modification of local environments.

Urban runoff reduces the salinity of these wetlands and this reduced salinity not only removes the ecological advantages of salt-tolerent saltmarsh plants, such as Sarcocornia quinqueflora and Sporobolus virginicus, but it helps mangrove seeds and seedlings survive the otherwise harsh environmental conditions of saltmarshes. Lower the salinity, increase the invasive potential of mangroves.

Frequent dryness and highly salty conditions are a saltmarsh’s best defense against invading mangroves.

Filling in wetlands and the construction of seawalls, roadways and other infrastructure give saltmarshes little refuge or respite from these threats. While mangroves encroach from the sea, there is nowhere for saltmarshes to migrate to when dealing with sea level rise.

They’re cornered and under attack but even where the plants are persisting, the quality of habitat they provide for local wildlife is slowly degraded by colonising mangrove seedlings.

There are many waterbirds that use our local estuaries that are under threat. Saltmarshes are great habitats for migratory shorebirds. There are plentiful resources in the form of insects and other invertebrates within the sediments. The birds can nest on the marsh and as they can see all around, predators are easy to spot. They feel safe.

There have been declines in the White-fronted Chat populations around Sydney. Many other populations of wading birds associated with Australia’s coastal wetlands are in decline too. Mangrove invasion isn’t the only thing to blame but it is an issue that needs to be addressed.

For many of these birds, the encroachment of mangroves into mudflats and saltmarshes is a problem. Its a problem for their foraging and nesting. Once mangrove seedlings start popping up on the middle of the saltmarsh, all those advantages of a wide open habitat in which predators are easy to spot are lost.

Imagine you’re a black-winged stilt. You’re trying to find a safe place to nest. A perfect place would be a raised area of saltmarsh surrounded by water. A dead flat saltmarsh with clear lines of sight for dozens of meters around. You’ll be able to see an approaching predator (like a fox or a feral cat) from far enough way to escape with plenty of time to spare. Now, stick a few mangrove seedlings here and there. They start to obscure your view. They’ll give sneaky predators a place to hide. Even if there are not predators about, you’ll probably get nervous. You’ll probably spend more time thinking about the threat of predators and less time foraging for food.

As mangroves move in, the birds will leave. Long before the saltmarsh is over run by mangroves, out-competed by the shade of establishing young mangroves, the quality of the habitat for many shorebirds will have already been lost. There may be some plants remaining but the ecological role of the habitat is gone.

Do historic paintings provide conflicting evidence to the commonly held view that mangroves have always been present along the Parramatta River? (Parramatta River, c. 1837, Conrad Martens (1801-78) via Australian Art Auctions)

Painting the picture of change in the local wetlands

How can we predict what will happen in the future if we haven’t learned from the past?

Tracking change in these wetlands is important. The use of photography has played an important role in tracking environmental change for a long time. Aerial photography and satellite imagery have helped reveal dramatic changes in vegetation associated with Australia’s coastal wetlands. This analysis has demonstrated the encroachment of mangroves into saltmarshes and this encroachment is considered a key threatening process of this endangered ecological community.

How can we track the encroachment of mangroves? While technology has helped reveal current changes in mangrove encroachment, other uses of imagery can explore relatively recent “urban myths” about historic mangrove distribution.

Thinking back to that school assignment, I remember being told how important mangroves were to the local environment. We we taught that, here in Sydney, that mangroves were always part of the Parramatta River estuary, that they have alwasy been a critical component of the river’s ecology. Was this really the case?

There has been some brilliant detective work done to determine the historic distribution of mangroves along the Parramatta River in this paper titled “Estuarine wetlands distribution along the Parramatta River, Sydney, 1788–1940: implications for planning and conservation“. The authors have used old photos and, in particular, some of the earliest paintings from the Sydney region (together with notes from settlers at the time) and found that the estuary was dominated by mudflats and saltmarsh habitats and that extensive areas of mangroves did not occur until the 20th Century.

To quote the author, Lynette C. McLoughlin:

“These historical sources indicate that in the 19th century extensive mudflats and saltmarsh communities dominated the inter-tidal zone, with mangroves more limited to creek fringes and some patches in bays for much of the period. In the upper river from Subiaco Creek to Parramatta, there is no evidence for the presence of mangroves until the 1870s. Following settlement and increased sedimentation, inter-tidal mudflats expanded, mangroves colonised up river and out onto mudflats in bays in the latter part of the 19th century, followed by expansion into saltmarsh in the 20th century.”

It is only relatively recently that mangroves have really flourished along the river.

There is absolutely no doubt they were always present, tucked away in the tiny bays and inlets of what became known as Sydney Harbour but it was the mudflats and saltmarshes that dominated much of the estuary. These habitats, no doubt, provided a rich and productive habitat for shorebirds and other wildlife.

So, where to from here?

Globally, mangroves are a critical component of wetland ecosystems. There is little doubt of that, and little doubt that in many parts of the world, even here in Australia, they are under threat. But so is saltmarsh and, saltmarsh is far less likely to be given the chance to demonstrate the resilience that mangroves will to continued changed environmental conditions results from a rising sea level and surging urbanisation.

Not just saltmarsh but mudlfats too.

Coastal authorities are increasingly aware of the need to balance protection of mangrove forests and the benefits they provide but also the conservation of saltmarsh and mudflats that are so critical to shorebirds.

The reality is, there will need to be a program of mangrove culling to sustain conservation of saltmarsh habitat. You need a permit to remove mangrove seedlings but a seasonal program of removal would be greatly beneficial in stopped the spread of mangroves into saltmarsh habitats. Local authorities are incorporating mangrove removal programs in their local wetland rehabilitation programs.

Removing young seedlings is easy, you can pull them straight out of the wet mud. Wouldn’t take much to organise a team of volunteers to move through the local saltmarsh removing seedlings. Perhaps in Autumn when the migratory shorebirds have left and the mosquito populations aren’t so bad?

The idea that native vegetation should be actively removed from habitats sounds at odds with environmental conservation. However, we need to maintain our wetlands for our future generations and the next generations of birds, and fish and crustaceans that rely on them now where few other opportunities exist.

2 February is World Wetlands Day. Please get out into your local wetlands, or at least make a pledge to visit your nearby wetlands sometime soon.

Learn more about Australia’s amazing mangroves by dropping by MangroveWatch and picking up the excellent Australia’s Mangroves by Norm Duke. There is also an extremely useful text on Australian Saltmarshes that is essential.

Finally, check out one of the most extensive resources on urban wetland management, including estuarine wetlands, via the free eBook produced by the Sydney Olympic Park Authority titled “Workbook for Managing Urban Wetlands in Australia“. Read a brief article on our analysis of the use of this resource in the latest issue of Wetlands Australia, see “Insights from the use of an online wetland management resource” by Webb and Paul (pages 26-27).

What are you doing for World Wetlands Day? Join the conversation on Twitter!

Want to learn more about the amazing world of Australian mosquitoes? Check out “A Field Guide to Mosquitoes of Australia” out now through CSIRO Publishing. Over 200 pages containing a pictorial guide to almost 100 different mosquitoes along with tips on beating their bite and protecting your family from the health risks of mosquitoes. You can order online or through your favourite local bookstore or online retailer.

 

Why would a Californian drought trigger an outbreak of mosquito-borne disease?

Mosquitoes need water almost as much as they need blood so why is it a drought could cause an outbreak of mosquito-borne disease? Why does the drought in California mean less water but more mosquito-borne disease?

More than just water

All mosquitoes need water. It could be a teaspoon of water in a pot plant base or an expanse of wetlands inundated by tides. Following flooding, health authorities are typically quick to issue public health warnings about increased risk of mosquito-borne disease. However, more mosquitoes doesn’t always mean more mosquito-borne disease.

Mosquitoes need blood. As well as biting people, they also bite animals. Outbreaks of mosquito-borne disease typically requires the presence of wildlife, animals that act as reservoirs for the disease-causing viruses.

Drought is hitting California hard (Source EPA via Huffington Post)

Mosquitoes, drought and West Nile virus

West Nile virus is a mosquito-borne pathogen generally spread between birds and people by mosquitoes. Culex mosquitoes they appear to play the most important role in West Nile virus transmission in urban environments, particularly Culex pipiens.

These mosquitoes are generally not breeding in wetlands. They’re found in artificial structures ranging from backyard containers and neglected swimming pools to stormwater pipes and drains. These mosquitoes have moved out of the swamps and into the suburbs! They’ve also moved into the constructed wetlands popping up throughout the suburbs too.

Rather than water birds associated with wetland environments, the birds playing a key role in West Nile virus transmission are small songbirds common in urban areas. These birds roost in large numbers and are the target the the Culex mosquitoes that preferentially feed on birds. It is important to keep in mind that there is still a lot of learn about how the roosting behaviour of birds influences their exposure to West Nile virus.

During “dry” conditions, bird populations are concentrated in urban areas (where humans provide water and food) and mosquito populations associated with urban water-holding structures increase. During “wet” summers, bird populations may be more widely dispersed through the environment with many birds roosting and foraging well away from residential areas and reducing the contact between birds, mosquitoes and people. When the “dry” summers arrive, birds move back close to the people. People who provide water.

The Culex pipiens group of mosquitoes play an important role in the transmission of West Nile virus and are closely associated with urban environments. They like biting birds. (Photo: Stephen Doggett, NSW Health Pathology)

In the absence of rain, water stagnates in stormwater pipes and drains providing favourable conditions for mosquitoes. During “wet” summers, the mosquitoes are flushed out by increased water flows and, even if they don’t, permanent habitats are more likely to support populations of mosquito predators such as fish.

During “dry” summers, people also start storing water around the home. Once water restrictions kick in, the desire to keep the garden looking healthy can potentially pose an indirect health risk to the homeowner as they hoard water around the home that provides habitat for mosquitoes.

In short, dry conditions help concentrate mosquitoes and birds in close proximity to people and increase the risk of mosquito-borne disease outbreaks.

Mosquito control in Texas in response to an outbreak of West Nile virus raised much concern within the community. It can sometimes be difficult to balance the need for mosquito control with community engagement to allay fears of insecticide -based human health risks (Source: CDC)

An outbreak in Texas in 2012

West Nile virus was first introduced into North America in 1999. Despite rapidly spreading across the continent in the subsequent years, the numbers of outbreaks steadily declined and, to some extent, it fell of the radar as a serious public health concern. There was a resurgence of the disease in 2012 with an outbreak primarily focused in Texas.

There was a substantial increase in the number of cases compared to previous years with an unusually warm spring thought to have played an important role in driving the outbreak. Health authorities were warned that outbreaks of this nature may continue.

West Nile virus and the Californian drought

For the past couple of years, California has been hit with one of its worst droughts in decades. It is having widespread impacts and may also be increasing mosquito-borne disease. Californian authorities have been battling potential public health risks associated with mosquitoes on many fronts. There were record numbers of deaths due to West Nile virus disease in 2014 and exotic mosquitoes were detected. This included an Australian mosquito that was found in Los Angeles.

It is relatively early in California’s mosquito season but West Nile virus has already been detected. Health authorities are warning that another bad year for West Nile virus activity could be ahead despite the ongoing drought. There is already a suggestion that the severity of the current drought may be exacerbated by climate change and that climate change may be playing a role in future West Nile virus risk internationally.

There is little doubt that prolonged drought will impact Californian residents in many ways and an increased risk of mosquito-borne disease is just one of them. Fortunately, mosquito and vector control agencies in California work closely with local health authorities to monitoring mosquito and pathogen activity to provide warnings of increased risk. However, there is responsibility for everyone to ensure that the ways in which water is conserved around the home doesn’t increase the risks associated with mosquitoes.

If you’re worried about keeping your pot plants well watered but don’t want to provide a home for mosquitoes, fill the saucer with sand. It will keep the moisture in place but there is no “free water” for mozzies to use!

If you’re not able to “dump and drain” water holding containers, make sure that they’re covered to stop mosquitoes getting in or out. If you’ve got a swimming pool that’s neglected, start chlorinating it or release fish to eat through any mosquitoes. There are also a few mosquito control products that could be used, the most appropriate would probably be the insect growth regulator methoprene, it will stop mosquitoes emerging from the water holding container.

Why not share your tips on saving water around the home while not increasing opportunities for mosquitoes on Twitter?

The photo at the top of this post is taken by Dawn Ellner (see original photo here)

The five best non-buggy things about Entomology 2014

There was lots of love about Entomology 2014 but some of the biggest highlights had nothing to do with the bugs. Here are some non-entomological hits from the conference.

1. Portland, OR.

Host city makes a difference. I know many considerations are taken into account when deciding on a venue but an interesting host city (or region) can really tip the scales. Portland was a great decision. One of the great things about Portland was that it provided many conversation starters. Tips on where to find the best coffee, craft beer and donuts dominated plenty of on- and offline conversations during the course of the meeting (plus a few “field trips” thrown in for good measure).

I’ve seen interesting/new locations boost the numbers of conference attendees for the Australian Entomological Society and Mosquito Control Association of Australia in recent years too.

2. Free public transport

Brilliant. With the meeting attracting over 3,000 people, it wasn’t possible to hold the event at a single venue that also provided accommodation for the bulk of attendees. As everyone was spread out across the city, getting back and forth from the Oregon Convention Center could have been quite tricky. Portland has a great public transport network but, better still, conference registrants received a free pass for travel throughout the course of the meeting! It certainly took the stress out of getting around.

3. Promotion of social media

The Entomological Society of America really needs to be congratulated on the way they’re employed social media as a critical component of their scientific conferences. I’ve been to conferences where social media has been tolerated but rarely encouraged. At this meeting, social media use was integrated into the day-to-day conference experience.

There was promotion of #EntSoc14 before, during and after the meeting. From the registration website to the opening address by David Gammel, social media was embraced and encouraged. Probably the best element was the use of a series of large screens throughout the conference center with a cascade of twitter and instagram posts. There was even a large display in the trade hall! Wonderful idea because it brought the “non-tweeting” conference attendees into the mix. I had a few a few conversations with people who don’t use social media but tracked me down because they’d seen tweets on the screen earlier in the meeting.

An example of the “social media screens” dotted throughout the conference venue (Source: Christie Bahlai ‏@cbahlai)

Having an opportunity to meet in real life many of the wonderful people I’d only ever corresponded with via social media was one fo the highlights of the conference.

I was tempted to post something about tweeting at conference but there are already a bunch of great resources on the use of social media during conferences. Here are just a few “How to live-tweet a conference: A guide for conference organizers and twitter users“, “A Guide to Tweeting at Scientific Meetings for Social Media Veterans” and “Ten Simple Rules of Live Tweeting at Scientific Conferences“.

Here are the key slides (plus a bonus) from my conference presentation on the use of social media to extend the reach of public health messages:

4. Free WiFi

Whether we like it or not, we’re tethered to work. I learned a valuable lesson this year when I took myself “off the grid” for a few weeks during a holiday break. It took me the best part of a month to catch up. Being able to regularly check in with work emails during a conference (without having to pay exorbitant access rates) really helps. It is also handy chasing up papers referenced in presentations and other resources shared throughout the conference.

I know it is no fun seeing a conference room full of people checking email during someone’s presentation and I personally don’t do it myself. However, there were plenty of places and spaces to sit down and do that outside the presentation rooms.

5. A sustainable conference venue

I know this isn’t always possible but having a conference venue that put a high priority on sustainability was great. From recycling of coffee cups to stormwater runoff, most of the bases were covered. Nice for me, given my interest in constructed wetlands and stormwater management, to see the systems in place at the Oregon Conference Center.

To some, these may seem like trivial aspects of a major scientific conference but they really made for a great experience at Entomology 2014 for me.

What do you love (or loathe) about scientific conferences (beyond the science itself)? Join the conversation on Twitter.

Australian mosquitoes discovered in California: What does it mean?

The movement of mosquitoes around the world is more likely to drive the spread of mosquito-borne disease outbreaks than a changing climate. Health authorities received yet another reminder of how easily pest mosquitoes can move about with human activity. They can sneak in and set up home before we even know they’re there.

Mosquitoes deserve more credit. We’re impressed with the adaptation of birds, fish and frogs to narrow ecological niches or extreme environments. How about showing the same respect for these insects that have left behind their life in tree holes or leaf axils and moved into our cities. They’ve switched tastes from primates to people and their pets. They may only fly short distances but we help move them around the world with increasing frequency accompanying globalisation and discounted airfares.

Exotic mosquitoes and international travel

Long before planes made the planet a much smaller place, we were already moving mosquitoes massive distances. It could probably be argued that the brown house mosquito, Culex quinquefasciatus, first came to Australia in water filled barrels with the first fleet and the movement of the Yellow Fever mosquito, Aedes aegypti, and associated pathogens from the Caribbean to Philadelphia and triggered a catastrophic outbreak of disease in 1793.

In more recent times, the spread of the Asian tiger mosquito, Aedes albopictus, has been well documented and has raised concerns amongst international health authorities with regard to outbreaks of disease caused by dengue and chikungunya viruses.

This week saw the announcement that a mosquito, Aedes notoscriptus, had made its way from (most likely) Australia to California. The news attracted plenty of attention from media in Australia and North America. The mosquito discovery was due to the diligence of two agencies in Los Angeles, The Greater Los Angeles County Vector Control District and San Gabriel Valley Mosquito and Vector Control District. The joint media release from these two agencies described the discovery and identification:

“During an expanded search this summer for the invasive Asian tiger mosquito, staff from the San Gabriel Valley Mosquito and Vector Control District (SGVMVCD) and the Greater Los Angeles County Vector Control District (GLACVCD) collected unusual specimens from a couple of homes. After someinitial research, photographs of the mosquito were sent to Dr. Cameron Webb and John Clancy with theMarie Bashir Institute of Infectious Diseases and Biosecurity at the University of Sydney, Australia and they confirmed it to be Aedes notoscriptus.”

 

This was a great example of international collaboration. There was also little doubt that without the availability of high quality photographs we wouldn’t have been able to offer such a rapid identification. Not so long ago we would have had to ship specimens back and forth to confirm identification.

What does this mean for California?

Apart from questions regarding how this mosquito made it half way around the world, the critical issue now is to assess what pest or public health risk this mosquitoes poses to Los Angeles, California and North America more generally.

Aedes notoscriptus (commonly referred to as the ‘backyard mosquito’) is widespread in Australia. From the cold climates of Tasmania to the tropical north of the country. The mosquito is also found in New Zealand, Western Pacific and Indonesia.

The mosquito is closely associated with urban areas. Eggs are laid in a wide range of natural and artificial water-holding containers. There are very few Australian’s who haven’t been bitten by this mosquito. It is a constant companion at summer BBQs and is considered a nuisance-biting pest, mostly biting in the afternoon and early evening. However, it does have broad tastes when it comes to blood feeding. The abundance of this mosquito is relatively low compared to some of our “wetland” mosquitoes (such as Aedes vigilax and Culex annulirostris) and the mosquito doesn’t fly far, generally less than 200m.

The low natural dispersal of the mosquito is thought to have contributed to the emergence of subpopulations in some regions of Australia. More recent studies have found that phylogenetic analyses of DNA sequence data from mitochondrial markers indicate the mosquito is a complex of divergent genetic lineages, some geographically restricted, others widespread. There is, however, no doubt assisted movement of mosquitoes is also occurring around the country. As with any container-inhabiting mosquito, human movement will drive the spread of this mosquito in North America.

From a public health persepctive, Aedes notoscriptus is a less significant nuisance-biting pest than Aedes albopictus and Aedes aegypti. However, it is a vector of arboviruses and parasites. Aedes notoscriptus is an effective vector of Ross River and Barmah Forest viruses. A range arboviruses have also been isolated from field collected specimens in many parts of the country and the mosquito has been implicated in Ross River virus transmission in major cities including Sydney and Brisbane. Neither Ross River virus or Barmah Forest virus are known to exist in California.

Fortunately, the mosquito is generally not considered an effective vector of dengue viruses, West Nile virus, Yellow Fever virus or, chikungunya virus but it has been shown to be susceptible to Rift Valley fever virus. Aedes notoscriptus is an effective vector of dog heartworm, Dirofilaria immitis.

How did it get there?

We may never know. Mosquitoes can be moved about in lots of different ways, from cargo holds in aircraft and ships to baggage and belongings of individuals. Industrial, mining and agricultural equipment may provide a route of movement too.

Given that established populations have been discovered, it may be more likely that personal belongings may have been moved to California from Australia or New Zealand with travellers or family relocating for work. Perhaps surveys of the local community, combined with genetic analysis of the specimens will help answer this question.

The take home message for local authorities, both in California and Australia, is that the mosquito did make the trip, slipped through the cracks of quarantine and become established. While this introduction may not pose a significant impact to California, the introduction of Aedes albopictus to Australia could have far more substantial impacts. If we can export our mosquitoes, we should remain vigilant of the potential for exotic mosquitoes to find their way to us from Asia, Europe or the Americas.

What should authorities do?

There are already strategies in place for the surveillance and control of container-inhabiting mosquitoes in California. These strategies would prove effective in tracking and controlling Aedes notoscriptus. The one advantage authorities have is that Aedes notoscriptus is readily collected in carbon dioxide baited light traps whereas Aedes albopictus and Aedes aegypti are generally not collected as often by these traps.

In summary, the mosquito should not be considered a major pest or public health risk. The priority for local authorities should remain the other container-inhabiting species such as Aedes albopictus and Aedes aegypti. Notwithstanding these species, other mosquitoes associated with urban environments, particularly Culex spp., are currently playing an important role in one of the largest outbreaks of West Nile virus. In fact, the “proportion of mosquitoes infected with West Nile virus is at the highest level ever detected in California“.

Californian authorities have enough on their plate without the extra worry of an Australian hitchhiker turning up and moving in!

—

The wonderful photo of Aedes notoscriptus at the top of this post is provided by Jared Dever, Direcror of Communications, at Orange County Vector Control District.

What can the outbreak of dengue in Japan tell us about future mosquito-borne disease risk?

Considered free of dengue for around 70 years, Japan is now facing an outbreak of mosquito-borne dengue virus centered around a popular Tokyo city park. How could this happen?

Dengue is typically associated with tropical regions. However, outbreaks of dengue have occurred in temperate regions historically. That includes major outbreaks in Japan. In fact, dengue has been a notifiable disease in Japan since 1999; regulated by the Infectious Disease Control Law.

The last major outbreak was in 1942-1945. Breaking out in Nagasaki in August 1942, over 200,000 cases were suspected to have occurred, making it one of the largest temperate zone dengue outbreaks on record. It is interesting that, at the time, there was an extensive network of water tanks to enable response to fires triggered by bombing during the war. These tanks supported “innumerable” populations of the Asian Tiger Mosquito, Aedes albopictus. Also contributing to the problem was an inability to undertake large-scale insecticide applications at the time.

Then, for around 70 years, dengue disappeared. Until 2014.

Local authorities undertake spraying in Tokyo’s Yoyogi Park. (Photo Source: AFP via ABC News)

The first case of dengue in this current outbreak was reported at the end of August 2014 but in the space of a week or so, many more cases were identified. To date (9 October 2014) there has been a total of 151 confirmed locally acquired cases of dengue (this includes an Australian traveller). The majority to these cases have been centred around the popular Yoyogi Park in Tokyo.

[update 1 November 2014] Tokyo’s Yoyogi Park finally reopened after the outbreak was first detected but it was closed for 57 days. As well as a serious inconvenience to the people of Tokyo, there is little doubt this has had a substantial economic impact on the city. It would be fascinating to know if the outbreak impacted tourism.

[update 5 December 2014] A newly published paper reports on the molecular analysis of isolates of dengue virus from 19 confirmed cases of infection from Tokyo. The analysis showed that the outbreak was triggered by a single incursion of dengue virus type 1 (DENV-1) and that analysis of the envelope protein genome sequence from 3 patients revealed 100% identity with the strain from the first patient.

Some of the media coverage has focused in the role that climate change may have played on triggering this outbreak. However, the outbreak is not the result of a changing climate. International travel and a cool climate tolerant mosquito are to blame. Perhaps complacency regarding the risks associated with this mosquito predisposed the region to this outbreak too?

The Asian Tiger Mosquito, Aedes albopictus. (Source: Stephen Doggett, Pathology West – ICPMR Westmead)

The Asian Tiger Mosquito, Aedes albopictus, is a cool climate tolerant mosquito closely associated with water holding containers in urban environments. The mosquito is a severe nuisance-biting pest and second only to the Yellow Fever Mosquito (Aedes aegypti) in its importance in transmitting dengue virus. It is also very effective at transmitting chikungunya viruses. The expanding range of Aedes albopictus internationally is of critical importance to outbreaks of the disease. It is raising concerns regarding the transmission of chikungunya virus in North America this year.

Aedes albopictus provided the tinder that an infected traveller ignited to kick off this dengue outbreak.

There were warnings this was coming. Much of the media coverage has emphasised that this is the first local outbreak of dengue in 70 years. In fact, there was an intriguing case last year that should have put local authorities on notice.

In January 2014 there was news that a German tourist had contracted dengue. In Japan.

In a published case report, a woman sought treatment in a hospital in Berlin, Germany, in after returning from two weeks of travel in August-September 2013 to Honshu Island, Japan. Her travel route was via Frankfurt International Airport to Tokyo Narita International Airport and return. She did not visit any regions considered to have endemic dengue activity. The authors note that this case was “the first recognised case of locally acquired dengue (DENV) infection in Japan for more than 60 years”.

Following this reported case, authorities undertook surveys that revealed high population densities of Aedes albopictus within the urban areas of Japan. It is interesting to note that, despite using a surveillance method that is typically not effective at collecting Aedes albopictus (carbon dioxide baited light traps), some of the largest densities of mosquitoes were collected from Tokyo. Interestingly, a 2010 study into the blood feeding behaviour of Aedes albopictus in Japan showed that over 68% of mammalian blood meals identified were human and the authors concluded that the mosquito may play a role in outbreaks of dengue and chikungunya viruses.

I cannot find any reports of mosquito control, either source reduction or insecticide treatment, were undertaken in response to these findings.

Average number of Aedes albopictus collected using human bait collection and CDC miniature traps in urban areas of Japan in September 2013 (Source: International Journal of Infectious Diseases)

There are clearly some warnings that authorities, both in Japan and elsewhere, should take from this event. Most importantly, the presence of Aedes albopictus should not be underestimated in increasing the risk of local dengue outbreaks. While the published report of the dengue infection in the German tourist prompted debate (see here and here) about the future of local dengue outbreaks in Japan, it is clear now that where Aedes albopictus occurs, so does the risk of dengue. Control of this mosquito should be undertaken, not only to reduce the nuisance-biting impacts but to also reduce public health risk. Clearly, August and September seem to be a high risk period around Tokyo.

While locally acquired cases of dengue were unknown since the 1945, Japanese travellers were regularly returning home infected with the pathogens. A recent study of 540 Japanese travellers demonstrated that, not only was Indonesia and the Phillippines destinations of high risk, but that August and September were peak periods when infected travellers were returning home from these endemic regions. An eerie coincidence considering the cases in August/September in both 2013 and 2014. Where these traveller, not climate change, triggered outbreaks in Japan? (the debate about climate change driven dengue outbreaks in other regions of SE Asian could be left for another day)

Rate of reported dengue cases per 100 000 Japanese travellers by month and country visited, 2006–2010. It is interestign to note that only data for 2010 on travellers to Indonesia is reported. (Source: Western Pacific Surveillance Response Journal)

Australian authorities should take note of what has happened in Japan. While understanding the routes of entry of Aedes albopictus into new regions is critical, developing strategic surveillance and control responses to the introduction of the mosquito are of equal importance.

Since the discovery of Aedes albopictus in the Torres Strait in 2005, there has been much debate, together with data crunching and computer modelling, with regard to the possible spread of the mosquito across the mainland. There is evidence that the mosquito can survive at cooler climates in Australia and can spread some of our local pathogens. What will it mean for Australia to have a severe nuisance-biting pest and potential vector of dengue and chikungunya viruses inhabiting our major cities such as Brisbane, Sydney, Melbourne and Perth?

We should be mindful that this mosquito may not naturally spread south from the north, it may sneak in through the back door. It already has. The mosquito was discovered, and fortunately eradicated, from Melbourne in 2012. Exotic mosquitoes continue to be intercepted at our ports.

Perhaps we can’t stop Aedes albopictus reaching mainland Australia. Efforts continue to keep the mosquitoes at bay but, in reality, we may be overwhelmed. We cannot fill enough cracks to stop them slipping through.

What we need are strategic responses to the incursions of the mosquito. Authorities need to build capacity for quick response surveillance and control. Traps and insecticides are cheap, expertise on the ground by those responsible for catching and killing the mosquitoes is not. The traps and control measures currently used to control pest mosquitoes associated with wetlands will not be easily be transferable to the control of container-inhabiting mosquitoes. We need to review our approaches to mosquito control should Aedes albopictus be introduced. Time may be on our side for the moment but for how long? Will we one day see outbreaks of dengue in Sydney’s Centennial Park?

Why not join the conversation on Twitter?

Can social media help track environmental change?

A picture may well tell a thousand words but what if that picture is tweeted, shared and liked? Could social media help engage the community with local wetlands? Could it assist in crowd sourced tracking of environmental change?

After the fire comes the photos

Using photography to track post-bushfire environmental change is common in Australia where bush fires are a part of life. Scientific publications and technical reports produced across the country have used “before and after” photos to highlight the dramatic change, and equally dramatic recovery, seen in the Australian bush after fire.

How can we incorporate social media in tracking this post-fire recovery? Perhaps it could even play a role in boosting the spirits of the local community seriously impacted by bushfire? The recovery of communities is as important as recovery of the environment. A recent study has highlighted the importance of social networks in the community and perhaps opportunities to share interactions with the environment through social media would provide further opportunities for engagement.

Bushfires are a natural part of the Australian environment and photography plays a key role in reminding us that our vegetation can respond remarkably after even the most intense fires (Source: CSIRO)

An example of engaging social media in bushfire recovery comes out of California. I’m particularly taken by the use of social media as a critical component of the program tracking recovery from bush fires that swept through Mt. Diablo in 2011. The project is coordinated by the Nerds for Nature team, inspired by the initiative of Sam Droege and his Monitor Change project.

The idea is based around members of the community taking photos at set locations with set perspectives and compiling those photographs shared through social media, to create a crowd sourced time lapse animations of post-bush fire recovery (you can read a little more about it here). What makes this so neat is the simplicity. Clear signage and a simple bracket for lining up your camera/phone. The website interface is great too. The team behind the project have provided some detailed instructions that form a great basis for adapting this approach to a local environment (they also point out that this project may not be as simple to implement as you may think…).

Tracking bushfire recovery with crowd sourced photographs! (Originally tweeted by Sergei Krupenin in reference to Nerds for Nature program)

An Australian take on crowd sourced “environmental change” photography

Another example of using photography to track environmental change is the Australian Fluker Post project. Similar to the approach by the Nerds for Nature team, this project, coordinated by Dr Martin Fluker at Victoria University, is a “citizen science system designed to allow community members to contribute towards the ongoing care of various natural environments by taking photographs”.

“Fluker Posts” are installed at key locations and members of the community can use their own cameras to take photos and then email them to coordinators. As well as collecting material to assist local land managers, this project may have a more subtle influence on conservation by engaging the community with the local environment. By providing an opportunity for local residents (as well as regular visitors) to track the changes in their local environment, it would be hoped that a connection and care for the local environment would increase. As well as directly changing behaviour that may threaten local habitats or wildlife, the community (and by extension local decision makers) are more likely to be supportive of rehabilitation efforts.

An example of a newly installed Fluker Post ready to help track environmental change (Source: The Fluker Post Project)

You can see examples of photos from the various Fluker post locations here but you can also keep up to date with various projects at the Fluker Post Facebook page. A relatively new venture has just kicked off using this “technology” to engage with school students – a great idea!

Tracking tidal changes

Another great example of crowd-sourced tracking of the potential environmental change is the  Witness King Tides program. The program is coordinated by Green Cross Australia and calls of members of the community to submit photos taken during king tide events (the highest of the spring tides each month) to help generate an indication of what may happen in the future with sea level rise. There is a wonderful collection of photo albums here from across Australia.

This idea of a crowd-sourced collection of photographs tracking tidal events has been tried in the past. Most notable was a collection of photos contributed to by over 250 people taken during a major tide event in 2009. A useful document was produced by NSW Office of Environment and Heritage. It highlights an important issue in relation to potential impacts of sea level rise. The first wave of impacts may not be catastrophic but they will be disruptive.

While images of major cities underwater often accompany media reports of rising sea levels and plans for adaptive responses, in many parts of Australia, increasing frequency of these “higher than usual” tides will cause disruption to cities and townships in other ways. Blocking stormwater systems, forcing the closure of roads and delays with ferry services. In addition to this, there is the increasing risk of coastal erosion and loss of amenities in coastal regions.

“Before and after” shots of a cycleway through Sydney Olympic Park in January 2014. Higher than expected spring tides flooded many of the pathways, cycleways and boardwalks in the local area causing much disruption; perhaps a sign of things to come if rising sea levels make these event more frequent.

One of the problems with this method, however, is that these photographs end up being “one offs”. Without a comparison to “normal” conditions, it can sometimes be difficult to gauge the significance of tidal inundation without being familiar with the local area. Fortunately, there are many examples where contributors send both “before” and “after” tidal inundation shots and they do provide a stunning visual representation of the disruption sea level rise may cause. Perhaps the incorporation of “photography points” (following the examples from the Flucker Post or Nerds For Nature teams) at key locations would be a useful addition to the program?

This approach has been adopted bytThe City of Manduarh in Western Australia with their  Tidal Image Mandurah Project. The community has been asked to take photos at key locations with a view that images of tidal events such as storm surges, high tide and erosion will help track change. Nothing too fancy in these locations either, just a strategically placed spray painted blue camera!

An example of the spray-painted blue camera on a beachside post inviting members of the community to take and share a photo of Florida Beach (Source: City of Mandurah)

Tracking constructed wetland change

Where would I like to see this implemented? I’ve had the opportunity to work in and around many newly constructed wetlands. These have ranged from small freshwater wetlands in urban areas to extensive rehabilitated estuarine wetlands. The common denominator across all these sites has been vegetation change. I cannot be out there every week taking photos but it would be great if there was a collection of photos being shared by the local communities that I could tap into.

There are some great examples of interpretive signage around our local wetlands. There is also a shift in thinking from traditional interpretive signage to take advantage of new technologies so why not include social media to engage visitors and local community further? Perhaps social media networking should be included in wetland management plans?

Signage at Gungahlin Wetlands, ACT. An example of structures associated with urban wetlands that can be modified to include opportunities for social media use through the use of recommended hashtags (for Twitter or Instagram) and/or brackets for placing cameras/smartphones

A simple addition of a bracket and details on sharing photographs could easily be incorporated into local signage as it is installed and/or updated. As well as tracking changes in vegetation growth in and around constructed and rehabilitated wetlands, the encroachment of mangroves into mudflats or sandy shores along urban estuaries could be a focus too. Of course, storm events and unusually high tides could be documented too. An added bonus would be if some rare or unusual wildlife popped up in photographs.

Educational signage of this nature is common place around wetlands in Sydney, could the inclusion of some guidelines for social sharing images help track mangrove incursion into shoreline habitats?

There are plenty of other ways social media can assist environmental conservation and rehabilitation. Pozible and Landcare have recently announced the launch (and called for the submission of proposals) of a new global crowdfunding partnership called The Landcare Environment Collection, an opportunity to showcase and support the crowdfunding campaigns of environmental groups in Australia and around the world.

Perhaps I need to prepare a proposal for the installation of some “social sharing” camera stands…

Why not join the conversation on Twitter and help share other examples of where social media could help track environmental change.