In-water monitoring of marine vertebrates is usually expensive while the use of stranding data can be used to provide a cost-effective estimation of disease and mortality. Strandings for Queensland are recorded in a web based database (StrandNet) managed by the Queensland Government’s Department of Environment and Heritage Protection (EHP). Data recorded in StrandNet from the east coast of Queensland between 1996 and 2013 were investigated for patterns of stranding. Significant trends in Queensland over this time were (i) an increase in the number of animals reported stranded within this study site; (ii) a species (loggerhead and green marine turtles) prevalence; (iii) a seasonal effect on different age classes stranding with most overall strandings occurring between August and November; and (iv) stranding hotspots (Moreton Bay, Hervey Bay, Rockhampton region, and Cleveland Bays) persisting throughout the study timeframe. This study suggested that intervention strategies, such as rehabilitation, should be able to be focussed on periods of heightened importance and specific localities to minimize health risks and contribute to sustainable use of resources.

Rehabilitation of marine turtles in Queensland has multifaceted objectives. It treats individual animals, serves to educate the public, and contributes to conservation. We examined the outcome from rehabilitation, time in rehabilitation, and subsequent recapture and restranding rates of stranded marine turtles between 1996 and 2013 to determine if the benefits associated with this practice are cost-effective as a conservation tool. Of 13,854 marine turtles reported as stranded during this 18-year period, 5,022 of these turtles were stranded alive with the remainder verified as dead or of unknown condition. A total of 2,970 (59%) of these live strandings were transported to a rehabilitation facility. Overall, 1,173/2,970 (39%) turtles were released over 18 years, 101 of which were recaptured: 77 reported as restrandings (20 dead, 13 alive subsequently died, 11 alive subsequently euthanized, 33 alive) and 24 recaptured during normal marine turtle population monitoring or fishing activities. Of the turtles admitted to rehabilitation exhibiting signs of disease, 88% of them died, either unassisted or by euthanasia and 66% of turtles admitted for unknown causes of stranding died either unassisted or by euthanasia. All turtles recorded as having a buoyancy disorder with no other presenting problem or disorder recorded, were released alive. In Queensland, rehabilitation costs approximately $1,000 per animal per year admitted to a center, $2,583 per animal per year released, and $123,750 per animal per year for marine turtles which are presumably successfully returned to the functional population. This practice may not be economically viable in its present configuration, but may be more cost effective as a mobile response unit. Further there is certainly benefit giving individual turtles a chance at survival and educating the public in the perils facing marine turtles. As well, rehabilitation can provide insight into the diseases and environmental stressors causing stranding, arming researchers with information to mitigate negative impacts.

Globally, tropical and subtropical regions have experienced an increased frequency and intensity in extreme weather events, ranging from severe drought to protracted rain depressions and cyclones, these coincided with an increased number of marine turtles subsequently reported stranded. This study investigated the relationship between environmental variables and marine turtle stranding. The environmental variables examined in this study, in descending order of importance, were freshwater discharge, monthly mean maximum and minimum air temperatures, monthly average daily diurnal air temperature difference and rainfall for the latitudinal hotspots (-27°, -25°, -23°, -19°) along the Queensland coast as well as for major embayments within these blocks. This study found that marine turtle strandings can be linked to these environmental variables at different lag times (3–12 months), and that cumulative (months added together for maximum lag) and non-cumulative (single month only) effects cause different responses. Different latitudes also showed different responses of marine turtle strandings, both in response direction and timing.Cumulative effects of freshwater discharge in all latitudes resulted in increased strandings 10–12 months later. For latitudes -27°, -25° and -23° non-cumulative effects for discharge resulted in increased strandings 7–12 months later. Latitude -19° had different results for the non-cumulative bay with strandings reported earlier (3–6 months). Monthly mean maximum and minimum air temperatures, monthly average daily diurnal air temperature difference and rainfall had varying results for each examined latitude. This study will allow first responders and resource managers to be better equipped to deal with increased marine turtle stranding rates following extreme weather events.

Aquatic ecosystems are currently facing a multitude of stressors from anthropogenic impacts, including climate change, pollution, and overfishing. Public aquariums positively contribute to ecosystems through conservation, education, and scientific advancement; but may also negatively detract from these systems through collection of animals from the wild and sourcing from commercial suppliers. Changes within the industry have occurred, although evidence-based assessments of 1) how aquariums collect and maintain their populations to determine sustainability of the environment they have harvested; and 2) the welfare of these harvested animals once within the aquariums are still needed. The objectives of this study were to assess the ecosystem health of locations aquariums frequently visit to collect fish from the wild, and then evaluate the wellbeing of fishes at aquariums after extended periods in captivity. Assessments included use of chemical, physical, and biological indicators at field sites, and use of a quantitative welfare assessment at aquariums for comparison to species reared through aquaculture. Anthropogenic pressures at field sites were observed, but no evidence of high degradation or compromised health of animals were found. Welfare assessments of aquarium exhibit tanks produced high-positive scores overall (> 70/84), demonstrating that both wild collected (avg. score 78.8) and aquaculture fishes (avg. score 74.5) were coping appropriately within their environments. Although findings indicated that fish can be taken from the wild at low-moderate rates without any deleterious impact on the environment and cope equally well in aquarium settings, alternatives such as aquaculture should be considered as a strategy to reduce pressure on known stressed aquatic environments or where significant numbers of fishes are being taken.

Marine turtles are caught and slaughtered for consumption as part of traditional indigenous community harvest in Australia as well as in many countries in which marine turtles can be found. However, changes to the Animal Care and Protection Act 2001 in 2012 resulted in Australian indigenous hunters becoming potentially liable to prosecution for using traditional practices to slaughter marine turtles. To provide indigenous hunters with an alternative scientifically tested method to hunt, we developed and tested a humane method as an option to use in indigenous communities. Between 2012 and 2015, a device was developed, tested on 11 carcasses to determine effectiveness and repeatability, used on 5 anaesthetised animals independently diagnosed as candidates for euthanasia, and ultimately used on 2 healthy, conscious animals as part of normal indigenous community subsistence harvesting under observation before being left with the communities for use. Feedback was sought from the communities on the suitability and potential adoption of the device. The device effectively ablated the hind brain and severed the spinal cord when deployed in 81% (9/11) of the tested carcasses, with death in 100% (5/5) of turtles, on average, within 78 seconds of deployment on anaesthetised turtles and death in 100% (2/2) of turtles, on average, within 144 seconds when deployed on healthy turtles within community. Failure to ablate the hindbrain and sever the spinal cord in the cadaver cases was due to incorrect deployment of the device. This device showed promise as an alternative euthanasia method available to indigenous communities of the Torres Straits. Further work is required to encourage acceptance by hunters.

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) emerged in humans in late 2019 and spread rapidly to become a global pandemic. A zoonotic spillover event from animal to human was identified as the presumed origin. Subsequently, reports began emerging regarding spillback events resulting in SARS-CoV-2 infections in multiple animal species. These events highlighted critical links between animal and human health while also raising concerns about the development of new reservoir hosts and potential viral mutations that could alter virulence and transmission or evade immune responses. Characterizing susceptibility, prevalence, and transmission between animal species became a priority to help protect animal and human health. In this study, we coalesced a large team of investigators and community partners to surveil for SARS-CoV-2 in domestic and free-ranging animals around Ohio between May 2020 and August 2021. We focused on species with known or predicted susceptibility to SARS-CoV-2 infection, highly congregated or medically compromised animals (e.g. shelters, barns, veterinary hospitals), and animals that had frequent contact with humans (e.g. pets, agricultural animals, zoo animals, or animals in wildlife hospitals). This included free-ranging deer (n=76), mink (n=57), multiple species of bats (n=65), and other wildlife in addition to domestic cats (n=275) and pigs (n= 184). In total, we tested 800 animals (34 species) via rRT-PCR for SARS-CoV-2 RNA. SARS-CoV-2 viral RNA was not detected in any of the tested animals despite a major peak in human SARS-CoV-2 cases that occurred in Ohio subsequent to the peak of animal samplings. Importantly, due to lack of validated tests for animals, we did not test for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in this study, which limited our ability to assess exposure. While the results of this study were negative, the surveillance effort was critical and remains key to understanding, predicting, and preventing re-emergence of SARS-CoV-2 in humans or animals.

No abstract

School of Veterinary Science 2In-water monitoring of the health and well-being of marine vertebrates is usually expensive and therefore may not be undertaken by management agencies with financial constraints.However, the use of stranding data can provide a cost-effective alternative estimation of disease and mortality. Strandings for marine turtles in Queensland are recorded in a web based database (StrandNet) managed by the Queensland Government's Department of Environment and Heritage Protection (EHP). Data recorded in StrandNet for marine turtles stranded from the entire east coast of Queensland between 1996 and 2013 were investigated for patterns of stranding in an attempt to identify which factors, such as extreme weather events, may cause stranding of marine turtle species and, further, use these patterns to predict stranding and the required responses to mitigate the negative impact mass mortalities have on endangered species such as marine turtles.Significant stranding trends in Queensland between 1996-2013 were: (i) an increase in the number of animals reported stranded within the study site; (ii) a species (loggerhead and green marine turtles) prevalence for stranding; (iii) a seasonal effect on different age classes stranding with most overall strandings occurring between August and November; and (iv) stranding hotspots (Moreton Bay, Hervey Bay, Rockhampton region and Cleveland Bay) persisting throughout the study timeframe.One strategy to mitigate the negative effects of marine turtle stranding is to provide medical care to those that strand alive in the hopes they can return to the functional population. Rehabilitation of marine turtles in Queensland is multifaceted. It treats individual animals, serves to educate the public, and contributes to conservation. Of 13854 marine turtles reported as stranded during the 18-year period of investigation, 5022 of these turtles stranded alive with the remainder verified as dead or of unknown condition. A total of 2970 (59%) of these live strandings were transported to a rehabilitation facility.The original cause of stranding has an impact on the success of rehabilitation and this may influence where treatment efforts are directed. For example, of the turtles admitted to rehabilitation exhibiting signs of disease (natural cause of illness) (18% of all animals admitted to rehabilitation), 88% of them died either unassisted or by euthanasia. Sixty-six percent of turtles admitted for unknown causes of stranding died either unassisted or by 3 euthanasia. By contrast, all turtles recorded as having a buoyancy disorder with no other presenting problem or disorder recorded, were released alive.One hundred and one of the turtles released from rehabilitation were reencountered: 77 reported as restrandings (20 dead, 13 alive subsequently died, 11 alive subsequently euthanized, 33 alive) and 24 recaptured during normal marine turtle population monitoring or fishing activities. Considering the high mortality rate and low successful recapture rate, rehabilitation may not be...