Remember the cumulative tales about Chicken Little who believed the world was coming to an end and was leaping about in hysteria and paranoia? Well the front page of Noosa News on Tuesday 5/2/19 about the Noosa River’s biodiversity (in BIG trouble it said) reeked of the exact same thing, with Mayor Wellington and NBRF’s Barnes ringing alarm bells frantically.
Why was it necessary for the Biosphere Foundation and the Mayor to declare the river all but dead when the scientific research is in its early days, indeterminate and reliable findings a long way off? The more I read about the river from these sources, the less I understand – it’s all very confusing.
Consider the following:
- The central proposition of the doomsday message we received was that ‘similar’ research from 20 years ago indicates an 85% decline in marine animal life. This immediately raises so many questions like: Why hasn’t the NRBF in its 11 years of existence with considerable funding devised a long-term strategic framework for all scientific research? Why are we throwing around opinions, making strategic planning decisions and spending considerable money on matters often based on anecdote, ad hoc studies and inconsistent information and data?We have seen how many consultants and researchers? involved in Noosa River issues but there is not one consistent and directly comparable data base established over time. Surely it makes sense to set and implement a long-term goal here so we can all see and believe what we are being told?
- When you have USC, as the scientific arm of the oyster reef trial, working within the Benthic Layer (the one that the Mayor and NRBF say is destroyed!), why is it necessary to introduce another player such as UQ. Surely USC folk could have done the same comparison between the State EPA’s 1998 research and sample today? Soon we will have the USA headquartered Nature Conservancy (TNC) providing their advice – at a cost of course.These days the scientific community is very much global with scientists collaborating on many issues no matter where they be. So why is it necessary, as a point of principle, to bring in the services of a multinational instead of working with, supporting and developing local talent such as that which exists at USC? Is it the glitz and glamour of hanging the TNC shingle over the Council chambers that is so attractive? Does it really value-add to such a degree that we can put our hands on our hearts and say… ‘we cant buy this support in Australia’?
How can anyone be so categoric at this stage on this subject as are Barnes and Wellington when:
- The paper they are using is only an interim, not a final, report, as research and analysis has not yet been completed by the authors (“an annual report to the funding bodies” (p3))
- The findings so far are not conclusive because additional sampling has been done on which analysis is not yet complete
– “These samples have all been processed and final checking of the identification of the fauna is being completed at present” (p2)
– “repeat sampling…was considered a critical and appropriate response given the apparent marked changes over the 20 year period” (p11) - There were problems with sampling in the Noosa River channel, so analysis of data has only been done for Lake Cootharaba, Lake Cooroibah and Lake Weyba catchments. “Problems with sampling gear meant that some of the samples collected in the Noosa Channel were incomplete … Only the samples from the other three catchments were therefore analysed.” (p6)
- There is doubt about what the data is telling us: “More animals does not always indicate a cleaner or healthier environment” (p8)
- If there is a problem, causes are far from clear: “Between the sampling done in 1998 and 2018, we cannot determine directly the causes of any differences that may occur” (p10) “Analysis of changes in which species are found in the sediments in the two time periods may give us insights into potential explanations for the differences though and these can then form the basis of new hypotheses about the causes which can be tested in the main part of the sampling program”
Let me go a step further. Without paying a cent for consultants, I read SETAC’s ‘Using Bayesian Networks to Predict Risk to Estuary Water Quality and Patterns of Benthic Environmental DNA in Queensland‘ by Western Washington University/Macquarie University – Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management — Volume 15, Number 1—pp. 93–111 10 August 2018. This is a mouthful, but read on.
SETAC (Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry) is dedicated to the use of multidisciplinary approaches to examine the impacts of chemicals and technology on the environment, and its recent work has included comprehensive scientific studies in conjunction with scientists from CSIRO here in the Noosa River.
This work is fundamentally about predictive modelling using DNA sampling for biodiversity measurement. Using a network of probability distributions, the model predicts risk to water quality objectives and the relative richness of benthic taxa groups in the Noosa River.
Results of the modeling, given current inputs, indicate that the water quality and benthic assemblages of the Noosa are relatively homogenous across all sub-risk regions and that the Noosa River has a 73%–92% probability of achieving water quality objectives, indicating a low relative risk.
So why is a shadow of doubt being cast over water quality?
The benthic community richness patterns associated with risk in the Noosa are high diatom relative richness and low green algae relative richness. The only benthic pattern consistently associated with the relatively higher risk to water quality is high richness of fungi species.
The authors acknowledge that “the Noosa estuary, as a tourist destination that abuts a national park, is designated of high ecological value by stakeholders. Estuaries with higher ecological value have different water quality objectives than those with a lower designation, and the relative risk calculations in their model will reflect these differences. This regionalisation process took many attributes of the estuaries into account including (in order of importance):
- management goals (i.e., water quality objectives for the Lower Noosa estuary versus the Middle Noosa estuary);
- relationships between variables in the estuary;
- salinity gradients;
- land use; and
- location of point sources
Benthic eDNA data
Scientists from CSIRO, Australia’s national science agency, collected the sediment samples and sequenced the eDNA data used in this risk assessment. The surface sediment eDNA samples were collected by CSIRO during two sampling events (Summer 2010 and Autumn 2012) from the Noosa River which were evaluated in the risk assessment presented in this manuscript, eDNA from Noosa River was used for determining the water quality predictors in their model.
The Noosa benthic taxa PPDs are similar for all sub-regions, meaning there are not many differences along the salinity gradient from the Lower to the Upper risk regions. This same trend was observed in the water quality, with similar high probability of meeting objectives in all sub-regions.
Water quality results
Risk of not achieving water quality objectives is higher in the Pine and Logan estuaries than in the Noosa River. The Noosa River has low risk of not achieving objectives in all sub-regions, and the endpoint expected values and PPDs do not differ between sub-regions.
The homogeneity of the water quality of the Noosa River is also reflected in the eDNA benthic richness patterns. There are consistent trends in benthic taxa richness for regions that have greater than a 50% chance of achieving water quality objectives for at least one variable. These regions include the Noosa River. Of the five SEQ rivers tested, the Noosa estuary has the lowest nutrient and turbidity levels, but has the lowest fungi richness.
What I am highlighting here is that there are very credible existing world-class biodiversity modelling techniques that have already been used on our beloved Noosa River that paint a different picture to that which we have been exposed in recent days.
It is a picture that demands we take a step back and question where we are going before we commit more and more of our hard-earned cash to ‘learn as you go’ techniques. Chicken Little is wrong – the sky will not fall tomorrow! We have time to challenge ourselves and not be driven into predefined outcomes.
Can we please stop the scaremongering. Can we please get structured, consistent, measured long-term research. Can we please stop spending serious money until we have some absolutes about the river and not speculation. And finally can we please keep the money in Australia.