Fecal bacterial communities of wild-captured and stranded green turtles (Chelonia mydas) on the Great Barrier Reef

Green turtles (Chelonia mydas) are endangered marine herbivores that break down food particles, primarily sea grasses, through microbial fermentation. However, the microbial community and its role in health and disease is still largely unexplored. In this study, we investigated and compared the fecal bacterial communities of eight wild-captured green turtles to four stranded turtles in the central Great Barrier Reef regions that include Bowen and Townsville. We used high-throughput sequencing analysis targeting the hypervariable V1-V3 regions of the bacterial 16S rRNA gene. At the phylum level, Firmicutes predominated among wild-captured green turtles, followed by Bacteroidetes and Proteobacteria. In contrast, Proteobacteria (Gammaproteobacteria) was the most significantly dominant phylum among all stranded turtles, followed by Bacteroidetes and Firmicutes. In addition, Fusobacteria was also significantly abundant in stranded turtles. No significant differences were found between the wild-captured turtles in Bowen and Townsville. At the family level, the core bacterial community consisted of 25 families that were identified in both the wild-captured and stranded green turtles, while two unique sets of 14 families each were only found in stranded or wild-captured turtles. The predominance of Bacteroides in all groups indicates the importance of these bacteria in turtle gut health. In terms of bacterial diversity and richness, wild-captured green turtles showed a higher bacterial diversity and richness compared with stranded turtles. The marked differences in the bacterial communities between wild-captured and stranded turtles suggest the possible dysbiosis in stranded turtles in addition to potential causal agents

Environmental decision-making using Bayesian networks: Creating an environmental report card

Environmental report cards are popular mechanisms for summarising the overall status of an environmental system of interest. This paper describes the development of such a report card in the context of a study for Gladstone Harbour in Queensland, Australia. The harbour is within the World Heritage-protected Great Barrier Reef and is the location of major industrial development, hence the\ud interest in developing a way of reporting its health in a statistically valid, transparent and sustainable manner. A <i>Bayesian network (BN)</i> approach was used because of its ability to aggregate and integrate different sources of information, provide probabilistic estimates of interest and update these estimates in a natural manner as new information becomes available.\ud \ud <i>BN</i> modelling is an iterative process, and in the context of environmental reporting, this is appealing as model development can be initiated while quantitative knowledge is still under development, and subsequently refined as more knowledge becomes available. Moreover, the <i>BN</i> model helps build the maturity of the quantitative information needed and helps target investment in monitoring and/or process modelling activities to inform the approach taken. The model is able to incorporate spatial and temporal information and may be structured in such a way that new indicators of relevance to the underlying environmental gradient being monitored may replace less informative indicators or be added to the model with minimal effort.\ud \ud The model described here focuses on the environmental component, but has the capacity to also incorporate social, cultural and economic components of the Gladstone Harbour Report Card

Restoration goals: Why are fauna still overlooked in the process of recovering functioning ecosystems and what can be done about it?

Despite the evidence that fauna play complex and critical roles in ecosystems (e.g. pollination and nutrient cycling) and the knowledge that they need to be considered in restoration, fauna often remain poorly represented in restoration goal setting, monitoring and assessments of restoration success. Fauna clearly are integral to the aspirations of achieving full ecosystem recovery. However, over-reaching assumptions about the unassisted return of fauna to restored sites, low investment in fauna monitoring, and minimal consideration of the requirements for fauna monitoring in regulatory guidance and standards appear to have led to the historically vegetation-centric approaches to rehabilitation and ecological restoration. We argue that ecological complexities render assumptions of unassisted fauna return inappropriate in many situations and may represent a missed opportunity to enhance ecological outcomes and improve restoration trajectories. We advocate for greater consideration of fauna as facilitators of ecological restoration and, particularly for well-funded projects, for monitoring to place greater emphasis on examining the behaviour and resilience of restored fauna communities. There is a clear need for both industry and regulators to recognise that fauna can be crucial facilitators of restoration and appreciate that the return and monitoring of functional faunal communities can be costly, challenging and may require detailed study across a wide range of taxonomic groups. Failure to advance from business as usual models may risk leaving a legacy of ostensibly functional, but biodiversity-depauperate, restored ecosystems