Cookies help us run our site more efficiently.

By clicking “Accept”, you agree to the storing of cookies on your device to enhance site navigation, analyze site usage, and assist in our marketing efforts. View our Privacy Policy for more information or to customize your cookie preferences.

Nearsightedness Has Become a Global Health Issue

News Feed
Tuesday, October 1, 2024

In 350 B.C.E. Aristotle noted that some people went about their days with what he called “short sight.” People with this condition, he found, would habitually narrow their eyelids to focus their vision—an observation widely credited as the first attempt at defining nearsightedness, or myopia. More than two millennia later, health officials are paying new attention to this old condition for a startling reason: myopia has reached epidemic levels worldwide.Myopia’s prevalence has dramatically increased in recent decades, now affecting as much as 88 percent of the population in some Asian countries. Although it seems most acute in Asian cities, myopia’s growing prevalence is by no means an exclusively regional trend. By 2050, according to one estimate, five billion people—half the world’s population—will be nearsighted. The U.S., which has been less diligent than some other countries in tracking myopia cases, saw a jump in prevalence from 25 percent of people aged 12 to 54 in the early 1970s to 42 percent in the early 2000s, according to the last major national survey of the condition.These statistics matter because myopia is a leading cause of visual impairment, and it can precipitate serious diagnoses that range from detached retinas to glaucoma.On supporting science journalismIf you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.A search is now underway for tangible measures to stem this rising tide. An expert panel from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine (NASEM) released a report in September entitled Myopia: Causes, Prevention, and Treatment of an Increasingly Common Disease. It lays out a series of recommendations, one of which calls for the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to reclassify myopia as a disease that necessitates a medical diagnosis—a step that would encourage federal and state agencies, along with professional associations, to devote resources to reversing the situation. Notably, the committee also recommended that children spend one to two hours outdoors each day.Terri L. Young, co-chair of the NASEM committee that produced the report and chair of the department of ophthalmology and visual sciences at the University of Wisconsin–Madison, talked with Scientific American about the implications of the myopia epidemic for people with myopia and policymakers.[An edited transcript of the interview follows.]I’d like to begin with the most basic of basics. Could you define what myopia, or nearsightedness, is?I’ll start off with what a person with myopia experiences. Myopia is a condition in which an individual sees an object up close clearly but cannot see it clearly at a distance without optical correction. They have natural blurred vision at a distance.Optically, there is a detailed definition that involves the very basics of how we see. Scattered light rays that enter the eye pass through multiple ocular components that reduce the scatter to focus the rays onto the retina, which converts the light into an electrical signal that is transferred through the optic nerve. The optic nerve is similar to a telephone cable that connects the eye to the occipital cortex at the very back of the brain, where what is viewed is then processed and interpreted.The focus of those wavelengths that enter the eye and travel through all its optical components needs to coincide on the retina. In the case of nearsightedness, or myopia, the focus of the light occurs in front of the retina.Myopia seems to be getting more attention lately, both in the U.S. and internationally. Why is that?Myopia prevalence rates are at epidemic levels, especially in urban Asian communities, where in recent times upward of 80 to 90 percent of young individuals have developed myopia. There are large, government-sponsored myopia research institutes in many parts of Asia, including Taiwan, Singapore, China, Hong Kong and Japan.Take Singapore, for example. All young men there are required to perform [two years] of military service after completing high school. Many of these military conscripts, and in particular the ones who are being prepared to go into battle or fly fighter planes, often need glasses or other corrective means for their myopia to fulfill those functions, causing concern for national security.And what about in the U.S.?It’s now certainly an issue in the U.S. as well. Research on myopia is conducted primarily in ophthalmologic and optometric training and research academic programs. But it hasn’t garnered, for whatever reasons, the same sense of urgency and funding as is the case for other parts of the world.In the U.S., we don’t have good prevalence data for myopia and other refractive errors, such as astigmatism and hyperopia [farsightedness]. Health care in this country is so varied in terms of everything from access to dissemination of vision care; because we don’t have a nationalized health system, we also don’t have a national database to provide standardized tracking and reporting.Aren’t there already simple ways to deal with myopia, such as getting a new prescription for glasses? Why is it perceived as becoming a global health problem?Myopia correction is not just an inconvenience of glasses or contact lenses. It predisposes a person to other eye conditions that can lead to blindness. Higher degrees of myopia are associated with eye conditions: premature cataracts, glaucoma, retinal tears and detachments and myopic macular degeneration.What’s happened in Asian communities is that the baseline level of refraction, the deflection of wavelengths as they pass through the eye, is trending toward nearsightedness. This shift is reflected in more individuals with high-grade myopia, with its increased ocular risks, as I described earlier. So instead of that group reflecting 3 to 5 percent of myopic individuals, it’s risen to 10 percent or more.Access to quality vision care, with proper and standardized dissemination for all children, is a major issue in [the U.S.] There are many children who don’t have steady access to care and the opportunity for continued changes in spectacle correction as they grow. If they can’t see, they can’t learn. If they don’t learn, they may get discouraged. If they get discouraged, they tend to act out or to not perform well in school—which has lifelong educational, vocational and economic impacts.Is there some idea why this myopia epidemic is happening?Nowadays, children are indoors more often, and they’re not getting as much outdoor play. Outdoor light enables the visual system to process a variety of spectral wavelengths of light for a certain duration of time, and that affects normal eye development and growth. Our report reaffirms what has been in the scientific literature for more than 15 years: increased childhood outdoor time appears to be protective for myopia onset and development.In urban Asia, education is highly regarded, and children undergo indoor schooling for relatively more hours per day—routinely with additional tutorial sessions on evenings and weekends. In Singapore, for example, there are fewer green spaces, and living situations are generally more vertical because of limited land mass. There are fewer nonclassroom hours and places for children to go outside to view the horizon for extended periods of time. That’s becoming more of the case in the urban U.S. as well.What does being outside do to promote healthy eyes?There are different and varied light wavelengths that enter the eye from outdoor versus indoor exposures. And there are differences in luminance—higher-intensity versus lower-intensity light levels. In the report, there is a lengthy discussion on what is called the “visual diet”—the environmental factors affecting the myopic eye—and there is a consensus that more research is needed.What about the role of electronic devices in promoting myopia?That’s certainly a trend that has exponentially grown in activity and use in our younger generations. I am a pediatric ophthalmologist. I see two- or three-year old children in my clinic who are comfortably playing with cell phones. This close-up activity is generally indoors. The limited research findings regarding electronic device impact on myopia development are inconclusive, however. Reflected in our report, studies could not support unequivocal evidence that using digital devices, especially electronic small devices, is an influencer for this shift toward myopia.What measures have countries implemented to try preventing or correcting myopia in young people?The Singapore Ministry of Health instituted outdoor playtime or recess during school hours. There are now programs in China and in Taiwan where classroom settings have been altered with the use of glass walls or colored light bulb use to increase outdoor daylight exposure. Children are undergoing treatment with atropine eye drops, which in some reports diminishes the shift toward myopia over time in the school-age years. The effect of the drops is not curative, however, and there are concerns regarding unknown long-term effects because we don’t quite understand the specific biochemical actions of atropine. Diagnosed children are also prescribed multifocal contact lenses or eyeglasses [progressive lenses that have different prescription zones to correct vision at different distances].One of the main findings of the report that you co-chaired is the recommendation that myopia be classified as a disease. Can you explain why the consensus of the panel felt that was important?The issue needs escalation to a recognized disease category to underscore its short- and long-term visual health consequences, and to attract attention and funding dollars on multiple and varied fronts for effective screening, treatment, prevention and research study.It takes a multipronged team to elevate this issue. That groundswell would have to come from parents, educators and educator societies, local to national health care systems, local to national policymakers, public health experts, researchers, funding agencies, insurance companies, etcetera. All [of these groups] need to recognize that continuous vision screening starting in early childhood is important. In addition to implementation, the data from those screening visits need to be collated for national database entry for improved monitoring in this country.What do you think should be the main takeaway from this report?In this country, if we elevate this condition to be considered a disease and recognize its impact on our children and ultimately on our future workforce, that would be monumental.

Myopia is projected to affect half of the world’s population by 2050. A new report says it needs to be countered by classifying it as a disease and upping children’s outdoor time

In 350 B.C.E. Aristotle noted that some people went about their days with what he called “short sight.” People with this condition, he found, would habitually narrow their eyelids to focus their vision—an observation widely credited as the first attempt at defining nearsightedness, or myopia. More than two millennia later, health officials are paying new attention to this old condition for a startling reason: myopia has reached epidemic levels worldwide.

Myopia’s prevalence has dramatically increased in recent decades, now affecting as much as 88 percent of the population in some Asian countries. Although it seems most acute in Asian cities, myopia’s growing prevalence is by no means an exclusively regional trend. By 2050, according to one estimate, five billion people—half the world’s population—will be nearsighted. The U.S., which has been less diligent than some other countries in tracking myopia cases, saw a jump in prevalence from 25 percent of people aged 12 to 54 in the early 1970s to 42 percent in the early 2000s, according to the last major national survey of the condition.

These statistics matter because myopia is a leading cause of visual impairment, and it can precipitate serious diagnoses that range from detached retinas to glaucoma.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


A search is now underway for tangible measures to stem this rising tide. An expert panel from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine (NASEM) released a report in September entitled Myopia: Causes, Prevention, and Treatment of an Increasingly Common Disease. It lays out a series of recommendations, one of which calls for the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to reclassify myopia as a disease that necessitates a medical diagnosis—a step that would encourage federal and state agencies, along with professional associations, to devote resources to reversing the situation. Notably, the committee also recommended that children spend one to two hours outdoors each day.

Terri L. Young, co-chair of the NASEM committee that produced the report and chair of the department of ophthalmology and visual sciences at the University of Wisconsin–Madison, talked with Scientific American about the implications of the myopia epidemic for people with myopia and policymakers.

[An edited transcript of the interview follows.]

I’d like to begin with the most basic of basics. Could you define what myopia, or nearsightedness, is?

I’ll start off with what a person with myopia experiences. Myopia is a condition in which an individual sees an object up close clearly but cannot see it clearly at a distance without optical correction. They have natural blurred vision at a distance.

Optically, there is a detailed definition that involves the very basics of how we see. Scattered light rays that enter the eye pass through multiple ocular components that reduce the scatter to focus the rays onto the retina, which converts the light into an electrical signal that is transferred through the optic nerve. The optic nerve is similar to a telephone cable that connects the eye to the occipital cortex at the very back of the brain, where what is viewed is then processed and interpreted.

The focus of those wavelengths that enter the eye and travel through all its optical components needs to coincide on the retina. In the case of nearsightedness, or myopia, the focus of the light occurs in front of the retina.

Myopia seems to be getting more attention lately, both in the U.S. and internationally. Why is that?

Myopia prevalence rates are at epidemic levels, especially in urban Asian communities, where in recent times upward of 80 to 90 percent of young individuals have developed myopia. There are large, government-sponsored myopia research institutes in many parts of Asia, including Taiwan, Singapore, China, Hong Kong and Japan.

Take Singapore, for example. All young men there are required to perform [two years] of military service after completing high school. Many of these military conscripts, and in particular the ones who are being prepared to go into battle or fly fighter planes, often need glasses or other corrective means for their myopia to fulfill those functions, causing concern for national security.

And what about in the U.S.?

It’s now certainly an issue in the U.S. as well. Research on myopia is conducted primarily in ophthalmologic and optometric training and research academic programs. But it hasn’t garnered, for whatever reasons, the same sense of urgency and funding as is the case for other parts of the world.

In the U.S., we don’t have good prevalence data for myopia and other refractive errors, such as astigmatism and hyperopia [farsightedness]. Health care in this country is so varied in terms of everything from access to dissemination of vision care; because we don’t have a nationalized health system, we also don’t have a national database to provide standardized tracking and reporting.

Aren’t there already simple ways to deal with myopia, such as getting a new prescription for glasses? Why is it perceived as becoming a global health problem?

Myopia correction is not just an inconvenience of glasses or contact lenses. It predisposes a person to other eye conditions that can lead to blindness. Higher degrees of myopia are associated with eye conditions: premature cataracts, glaucoma, retinal tears and detachments and myopic macular degeneration.

What’s happened in Asian communities is that the baseline level of refraction, the deflection of wavelengths as they pass through the eye, is trending toward nearsightedness. This shift is reflected in more individuals with high-grade myopia, with its increased ocular risks, as I described earlier. So instead of that group reflecting 3 to 5 percent of myopic individuals, it’s risen to 10 percent or more.

Access to quality vision care, with proper and standardized dissemination for all children, is a major issue in [the U.S.] There are many children who don’t have steady access to care and the opportunity for continued changes in spectacle correction as they grow. If they can’t see, they can’t learn. If they don’t learn, they may get discouraged. If they get discouraged, they tend to act out or to not perform well in school—which has lifelong educational, vocational and economic impacts.

Is there some idea why this myopia epidemic is happening?

Nowadays, children are indoors more often, and they’re not getting as much outdoor play. Outdoor light enables the visual system to process a variety of spectral wavelengths of light for a certain duration of time, and that affects normal eye development and growth. Our report reaffirms what has been in the scientific literature for more than 15 years: increased childhood outdoor time appears to be protective for myopia onset and development.

In urban Asia, education is highly regarded, and children undergo indoor schooling for relatively more hours per day—routinely with additional tutorial sessions on evenings and weekends. In Singapore, for example, there are fewer green spaces, and living situations are generally more vertical because of limited land mass. There are fewer nonclassroom hours and places for children to go outside to view the horizon for extended periods of time. That’s becoming more of the case in the urban U.S. as well.

What does being outside do to promote healthy eyes?

There are different and varied light wavelengths that enter the eye from outdoor versus indoor exposures. And there are differences in luminance—higher-intensity versus lower-intensity light levels. In the report, there is a lengthy discussion on what is called the “visual diet”—the environmental factors affecting the myopic eye—and there is a consensus that more research is needed.

What about the role of electronic devices in promoting myopia?

That’s certainly a trend that has exponentially grown in activity and use in our younger generations. I am a pediatric ophthalmologist. I see two- or three-year old children in my clinic who are comfortably playing with cell phones. This close-up activity is generally indoors. The limited research findings regarding electronic device impact on myopia development are inconclusive, however. Reflected in our report, studies could not support unequivocal evidence that using digital devices, especially electronic small devices, is an influencer for this shift toward myopia.

What measures have countries implemented to try preventing or correcting myopia in young people?

The Singapore Ministry of Health instituted outdoor playtime or recess during school hours. There are now programs in China and in Taiwan where classroom settings have been altered with the use of glass walls or colored light bulb use to increase outdoor daylight exposure. Children are undergoing treatment with atropine eye drops, which in some reports diminishes the shift toward myopia over time in the school-age years. The effect of the drops is not curative, however, and there are concerns regarding unknown long-term effects because we don’t quite understand the specific biochemical actions of atropine. Diagnosed children are also prescribed multifocal contact lenses or eyeglasses [progressive lenses that have different prescription zones to correct vision at different distances].

One of the main findings of the report that you co-chaired is the recommendation that myopia be classified as a disease. Can you explain why the consensus of the panel felt that was important?

The issue needs escalation to a recognized disease category to underscore its short- and long-term visual health consequences, and to attract attention and funding dollars on multiple and varied fronts for effective screening, treatment, prevention and research study.

It takes a multipronged team to elevate this issue. That groundswell would have to come from parents, educators and educator societies, local to national health care systems, local to national policymakers, public health experts, researchers, funding agencies, insurance companies, etcetera. All [of these groups] need to recognize that continuous vision screening starting in early childhood is important. In addition to implementation, the data from those screening visits need to be collated for national database entry for improved monitoring in this country.

What do you think should be the main takeaway from this report?

In this country, if we elevate this condition to be considered a disease and recognize its impact on our children and ultimately on our future workforce, that would be monumental.

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

Why the health risks from air pollution could be worse than we thought

A new study found elevated and previously overlooked health risks for communities living near industrial polluters.

Many people who live near heavy industry are routinely exposed to dozens of different pollutants, which can result in a multitude of health problems.Traditionally, environmental regulators have assessed the risks of chemical exposure on an individual basis. But that approach has led to underestimates of the total health risks faced by vulnerable populations, according to a new study.Now researchers at Johns Hopkins University have developed a new method for measuring the cumulative effects on human health of multiple toxic air pollutants. Their findings were published last week in Environmental Health Perspectives.Regulators typically measure community risk by looking at the primary health effects of individual chemicals, an approach that often fails to address their combined risks, said Keeve Nachman, the study’s senior author.Residents in disadvantaged communities are exposed to a toxic stew of chemicals daily, and they “don’t just breathe one at a time, [they] breathe all the chemicals in the air at once,” said Peter DeCarlo, another of the study’s authors.Follow Climate & environment“Very little has happened to protect these people. And one of the major reasons for that is that current approaches have not done a good job showing they’re in harm’s way,” Nachman said.“When we regulate chemicals, we pretend that we’re only exposed to one chemical at a time,” Nachman continued. “If we have each chemical and we only think about the most sensitive effect, but we ignore the fact that it could potentially cause all these other effects to different parts of the body, we are missing protecting people from the collective mixture of chemicals that act together.”Nachman, DeCarlo and their colleagues set out to more accurately account for the total burden of breathing multiple toxic air pollutants.The study assessed the risks faced by communities in southeastern Pennsylvania living near petrochemical facilities using a mobile laboratory to measure 32 hazardous air pollutants, including vinyl chloride, formaldehyde and benzene. The researchers developed real-time profiles of the pollution concentrations in the air and translated them into estimates of what people are actually breathing.Using these estimates and a database of the chemicals’ toxic effects on various organs, the researchers created projections of the long-term cumulative health impacts of the pollution.By looking past the immediate health effects of chemicals and measuring what happens as concentrations increase, negative health outcomes can be detected in other parts of the body, Nachman said.For example, while EPA risk assessments consider only the respiratory effects of formaldehyde, the study found potential health impacts in 10 other organ systems, including neurological, developmental and reproductive harms.The cumulative risk study appears at a fraught moment for environmental regulation. Although the Biden administration in November released a draft framework for monitoring the cumulative impact of chemical exposure, the Trump administration has announced plans to roll back dozens of Biden administration environmental rules and is considering shutting down the EPA’s Office of Research and Development.A spokesperson for the American Chemistry Council, an industry trade group, said in an email that the Johns Hopkins research “may provide some useful information” but that “further assessment, replication and validation will be needed” of the methods and substances assessed in the study.“ACC continues to support the development of scientifically robust data, methods and approaches to underpin cumulative risk assessments,” the spokesperson added.The EPA did not provide an immediate comment while it reviewed the study.Jen Duggan, the executive director of the Environmental Integrity Project, said communities often face higher health impacts than the EPA estimates due to their exposure to dangerous chemicals from multiple sources.“The authors of this paper powerfully demonstrate how EPA has repeatedly underestimated the true health risks for people living in the shadow of industrial polluters,” Duggan said.

Utah Bans Fluoride In Public Drinking Water

Republican Gov. Spencer Cox signed the legislation despite widespread opposition from dentists and national health organizations.

SALT LAKE CITY (AP) — Utah has become the first state to ban fluoride in public drinking water, despite widespread opposition from dentists and national health organizations.Republican Gov. Spencer Cox signed legislation late Thursday that bars cities and communities from deciding whether to add the mineral to their water systems.Fluoride strengthens teeth and reduces cavities by replacing minerals lost during normal wear and tear, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.Utah lawmakers who pushed for a ban said putting fluoride in water was too expensive. Cox, who grew up and raised his own children in a community without fluoridated water, compared it recently to being “medicated” by the government.The ban comes weeks after U.S. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who has expressed skepticism about water fluoridation, was sworn into office.More than 200 million people in the U.S., or almost two-thirds of the population, receive fluoridated water through community water. The addition of low levels of fluoride to drinking water has long been considered one of the greatest public health achievements of the last century.But some cities across the country have gotten rid of fluoride from their water, and other municipalities are considering doing the same. A few months ago, a federal judge ordered the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to regulate fluoride in drinking water because high levels could pose a risk to the intellectual development of children.We Don't Work For Billionaires. We Work For You.Big money interests are running the government — and influencing the news you read. While other outlets are retreating behind paywalls and bending the knee to political pressure, HuffPost is proud to be unbought and unfiltered. Will you help us keep it that way? You can even access our stories ad-free.You've supported HuffPost before, and we'll be honest — we could use your help again. We won't back down from our mission of providing free, fair news during this critical moment. But we can't do it without you.For the first time, we're offering an ad-free experience to qualifying contributors who support our fearless journalism. We hope you'll join us.You've supported HuffPost before, and we'll be honest — we could use your help again. We won't back down from our mission of providing free, fair news during this critical moment. But we can't do it without you.For the first time, we're offering an ad-free experience to qualifying contributors who support our fearless journalism. We hope you'll join us.Support HuffPostAlready contributed? Log in to hide these messages.The president of the American Dental Association, Brett Kessler, has said the amounts of fluoride added to drinking water are below levels considered problematic.Opponents warn the ban will disproportionately affect low-income residents who may rely on public drinking water having fluoride as their only source of preventative dental care. Low-income families may not be able to afford regular dentist visits or the fluoride tablets some people buy as a supplement in cities without fluoridation.The sponsor of the Utah legislation, Republican Rep. Stephanie Gricius, acknowledged fluoride has benefits, but said it was an issue of “individual choice” to not have it in the water.

Dozens of House Democrats push back on planned EPA research and development cuts

Dozens of House Democrats pushed back on planned Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) cuts in a Thursday letter to the agency. “We are particularly concerned by the proposal to eliminate up to 75 percent of employees within EPA’s Office of Research and Development (ORD),” the letter, from Rep. Greg Landsman (D-Ohio) and addressed to EPA Administrator...

Dozens of House Democrats pushed back on planned Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) cuts in a Thursday letter to the agency. “We are particularly concerned by the proposal to eliminate up to 75 percent of employees within EPA’s Office of Research and Development (ORD),” the letter, from Rep. Greg Landsman (D-Ohio) and addressed to EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin, reads. “Firing nearly 1,200 dedicated ORD public servants across the country would decimate the scientific backbone of EPA which provides independent, objective, and unparallelled research that informs Agency assessments and decision-making,” they added. The letter featured the signatures of over 60 House Democrats including Reps. Nikema Williams (Ga.), Ro Khanna (Calif.), Summer Lee (Pa.), Don Beyer (Va.), Joe Neguse (Colo.), Jamie Raskin (Md.), Pramila Jayapal (Wash.) and Rashida Tlaib (Mich.). The Hill reported last week that the EPA was considering the cutting of its science arm and dropping most of the employees of the branch, per documents reviewed by Democratic staff for the House Science, Space and Technology Committee. The termination of the Office of Research and Development as an EPA National Program Office is called for in a plan reviewed by committee staffers. Fifty percent to 70 percent of the 1,540 staffers in the office would be cut under the plan. “While no decisions have been made yet, we are actively listening to employees at all levels to gather ideas on how to better fulfill agency statutory obligations, increase efficiency, and ensure the EPA is as up-to-date and effective as ever,” EPA spokesperson Molly Vaseliou said in a previous statement. In his letter, Landsman said dropping “the majority of ORD employees would be particularly harmful to EPA’s work to address industrial pollution, contaminated air and drinking water, environmental health, and worsening natural disasters.” The Ohio Democrat also questioned the EPA about the reasoning behind the staff cuts in the plan and the way the agency is prepping “to mitigate the loss of scientific expertise, institutional knowledge, and subject matter capacity resulting from this proposed action.” The Hill has reached out to the EPA for comment.

When a 1-in-100 year flood washed through the Coorong, it made the vital microbiome of this lagoon healthier

The 2022 floods triggered shifts in the Coorong’s microbiome—similar to our gut bacteria on new diets—revealing why freshwater flows are vital to wetland health.

Darcy Whittaker, CC BYYou might know South Australia’s iconic Coorong from the famous Australian children’s book, Storm Boy, set around this coastal lagoon. This internationally important wetland is sacred to the Ngarrindjeri people and a haven for migratory birds. The lagoon is the final stop for the Murray River’s waters before they reach the sea. Tens of thousands of migratory waterbirds visit annually. Pelicans, plovers, terns and ibises nest, while orange-bellied parrots visit and Murray Cod swim. But there are other important inhabitants – trillions of microscopic organisms. You might not give much thought to the sedimentary microbes of a lagoon. But these tiny microbes in the mud are vital to river ecosystems, quietly cycling nutrients and supporting the food web. Healthy microbes make for a healthy Coorong – and this unassuming lagoon is a key indicator for the health of the entire Murray-Darling Basin. For decades, the Coorong has been in poor health. Low water flows have concentrated salt and an excess of nutrients. But in 2022, torrential rains on the east coast turned into a once-in-a-century flood, which swept down the Murray into the Coorong. In our new research, we took the pulse of the Coorong’s microbiome after this huge flood and found the surging fresh water corrected microbial imbalances. The numbers of methane producing microbes fell while beneficial nutrient-eating bacteria grew. Populations of plants, animals and invertebrates boomed. We can’t just wait for irregular floods – we have to find ways to ensure enough water is left in the river to cleanse the Coorong naturally. Under a scanning electron micrograph, the mixed community of microbes in water is visible. This image shows a seawater sample. Sophie Leterme/Flinders University, CC BY Rivers have microbiomes, just like us Our gut microbes can change after a heavy meal or in response to dietary changes. In humans, a sudden shift in diet can encourage either helpful or harmful microbes. In the same way, aquatic microbes respond to changes in salinity and freshwater flows. Depending on what changes are happening, some species boom and others bust. As water gets saltier in brackish lagoons, communities of microbes have to adapt or die. High salinity often favours microbes with anaerobic metabolisms, meaning they don’t need oxygen. But these tiny lifeforms often produce the highly potent greenhouse gas methane. The microbes in wetlands are a large natural source of the gas. While we know pulses of freshwater are vital for river health, they don’t happen often enough. The waters of the Murray-Darling Basin support most of Australia’s irrigated farming. Negotiations over how to ensure adequate environmental flows have been fraught – and long-running. Water buybacks have improved matters somewhat, but researchers have found the river basin’s ecosystems are not in good condition. Wetlands such as the Coorong are a natural source of methane. The saltier the water gets, the more environmentally harmful microbes flourish – potentially producing more methane. Vincent_Nguyen The Coorong is out of balance A century ago, regular pulses of fresh water from the Murray flushed nutrients and sediment out of the Coorong, helping maintain habitat for fish, waterbirds and the plants and invertebrates they eat. While other catchments discharge into the Coorong, the Murray is by far the major water source. Over the next decades, growth in water use for farming meant less water in the river. In the 1930s, barrages were built near the river’s mouth to control nearby lake levels and prevent high salinity moving upstream in the face of reduced river flows. Major droughts have added further stress. Under these low-flow conditions, salt and nutrients get more and more concentrated, reaching extreme levels due to South Australia’s high rate of evaporation. In response, microbial communities can trigger harmful algae blooms or create low-oxygen “dead zones”, suffocating river life. The big flush of 2022 In 2022, torrential rain fell in many parts of eastern Australia. Rainfall on the inland side of the Great Dividing Range filled rivers in the Murray-Darling Basin. That year became the largest flood since 1956. We set about recording the changes. As the salinity fell in ultra-salty areas, local microbial communities in the sediment were reshuffled. The numbers of methane-producing microbes fell sharply. This means the floods would have temporarily reduced the Coorong’s greenhouse footprint. Christopher Keneally sampling for microbes in the Coorong in 2022. Tyler Dornan, CC BY When we talk about harmful bacteria, we’re referring to microbes that emit greenhouse gases such as methane, drive the accumulation of toxic sulfide (such as Desulfobacteraceae), or cause algae blooms (Cyanobacteria) that can sicken people, fish and wildlife. During the flood, beneficial microbes from groups such as Halanaerobiaceae and Beggiatoaceae grew rapidly, consuming nutrients such as nitrogen, which is extremely high in the Coorong. This is very useful to prevent algae blooms. Beggiatoaceae bacteria also remove toxic sulfide compounds. The floods also let plants and invertebrates bounce back, flushed out salt and supported a healthier food web. On balance, we found the 2022 flood was positive for the Coorong. It’s as if the Coorong switched packets of chips for carrot sticks – the flood pulse reduced harmful bacteria and encouraged beneficial ones. While the variety of microbes shrank in some areas, those remaining performed key functions helping keep the ecosystem in balance. From 2022 to 2023, consistent high flows let native fish and aquatic plants bounce back, in turn improving feeding grounds for birds and allowing black swans to thrive. A group of black swans cruise the Coorong’s waters. Darcy Whittaker, CC BY Floods aren’t enough When enough water is allowed to flow down the Murray to the Coorong, ecosystems get healthier. But the Coorong has been in poor health for decades. It can’t just rely on rare flood events. Next year, policymakers will review the Murray-Darling Basin Plan, which sets the rules for sharing water in Australia’s largest and most economically important river system. Balancing our needs with those of other species is tricky. But if we neglect the environment, we risk more degradation and biodiversity loss in the Coorong. As the climate changes and rising water demands squeeze the basin, decision-makers must keep the water flowing for wildlife. Christopher Keneally receives funding from the Australian Government Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water. His research is affiliated with The University of Adelaide and the Goyder Institute for Water Research. Chris is also a committee member and former president of the Biology Society of South Australia, and a member of the Australian Freshwater Sciences Society.Matt Gibbs receives funding from the Australian Government Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water. Sophie Leterme receives funding from the Australian Research Council (ARC). Her research is affiliated with Flinders University, with the ARC Training Centre for Biofilm Research & Innovation, and with the Goyder Institute for Water Research.Justin Brookes does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

Murphy, a Beloved Bald Eagle Who Became a Foster Dad, Dies Following Violent Storms in Missouri

A beloved bald eagle who gained popularity after incubating a rock is mourned after dying from head trauma sustained during violent storms in Missouri last week

A beloved bald eagle who gained popularity for incubating a rock in 2023 is being mourned Saturday after the 33-year-old avian died following intense storms that recently moved through Missouri. Murphy, who surpassed the average life span of 25 years, died last week at the World Bird Sanctuary in Valley Park, Missouri. Sanctuary officials believe the violent storms that ripped apart homes and claimed 12 lives last weekend may have factored in the bird's death. They said birds have access to shelters where they can weather storms and the sanctuary has contingency plans for different environmental situations. But evacuations weren't performed since no tornadoes approached the sanctuary. Three other birds who were in the same shelter with Murphy survived. A veterinarian performed a necropsy and found the bald eagle sustained head trauma. “We are unable to determine if Murphy was spooked by something and hit his head while jumping off a perch or if wind and precipitation played a part in the injury,” a statement shared by the sanctuary on social media said. Murphy lived in the sanctuary's Avian Avenue exhibit area and rose to prominence in 2023 when he incubated a rock. His instincts were rewarded when he was allowed to foster an injured eaglet that he nurtured back to health. The eaglet was eventually released back to the wild and another eaglet was entrusted to Murphy's care. The second eaglet is expected to be released into the wild this summer.“In honor of Murphy’s legacy, we plan to name the eventual eagle fostering aviary Murphy’s Manor, so that we can continue to remember him for decades to come,” the sanctuary's statement added.Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.Photos You Should See - Feb. 2025

Suggested Viewing

Join us to forge
a sustainable future

Our team is always growing.
Become a partner, volunteer, sponsor, or intern today.
Let us know how you would like to get involved!

CONTACT US

sign up for our mailing list to stay informed on the latest films and environmental headlines.

Subscribers receive a free day pass for streaming Cinema Verde.
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.