University of Queensland and Queensland Government researchers have confirmed that the Bramble Cay melomys – the only mammal species endemic to the Great Barrier Reef - is the first mammal to go extinct due to human-induced climate change.

In a newly published report, the scientists conducted a comprehensive survey in 2014 but failed to find any trace of the rodent.

The rodent was known only to live on a small (4 ha) coral cay, just 340m long and 150m wide in the Torres Strait, between Queensland in Australia and Papua New Guinea.

“Because a limited survey in March 2014 failed to detect the species, Bramble Cay was revisited from August to September 2014, with the explicit aims of establishing whether the Bramble Cay melomys still persisted on the island and to enact emergency measures to conserve any remaining individuals,” Dr Luke Leung of UQ’s School of Agriculture and Food Sciences said.

“A thorough survey effort involving 900 small animal trap-nights, 60 camera trap-nights and two hours of active daytime searches produced no records of the species, confirming that the only known population of this rodent is now extinct.

“Anecdotal information obtained from a professional fisherman who visited Bramble Cay annually for the past 10 years suggested that the last known sighting of the Bramble Cay melomys was made in late 2009.”

Dr Leung said the key factor responsible for the destruction of this population was almost certainly ocean inundation of the low-lying cay, very likely on multiple occasions, during the past decade, causing dramatic habitat loss and perhaps also direct mortality of individuals. The cay sits at most 3m above sea level.

“Available information about sea-level rise and the increased frequency and intensity of weather events producing extreme high water levels and damaging storm surges in the Torres Strait region over this period point to human-induced climate change being the root cause of the loss of the Bramble Cay melomys,” he said.

Dr Leung said the fact that exhaustive efforts had failed to record the rodent at its only known location and extensive surveys had not found it on any other Torres Strait or Great Barrier Reef island gave him confidence in the assertion that Australia had lost another mammal species.

“Significantly, this probably represents the first recorded mammalian extinction due to anthropogenic climate change.

“However, new information is provided in support of a previously presented hypothesis that the Fly River delta of Papua New Guinea is a possible source of the original melomys population on Bramble Cay, so the Bramble Cay melomys or a closely related species might occur there. “

Dr Leung said it could be premature to declare the Bramble Cay melomys extinct on a global scale.

The study was led by Ian Gynther from Queensland’s Department of Environment and Heritage Protection and in partnership with UQ researchers Natalie Waller and Luke Leung.

Until there's a consensus on population control everything else is just pissing in the wind.

You could shut down every coal mine in the world tomorrow but if the population balloons out to 12 billion as they're predicting it'll mean sweet fuck all.

Until there's a consensus on population control everything else is just pissing in the wind.

You could shut down every coal mine in the world tomorrow but if the population balloons out to 12 billion as they're predicting it'll mean sweet fuck all.

Your smarmy little picture doesn't change the facts.

Yep

Those '12 billion' (actually mainly the OECD countries) could change their lifestyle to reduce their impact, something easy like consuming less/no animal products.

You could own the problem and do something or do SFA and leave it for some other person/generation to deal with it.

Sauce.

Remember guys, it's all a hoax and the scientific community is part of a huge conspiracy. You are truly leaving the world a better place for your children.

Those '12 billion' (actually mainly the OECD countries) could change their lifestyle to reduce their impact, something easy like consuming less/no animal products.

You could own the problem and do something or do SFA and leave it for some other person/generation to deal with it.

Have you watched Cowspiracy yet?

Interesting.

So we all have to become vegetarian vegan, gay marriage supporting socialists in order to save the world?

Edited by rusty: 16/6/2016 09:48:24 AM

Interesting.

So we all have to become vegetarian, gay marriage supporting socialists in order to save the world?

Edited by rusty: 16/6/2016 09:48:24 AM

Interesting.

So we all have to become vegetarian, gay marriage supporting socialists in order to save the world?

Edited by rusty: 16/6/2016 09:48:24 AM

Those '12 billion' (actually mainly the OECD countries) could change their lifestyle to reduce their impact, something easy like consuming less/no animal products.

You could own the problem and do something or do SFA and leave it for some other person/generation to deal with it.

Wake up to yourself.

5 + Billion of those will be in Asia 2 or 3 + billion will be in Africa and elsewhere.

OECD countries are population neutral or in decline.

But OECD countries, per capita, have a much greater impact and also a greater ability, both as a society and at individual level, to make positive changes.

Yep.

But if OECD countries went vego and started living in mud huts tomorrow global warming will still happen. Just at a slower rate.

A slower rate is better than nothing tbf.

A slower rate is better than nothing tbf.

Really? What difference does it make when you get there in the end?

Really? What difference does it make when you get there in the end?

Until there's a consensus on population control everything else is just pissing in the wind.

A question for those who have a decent enough understanding of population control in relation to climate change, etc:

Say the average Australian - what is the very roughly agreed upon amount of children they should have, to do their part? 0, 1, 2? How can the average OECD countryman do their part, within reason?

Like, 2.3 children is the average right (why do I know this figure? It must be relevant?)? Is having under that deemed doing your own little part?

I'm not against action to stop our polluting ways but I am unsure if you can say that the extinction of a rat on a tiny island on is the first due to human induced climate change.

That disregards all the mammal species that we have killed off through our destructive behaviour removing vegetation and animals to create a climate that is more fruitful to our own needs.

The rat may also have been killed off by other natural means. Looking at pictures and maps of the island, it is tiny with very little shelter. I find it amazing that the rats were able to sustain themselves in such numbers that had been recorded for such a long time. A large storm or series of large storms most likely be catastrophic for whatever lived there. There is also the chance that they ate themselves out of existence, much like you are arguing over us humans doing.