Platypus feeling the heat of climate change

Some of Australia's most iconic animals are feeling the heat of climate change and global warming. New scientific research shows the Platypus is under threat due to increasing summer temperatures. The scientific paper - Early response of the platypus to climate warming - is to be published in the international scientific journal 'Global Change Biology' later this year.

Related: Scientists have already reported that Koalas face starvation, extinction due to climate change

PhD student Melissa Klamt with Professor Jenny Davis and Dr Ross Thompson from Monash University examined platypus population data from the early 1800s to the present and combined it with climate data to show the range of the platypus is shrinking due to warmer summer temperatures rather than the loss of availability of habitat. Ths trend is clear from just a 1ºC rise in global average temperature.

"Platypus are amazing animals that we think of as being quite adaptable" Ms Klamt said in a media release, "But we found evidence that recent warming of the climate is really affecting their distribution."

Platypus have an extremely efficient fur which keeps them warm in the cold and sometimes icy temperatures of the creeks and rivers that are their main habitat. But hotter summers warm the waters and the efficient platypus fur means they cannot get rid of excess heat and moderate their body temperature. During extreme heat they retreat to their burrows for refuge. During prolonged warm periods foraging opportunities would be greatly reduced.

"Platypus have only a limited capacity to moderate their body temperature," said Professor Jenny Davis fromMonash University's Australian Centre for Biodiversity. "When summer temperatures become too warm they are very vulnerable."

Research by the Bureau of Meteorology and CSIRO has identified a long-term drying and warming of the climate in south-eastern Australia. The researchers have identified that this will directly reduce suitable platypus habitat by more than 30 per cent over the next 60 years. The increased extraction of water for human and agricutural use will also increase the loss of suitable platypus habitat.

If substantial cuts to greenhouse gas emissions aren't made globally Australia could see a 4ºC warming by the end of this century. CSIRO have warned this would result in temperature increases of about 3ºC to 5ºC in coastal areas and 4ºC to 6ºC in inland areas; likely declines of annual rainfall in southern Australia, particularly in winter, of up to about 50% but uncertain rainfall changes in other regions; marked increases of potential evaporation of about 5% to 20%; and more droughts in southern Australia. The decreased rainfall will result in decreased stream runoff and a contraction of aquatic habitat. These effects would be lethal over much of the range of the platypus.

"Rapid global warming of 4ºC would be unlike anything experienced before by modern human societies - presenting us with huge challenges in terms of our ability to adapt," said CSIRO Climate Adaptation Flagship climate researcher, Dr Penny Whetton.

Platypus can be found from North Queensland through New South Wales and Victoria and in Tasmania in freshwater ecosystems. It is no longer found in South Australia and populations have declined in the lower reaches of the Murray and Murrumbidgee Rivers in Victoria and NSW. It is usually nocturnal and most often seen by humans at dawn or early morning feeding in freshwater pools and streams.

"This is just another piece of evidence that climate change is a real factor affecting our native biodiversity now," said Dr Ross Thompson, Deputy Director of the Australian Centre for Biodiversity, where the research was conducted. "It reinforces the need to act decisively on climate change issues."

Platypus are a unique mammal species. The platypus and four species of echidna are the only living examples of the egg laying monotremes. The platypus genome has recently been sequenced to reveal a combination of reptilian and mammalian unique characteristics. In foraging for food it uses 'electroreception', a feature exclusive to the platypus and some fish.

"While the platypus has proven robust to many anthropogenic stresses, their specialized habitat requirements and limited dispersal ability may render them highly vulnerable to the impacts of a changing climate, particularly from loss of aquatic habitats due to drying and elevated water temperatures." the research paper says.

The researchers do provide some ways to limit the damage to platypus and other freshwater aquatic species through the provision and protection of 'refugia' - biolgical refuge islands which can support a range of micro-climates and micro-habitats. Habitat restoration by replanting trees and shrubs along waterways across a catchment may help to keep water temperatures from warming too much. Maintaining environmental flows during drought periods could also assist in maintaining platypus food sources and aquatic environment health through stressful periods.

There are signs that restoration of riparian habitat along Melbourne's waterways like Merri Creek may be assisting return of platypus to habitats within an urban environment with sightings in recent years increasing.

The IUCN still lists the platypus as of least concern in terms of global conservation status, with the species still found in much of its historic range. But the researchers warn that "our modeling shows that their vulnerability should not be underestimated".

"The apparent crossing of a threshold from aquatic habitat limitation to physiological limitation signals an early response to climate warming. The next step may be an 'ecological surprise' in the form of a catastrophic decline in platypus distribution and abundance. Facing this scenario, climate adaptation strategies must give highest priority to ensuring the enduring conservation of this globally significant animal." the paper concludes.

Sources:

Comments

Here in Victoria we have had good rain fall the weather is cold and the summer was not as hot as it has been in the past so if scientist are trying to tell me Victoria is getting hotter I think they need to go back to school.

Hi anon,
the good rainfall, sometimes of an extreme torrential nature, has caused a large amount of flooding across Victoria this last year. This was caused by a particularly strong La Nina weather pattern that followed a 13 year long drought. 2010 was the hottest year globally but for us in Victoria La Nina moderated down our temperatures last summer. But the long term temperature trend is for higher maximum temps during the day and higher minimum temps overnight. The long term trend for rainfall is also a drier climate for southeast Australia and the southwest around and below Perth. When rain does fall it is more likely to be in more intense storms.

You say 2010 is the hottest year globally really! have you ever heard of the cretaceous period where you could have grow tomatoes at the north pole?there were no humans around then for it to have been caused by man.
It was only 1100 years ago Greenland was populated.It was called Greenland because it was green, there were crops and cattle there but the climate changed like it has done for millions of years.

so your saying that climate change will have a very significant impact agriculture... do you think that 7+ billion people are ready to deal with that?

Global warming will benefit 7+ billion people it is the cooling that fucks us.We as humans must adapt to what the climate throws at us we can not control the climate not even a carbon tax can control the climate.

I wish the long term temperature would start soon in Victoria because it is fucking cold
Mon min8-max14 shower or two(no intense storms here)
Tue min9-max14 shower or two (none here either)
Wed min3-max15
Thur min6-max16
Fri min10-max17
How long will it be until we get the good weather?hope its soon can't wait

I'm not the only former believer urging prosecutors to lay criminal chargers to the leading scientists and news editors for knowingly inciting this needless panic of CO2 climate crisis.
Meanwhile, the UN and the entire SCIENCE world had allowed carbon trading markets run by corporations and politicians to trump 3rd world fresh water relief, starvation rescue and 3rd world education for just over 25 years of climate CONTROL instead of the obviously needed POPULATION control. Climate Change Crisis wasn’t sustainability. It was a 25 year old failed CO2 death threat to billions of children. Now who’s the fear mongering neocon?
THIS WAS OUR IRAQ WAR OF LIES AND FEAR MONGERING PEOPLE!!!!
We must own up to our exaggeration and condemning our children to a CO2 death with needless panic.

The science looks pretty solid... i've only seen crazy gibberish to counter it. Sure there have been minor mistakes in various reports (and there will always be more) but nothing that causes any doubt or shifts the weight of the significant body of evidence.

Indeed the relentless lies and nuttery that comes from anti climate science lunatic fringe only reinforces my comfort with the strength of the science. After all with all trillions of dollars behind the fossil fuel industry this is all that the carbon lobby can counter with?

Given global warming is largely induced by overconsumption in the developed world... shouldn't population reductions start here? Personally i would happily pocket a vasectomy bonus... maybe it should be paid in carbon credits :D

This has become all so sick. Why do we hope for this misery to happen?

what's sick? the ecosystem... mass extinction and climate change would support that proposition.

No your sick spreading bull shit like that

It may be a scam, but it has got how many nuclear warheads?

What's worse than all out nuclear war? The scientists are warning this CO2 climate crisis of unstoppable heating is akin to a life ending comet hit, i.e. “catastrophic”. But we all rationalize climate change as just pollution or at the very least, nature out of balance. It's not. It's a 25 year old death threat to billions of future generations.
I'm having a hard time now telling my kids the planet will die if they don't start turning the lights out more often and I have strong reservations about handing over the management of the atmosphere to carbon trading stock markets, giant energy corporations and (God help us), POLITICIANS! We need to back off of the CO2 mistake and carry on with honest stewardship, better management of waste, population control and energy conservation.

Maybe start with the worst CO2 source, the farm animal overpopulation?

https://indymedia.org.au/2011/06/10/the-ethics-of-meat-eating-by-helen-l...

Platypus feeling the heat of climate change ?They must be the only ones. Where do you get this garbage from ?

I am not convinced that we have Global Warming at all but even assuming that CO2 is the root of all evil instead of an element that is a necessary requirment to support life, I do not think that Man can control his environment especially by a Carbon Tax or any form of Carbon Trading. This is just a way of Government collecting more revenue and nothing constructive being done about the problem if indeed it exists at all.
The reality is that there have always been changes of climate on this planet and species including mankind have to adapt or face extinction. I am doubtful if our scientists or our governments have any answer to this problem.

If the massive body of evidence isn't going to convince you then nothing will.

The carbon tax is an interim measure to be replaced with a trading scheme in a couple of years so the "just a way of Government collecting more revenue" theory is silly.

> there have always been changes of climate

Nobody said their hasn't

whats the body of evidence?the IPCC has been proven to be a fraud the hockey stick graph left out the medievil warm period and the little ice age.The scientists write what the Government want to suit their agenda otherwise the funding gets cut.
There are a lot of top scientist who say CO2 has nothing to do with Global Warming in fact we are at the tail end of the little ice age and can expect cooling until 2035.

no fraud has been shown let alone proven, subsequent evidence and analysis has shown the key conclusion is the same: it's hotter now than it has been for at least 1000 years. (link)

but again if you are going to latch on to a decade old minor controversy, say it proves fraud and then proceed to discard the mass of evidence then really nothing is going to convince you.

Temperatures during the past 10,000 years were somewhat higher than at present until about 3,000 years,for the past 700 years the Earth has been coming out of the Little ice age and generally warming with alternating warm/cool periods. Georef lists 485 papers on the medieval warm period and 1413 on The Little Ice Age for a total of nearly 1900 papers published on the two periods.Thus, when Mann et al (1998)contended that neither event happened and that climate had not changed in 1000 years(the infamous hockey stick graph),geologists didn't take them seriously and thought either(1)the trees they used for their climate reconstruction were not climate sensitive,or(2)the data had been inappropriately used or(3)they were lying.

I wonder who has discarded the mass of evidence here?or are we just rewriting history to suit an agenda that will keep the Government grants coming? this is not science this is fraud no matter which you look at it

hurray! a copy paste war!.

Do us all a favour and cite your sources, it really makes the argument far less nebulous.

New Scientist has an easily digestible discussion of Climate myths: It was warmer during the Medieval period, with vineyards in England and Climate myths: We are simply recovering from the Little Ice Age .

> are we just rewriting history to suit an agenda

Nope i just googled the hockey stick and found an article that pointed to subsequent published studies that confirmed the key conclusion.

So yeah, 99.9% sure that the mass of evidence supports climate change as it is understood by the scientific community.

How many vineyards in Scottland? not as many as medieval times!So what your saying is that the 1900 scientific papers on the Medieval warm period and the little ice age were published by scientists who just wanted the government grants?or are they nut bags or do you just use the science that suits your argument?you medieval warm period deniers and little ice age deniers should look at the science behind these facts.
Hows the crops in Greenland going not as good as they did 1100 years ago when the place was green and hot.
can you grow tomatoes at the north pole like you could of in the cretaceous period.

i'm struggling to understand how 1900 (un-cited, would be good to see the list) studies on climate change many hundreds of years ago is good science, but the mass of evidence on modern day climate change is somehow bad science.

i guess more to the point... what's your point??? the climate is not static? nobody as far as i know has ever said it is. are you just fighting a straw man?

Let me spell it out for you if the climate was hot in medieval times and went into a little ice age without man made carbon dioxide it shows us that the climate has changed before hot then cold without human intervention now as we come out of the little ice age it will get hot again without any help from man is that too hard for you to comprehend or do you have as much brains as the straw man?

but your just discarding the massive body of evidence that indicates that greenhouse gases are causing climate change.

the fact that it's been hot and cold in the past is really beside the point.

> now as we come out of the little ice age

that's not supported by the science. indeed calling it an ice age is misleading in itself. why would you so eagerly latch on to that theory and discard everything else?

here you go mate:

‘‘Little Ice Age’’ and ‘‘Medieval Warm Period’’ for
describing past climate epochs during the last millennium.
Comparison of empirical evidence with proxy-based
reconstructions demonstrates that natural factors appear to
explain relatively well the major surface temperature changes
of the past millennium through the 19th century (including
hemispheric means and some spatial patterns). Only
anthropogenic forcing of climate, however, can explain the
recent anomalous warming in the late 20th century.

http://iri.columbia.edu/~goddard/EESC_W4400/CC/jones_mann_2004.pdf

which hockey team do you play for?

I think they play for The Bob Brown Bullshitters.

I didn't make up the term "Little Ice Age" the Scientists did.
The world has got hot and cold before without human intervention and it will again CO2 has nothing to do with it are you that stupid?Why would you latch onto the man made CO2 theory when climate change has always happened without man made CO2 it is a natural occurrence what bit don't you get?

> CO2 has nothing to do with it are you that stupid

analysis of the evidence says that it does.

> what bit don't you get?

the bit where you wilfully discard the vast majority of evidence and draw an incorrect conclusion.

You refer to New Scientist the rag that said on its cover "Darwin got it Wrong" to support your argument what a joke, this is the same rag that scientists want us to boycott because it is full of shit the same rag that said the Hymalayan glaciers would melt by 2035 because of man made global warming but it turned out they would melt by 2350 of a natural process even the IPCC published the 2035 date and said it was peer reviewed when it wasn't but copied straight out of New scientist magazine.So as you see the IPCC were made to look like dickheads using New Scientist magazine to support their argument dont you do the same

hmmm again so keen to latch on to a minor controversy and discard the massive body of evidence that indicate that climate change is serious problem.

if you have such little interest in the science, what would actually convince you that climate change is real?

Climate change is real it has been changing for millions of year and humans have had no part in it, believe it or not that is science.
Himalayan glaciers melting by 2035 because of humans you call that minor I would hate to see what you call major bull shit.
It seems you have little interest in science and are only interested in science that backs your argument no matter how wrong it is.Check out your mate Al Gore he has been caught speaking crap just to line his greedy pockets, look at all his mansions and the carbon foot print he leaves behind for one person, he does not look like a person that believes what he him self is speaking, now look at the companies he will make money from because climate change, what a fraud and you believe him, what a joke.
I keep looking for this massive body of evidence as you call it and only see computer generated models that have data manipulated to get the outcome required, I also see hypotheses or guess work but on this matter guess work is not good enough.
Here is a question how will a carbon dioxide tax in Australia change world climate?bearing in mind if Australia cut carbon dioxide by 100% tomorrow it would take China 9days to put the same amount of carbon dioxide back into the atmosphere that Australia would use in a year sorry it makes no sense the only one that wins is the Governments pocket.
If the ALP and the Greens really believed the world was at risk with man made climate change why would they not just say from tomorrow Australia stops mining coal and will not be selling any more because the safety of man kind is more important than Australias economy? the reason is they know it is bull shit and they just want the money.I don't expect you to answer the questions because I know you are full of shit too

> and only see computer generated models that have data manipulated

then you are clearly cherry picking

> how will a carbon dioxide tax in Australia change world climate?

by reducing our contribution

> would take China 9days

assuming thats correct (sources would be nice), its a much larger economy with many more people but far lower per-captia emissions.

its pretty hypocritical for a high per-capita emitter to cry poor to china

Computer generated models that have data manipulated and guess work what else is man made climate change based on?
Australia produces less carbon dioxide than china per square kilometre in fact less than any other country in the world that is what counts we have to look after our own area its not our fault our population is small and we emit less pollution than any other country in the world per square kilometre.I was in Beijing, Macau and Manila four months ago people walk around with white mouth masks on to stop sucking the pollution you can see a black mark where they have been sucking air in around the mouth you are lucky if you can see 500m through the pollution, we emit no where near more than china our cities are clean so don't come the per-capita bull shit with me your twisting the story as usual to suit your argument Beijing is a polluted shit hole and Australian capital cities are not thats the fact!

Then you say Australia will reduce carbon dioxide by reducing our contribution. Our contribution is two fifths of fuck all so at the end of the day we will reduce the worlds carbon dioxide by two fifths of fuck all good on ya.

It might be a good idea to go and have a look at the world and see Australia has about as much chance of reducing Carbon dioxide in the world as I have of emptying the Pacific ocean by a bucket

then two fifths of fuck all is our fair share. again you really should cite your sources, thats an interesting number.

> we emit less pollution than any other country in the world per square kilometre.

thats a weird one and im relly not sure how i should argue that. but i would suggest as we are trying to reduce man made greenhouse gas pollution it make far more sense to measure emissions against population.

How does it make more sense to measure Co2 per population?Every country has its own area to look after so square kilometres makes more sense.But if we say Australia emits less co2 per square kilometre than any other country it sounds bad for your argument to bring in a carbon dioxide tax.So stop twisting the story to make out Australia puts out more pollution than China America or India because we don't.So now that we have established America China and India emits 1000times the co2 Australia does it seems pointless to have a carbon dioxide tax in Australia it would make fuck all of a difference if man made climate change was real but it is not.

FACTS!

What planet do you come from? if you think that the government thinking up new ideas to get money out of us is a silly theory then you have been living on another planet because they have been doing it for a long time. As the old saying goes if the Government could think up an idea to tax the air we breath they will.Well fuck me here comes a carbon dioxide tax on the air we breath if my dad was alive he would say "see I told you"and just think I thought he was mad.If you can here me dad sorry I should never have doubted you

> What planet do you come from?

The one where the vast majority of people get a tax cut and the wealthy few that don't are are just a few bucks per week poorer (assuming they don't just turn of the air conditioner and turn the telly of at the wall).

off

since energy saving light globes come in the amount of electricity been consumed has been reduced so the electricity companies put the price of power up to compensate for there loss in revenue.Now every thing gets more expensive because power has gone up and it will go up again.Supermarkets don't use energy saving globes they can't turn off fridges or freezers but their power bills will increase who do you think will absorb the price increase, the Supermarket?what about trains who do you think will cop the extra power bill, the railway?Australian manufacturing who will absorb the increase in power bills there, the companies?I don't see street light using energy saving globes either the councils won't increase rates for the extra power bill will they?The list goes on and on we are going to need more than a tax cut to survive thanks to you dumb arse Greenies but as usual you only got half the story turn off the air con an telly my fucking arse!

right on

And I second it

Air is a renewable resource - why tax it as if it was finite?

its the most economically efficient way to encourage investment in non polluting technology.

It is even less efficient than subsidies financed from fossil energy taxation, because it still encourages consumption rather than saving, amounting to a growing exploitation of resources including the atmosphere likely to compensate all reductions in pollution.

What a great debate I think the Hockey Players are down 6-nil

Love this comment page, looks like the hockey players are being exposed for the lies they spread, and have no come back other than to change scientific history like the Medieval warm period and the little ice age that was taught in schools before the hockey team was put together HA HA HEE HEE HA HA

If we don't cut our carbon emissions aliens will attack earth www.youtube.com/watch?v=CHaEw4JPpmM I hope you climate deniers wake up before we are all doomed