From Aboriginal rock art to colonial encounters, sharks have been a figure of fear and fascination throughout the long human history of this continent
Is there a more primal fear among beach-goers than the shark? Although many more Australians drown each year at the beach than are killed by these creatures, it’s sharks that inhabit the jagged edges of our collective consciousness.
Manufacturing company 3M knew more than 50 years ago that its firefighting products – including components in Pfas “forever chemicals” – could be hazardous to the health of humans and animals and damage the environment, the federal government has claimed in court documents.
In filings as part of its $2bn lawsuit against the multinational company, commonwealth lawyers said products sold to Australia were known to stay present in water and soil, were persistent in the human body and in animals, and contributed to conditions including reduced kidney function, alterations in immune function, effects on fertility and puberty and lower birth weight in babies.
As warming seas push native species to cooler waters farther north, once-rare visitors have become more common
‘It sounds silly but I thought it was a person in the water waving,” says Kurt Lander, skipper of the Yellowfin charter boat, based out of Brighton. But when he grabbed his binoculars, he realised the fluttering movement he had noticed in the middle of the Channel shipping lane was a pair of sunfish.
The huge fish were lying on their sides and flapping their fins. “Apparently, they do it as a visual attraction to birds,” he says. “They’re trying to get the birds to eat the parasites off them.”
Australia is already investing in regional and remote microgrids, including two First Nations-led microgrid projects in the Northern Territory. Microgrids are small, controllable electricity systems that are powered by renewable energy and can operate independently of the national network.
Meanwhile, the federal government is exploring what opportunities renewable hydrogen may offer. Globally, we consume about 100 million tonnes of hydrogen each year – most of it fossil fuel-based – to produce everything from fertiliser to margarine. But Australia’s hydrogen ambitions have been shaken by cancelled projects and high costs. Internationally, uncertain demand and a lack of infrastructure are holding back hydrogen development worldwide.
Our recent study takes a practical look beyond the “hydrogen hype”. It suggests hydrogen could work alongside batteries in some remote microgrids.
Not just a replacement
Solar panels and wind turbines produce renewable electricity. Batteries store any surplus energy for later use, making them particularly useful when the sky is cloudy, winds ease or demand suddenly rises.
If more electricity is generated than the battery can store, a device called an electrolyser can split water into oxygen and hydrogen. The hydrogen is then stored and later fed into a fuel cell, which uses it to generate electricity. This allows renewable energy to be stored for longer periods and used when needed.
But this process has its downsides. Converting electricity into hydrogen and back again loses more energy than storing electricity in a battery. Hydrogen equipment is also expensive.
So hydrogen is not a replacement for batteries, but offers another option when longer storage is needed, diesel deliveries are costly, or several days of backup power are essential.
In our recent study, we tested an automatically controlled experimental microgrid. The system used real batteries and equipment that acted like renewable power sources, an electrolyser and a fuel cell.
We examined its performance under different scenarios to assess:
how the electrolyser responded to surplus power
how the fuel cell responded to a power shortage
how the whole microgrid handled changing demand.
Our results showed the system could respond to shifts in supply and demand while keeping the microgrid’s voltage close to its target of 380 volts. This is an important step in bringing this technology from the lab to the field.
Australia has also built a related field demonstration. The Denham project in Western Australia is the country’s first remote renewable hydrogen microgrid. It became operational in 2024 and was designed to store excess solar electricity as hydrogen for later use.
The Australian Renewable Energy Agency described this trial as a success. But it also identified challenges in delivering the project and making the hydrogen equipment work with other technologies.
Hydrogen microgrids may be most useful in places where reliable power is expensive or difficult to get, such as remote communities, islands and offshore operations. These locations often rely on diesel delivered by truck, ship or barge. And it can be costly to connect these communities to the main electricity grid.
But hydrogen microgrids won’t suit every remote community. Producing hydrogen requires purified water. In dry or offshore locations, supplying this water requires extra equipment, uses more energy and increases costs. Communities may also lack the resources or skills to keep electrolysers and fuel cells running.
Communities must first decide what level of reliability they need and what risks they are willing to accept. Possible risks include higher upfront costs, extra pressure on scarce water supplies, and delays in sourcing specialist parts or repairs. They should also consider whether public money would be better spent on another technology, such as larger batteries, pumped hydro or stronger transmission links.
Any proposed microgrid should be designed with local conditions in mind. The European Union’s REMOTE project tested three combined hydrogen-and-battery systems at isolated sites in Spain, Greece and Norway. The projects showed technical promise, but each site required a different design to match its energy supply and the needs of local customers.
Hydrogen is unlikely to replace batteries any time soon, but could be valuable in places where longer storage is essential. However, it’s ultimately up to communities to decide whether hydrogen is worth the investment – or is just another hyped-up technology.
By the early 1990s, there were only around 20 Florida Panthers left on the planet.
A distinct and isolated population of the widespread Puma (Puma concolor), the Florida Panther was pushed to the edge of extinction by a range of threats. One major issue was their poor genetic health, a measure of how diverse an individual or population’s genes are and how related everyone is.
In 1995, researchers performed a daring “genetic rescue”. They introduced a handful of Texan Pumas to the Florida Panther population. These animals then interbred and helped the Panther population bounce back by bringing in new genetic material.
This example illustrates why genetic health matters. However, poor genetic health often gets overshadowed by other threats such as land clearing, invasive species, disease and climate change. That’s despite decades of research highlighting it as a crucial piece in the conservation puzzle.
A genetic health check
Scientists assess a species’ genetic health by taking small samples from individuals – of blood or hair for example – to compare the similarities and differences in their DNA.
This information helps us understand a species’ genetic makeup, including its levels of genetic diversity and inbreeding. These factors can indicate whether a species is more likely to flourish or go extinct.
The more genetic diversity a species has, the better. Diversity helps individuals and populations survive environmental changes such as disease, invasive species, bushfires and floods. A diverse population is more likely to already have individuals that can cope with the new conditions. Hence they pass down those very versions of genes that have helped them. This is the process of natural selection.
A related issue is inbreeding, where close relatives mate and produce offspring. Close relatives tend to carry the same harmful mutations in their genes, so their offspring can end up with no working copies of those genes. As shown by some historical royal families, the results can be disastrous – developmental problems, disease, lower fertility and early death.
These two factors – low genetic diversity and high inbreeding – combine to produce fewer offspring generation after generation.
Poor genetic health can dramatically increase a species’ risk of going extinct. Studies of common non-threatened species – mammals, birds and plants alike – show inbred individuals have fewer surviving offspring than non-inbred ones.
Experimental studies confirm this too. In 1998, researchers established new populations of the Glanville Fritillary Butterfly (Melitaea cinxia) in empty meadows in Finland. Two-thirds of the populations with good genetic health survived their first winter, while populations with poor genetic health were all wiped out.
The endangered Glanville Fritillary Butterfly is one species where researchers have closely studied genetic health.Mustafa Öztürk/Getty
Poor genetic health is a significant issue on its own. But it can also worsen other threats. For example, a series of heatwaves may drive a species into decline, triggering the loss of genetic diversity and an increase in inbreeding. This then means species may be less able to survive the next heatwave and so on, in a downward spiral towards extinction.
Despite this, genetic health is often overlooked in global recovery plans and conservation policies. This may be because of the perception that genetics is too complex or just isn’t relevant to conservation.
Not managing genetic health, due to inaction or legislative hurdles, can lead to extinction. Consider the Dusky Seaside Sparrow (Ammospiza maritima nigrescens). By the 1980s, only males remained, and they were successfully crossed with females of a related subspecies. But conservation legislation did not recognise the resulting “hybrid” offspring, meaning this conservation effort was abandoned. This sub-species is now extinct.
Scientists have worked hard to boost the genetic health of the critically endangered Mountain Pygmy Possum.Jason Edwards/Getty
So, what can we do?
The case of the Florida Panther shows extinction is avoidable if we act before it’s too late. So do other examples such as the Helmeted Honeyeater (Lichenostomus melanops cassidix) and Mountain Pygmy Possum (Burramys parvus) in Australia. In each case, scientists carefully chose which individuals to move between distinct populations. The result was more offspring, better survival and populations starting to grow again.
To prioritise the genetic health of our most vulnerable plants and animals, threatened species managers should:
recognise the importance of genetic health, as outlined in our recent article
assess whether a species has poor, moderate or good genetic health. This helps identify which populations are most at risk, and what strategies will most effectively boost their genetic diversity
move small numbers of individuals between populations to reduce inbreeding and enhance genetic diversity, but only between populations of the same species that are from similar habitats. If their gene pools are too different, they won’t breed well. When done correctly, this simple action can have large and reliable benefits for survival and reproduction
create habitat corridors so individuals can move between different populations and limit inbreeding, effectively performing their own genetic rescues.
The public can contribute by:
getting involved with an environmental group or conservation organisation, and ensuring genetic health is part of any species recovery plan
advocating for habitat protection and government investment in species recovery.
We share our planet with a spectacular array of plants and animals. To help them thrive, it’s time we prioritise their genetic health and put it at the core of our conservation efforts.
The endangered Greater Prairie-Chicken has recovered thanks to genetic rescues.Aaron Seltzer/Getty
We would like to acknowledge Harry Hines (Queensland Parks and Wildlife Services and Partnerships) for his contribution to this article and as an author on the research paper on which it is based.
Nicholas Bail received research funding from the Ecological Society of Australia, the Skyrail Rainforest Foundation, Bioplatforms Australia's Australian Amphibian and Reptile Genomics Consortium. He was supported during the writing of this work by an Australian government Research Training Program Scholarship at James Cook University, and has been employed at James Cook University to do genetic assessments as a research worker with funding from the Queensland Government. He is a member of the Genetics Society of AustralAsia.
Conrad Hoskin receives funding from the Department of the Environment, Tourism, Science and Innovation, the Australian Research Council, Bioplatforms Australia and the National Environment Research Program. He works at James Cook University and is also an Honorary Research Fellow with the Queensland Museum.
Megan Higgie receives research funding from Bioplatforms Australia's Threatened Species Initiative and from the United Kingdom's National Environmental Research Council.
Richard Frankham is affiliated with the Australian Museum, where he is a Research Associate.
