Search

Simple Summary: The 2019–2020 Black Summer bushfires had a devastating impact on Australian biodiversity. Many affected human communities felt compelled to intervene by organizing and providing food, water, and/or shelter to affected wildlife in situ ('wildlife provisioning'). While well intentioned, due to the unprecedented scale and intensity of the fires, a lack of institutional support for wildlife provisioning, and what was revealed to be a lack of scientific evidence, this response was largely uncoordinated and a substantial amount of research is required to determine the beneficial and/or negative outcomes of such practices as a response to habitat destruction by bushfires. We propose a 'One Welfare' approach that recognizes the interconnection of human, animal, and environmental welfare and examines the existing literature; local legislation; views of stakeholders; emerging data; and modelling from fire events. There is strong evidence indicating that future bushfire seasons will become longer and more intense in Australia and elsewhere, putting the welfare and survival of millions of wild animals at risk every year. If this approach were implemented, we anticipate that best practice recommendations for stakeholders in different contexts would emerge to determine if, when, and how wildlife provisioning best be conducted, now and into the future. Australia's 2019–2020 bushfires had a devastating impact on animals, humans, and ecosystems. They also demonstrated the lack of evidence or guidance for wildlife provisioning in response to severe fire events when volunteers and wildlife organisations rose to respond. In addition, the unprecedented scale and intensity of the fires and an absence of institutional support for wildlife provisioning meant that well-intentioned interventions were largely uncoordinated and lacked clear short-term, mid-term, and long-term objectives. Fundamentally, a lack of consensus was revealed on whether any such interventions are advisable. Given the strong evidence indicating that future bushfire seasons will become longer and more intense in Australia and elsewhere, the welfare and survival of millions of wild animals are at risk every year. Understanding the impacts of supplementary resource interventions and contributing to the development of best practice information is crucial to inform the response to the next major fire event. Here, we contextualize the arguments for and against provisioning within a 'One Welfare' framework that recognizes that animal welfare, biodiversity, and the environment are intertwined with human welfare and community resilience. We propose that the One Welfare approach can facilitate appropriate consideration of the extant scientific and lay literature; local legislation; views of stakeholders; emerging data; and modelling from historic fire events. As a further step, we see merit in engaging with wildlife provisioners and the broader conservation community to build an evidence base for future wildlife provisioning activities. From an informed position, we can encourage beneficial interventions and reduce the risk of negative outcomes. Finally, we propose controlled experiments (e.g., using hazard reduction burns), ongoing data collection using emergent technology, and longitudinal analysis to address shifting research priorities as the climate changes. We conclude that the ordered collection of the necessary evidence relevant to each of the three stakeholder groups in the One Welfare framework has the greatest potential to support an informed policy platform on wildlife provisioning across Australia that is feasible, legal, and sustainable. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Simple Summary: Bushfires are a regular occurrence in the Australian landscape. The 2019/20 megafires were unprecedented in intensity and scale, impacting many native species. Koalas were particularly impacted by the fires, with many of those coming into care requiring extensive rehabilitation and treatment. Very little is known about the health parameters of rehabilitated koalas following their release and how these parameters may differ between individuals living in a burnt landscape compared to those in an unburnt landscape. This study tested haematological and serum biochemical parameters, chlamydial shedding and body condition scores of rehabilitated koalas and non-rescued residents living in burnt and unburnt habitats. All koalas received a health check 5–9 months post-fire and one 12–16 months post-fire. Rehabilitated koalas also received a health check when coming into care initially. While some variation in parameters was recorded, the majority of measurements in each koala group fell within the normal reference ranges, suggesting that resident and rehabilitated koalas were in good health at the time of release and when recaptured. These results show that koalas can be supported in burnt landscapes (provided there is adequate nutrition) and that the health of rehabilitated koalas is not compromised by returning them to burnt habitats. Many koalas (Phascolarctos cinereus) required rehabilitation after the 2019/20 Australian megafires. Little is known about how the post-release health of rehabilitated koalas compares to non-rescued resident koalas. We evaluated health parameters in rehabilitated koalas and resident koalas in burnt and unburnt habitat in southern New South Wales, Australia. Health checks were undertaken within six weeks of fire (rehabilitated group), 5–9 months post-fire and 12–16 months post-fire. Body condition improved significantly over time in rehabilitated koalas, with similar condition between all groups at 12–16 months. Rehabilitated koalas therefore gained body condition at similar rates to koalas who remained and survived in the wild. The prevalence of Chlamydia pecorum was also similar between groups and timepoints, suggesting wildfire and rehabilitation did not exacerbate disease in this population. While there was some variation in measured serum biochemistry and haematology parameters between groups and timepoints, most were within normal reference ranges. Our findings show that koalas were generally healthy at the time of release and when recaptured nine months later. Landscapes in the Monaro region exhibiting a mosaic of burn severity can support koalas, and rehabilitated koala health is not compromised by returning them to burnt habitats 4–6 months post-fire. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Simple Summary: In 2019–2020, Australia had a particularly bad bushfire season which resulted in large numbers of people and animals being exposed to smoke haze for several weeks. We conducted a literature review to examine the evidence for effects of prolonged exposure to bushfire smoke on cattle. There was general agreement that small airborne particulate matter in smoke is the substance most likely to cause problems. There was indirect evidence about effects on cattle caused by other types of pollution containing particulate matter. We found little evidence to support severe effects on cattle. This may be because cattle do not tend to suffer from the co-morbidities that, in the human population, seem to be made worse by smoke and pollution. However, small changes to death rates or disease that is not severe may go unreported, so further study is warranted. In 2019–2020, a particularly bad bushfire season in Australia resulted in cattle being exposed to prolonged periods of smoke haze and reduced air quality. Bushfire smoke contains many harmful pollutants, and impacts on regions far from the fire front, with smoke haze persisting for weeks. Particulate matter (PM) is one of the major components of bushfire smoke known to have a negative impact on human health. However, little has been reported about the potential effects that bushfire smoke has on cattle exposed to smoke haze for extended periods. We explored the current literature to investigate evidence for likely effects on cattle from prolonged exposure to smoke generated from bushfires in Australia. We conducted a search for papers related to the impacts of smoke on cattle. Initial searching returned no relevant articles through either CAB Direct or PubMed databases, whilst Google Scholar provided a small number of results. The search was then expanded to look at two sub-questions: the type of pollution that is found in bushfire smoke, and the reported effects of both humans and cattle being exposed to these types of pollutants. The primary mechanism for damage due to bushfire smoke is due to small airborne particulate matter (PM). Although evidence demonstrates that PM from bushfire smoke has a measurable impact on both human mortality and cardiorespiratory morbidities, there is little evidence regarding the impact of chronic bushfire smoke exposure in cattle. We hypothesize that cattle are not severely affected by chronic exposure to smoke haze, as evidenced by the lack of reports. This may be because cattle do not tend to suffer from the co-morbidities that, in the human population, seem to be made worse by smoke and pollution. Further, small changes to background mortality rates or transient morbidity may also go unreported. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]