Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Bats' White-Nose Syndrome May Be Cured

Posted by samzenpus on from the wipe-your-nose dept.

New submitter alabamatoy writes: Several news outlets are reporting that a common bacteria may be proving successful in curing "white-nose syndrome" which has been decimating the bat populations across North America. A new treatment using a common bacterium was developed in Missouri by Forest Service scientists Sybill Amelon and Dan Lindner, and Chris Cornelison of Georgia State University. The Nature Conservancy reports: "On May 20, 2015, Scientists and conservationists gathered outside the historic Mark Twain Cave Complex in Hannibal, Missouri, to release back into the wild some of the first bats successfully treated for deadly White-Nose Syndrome." Bats are a key player in the environment, keeping insect populations under control, especially mosquitoes.

27 of 89 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Is a reduction by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 5, Informative

    of 10% really that significant? Bats are rodents, they breed prodigiously.

    1. Bats are not rodents.
    2. They don't breed prodigiously, often having on one offspring per year.

    The big problem with the white fungus is that it keeps the bats awake, and makes it so they can't hibernate properly. So their body temperature stays high, which means they burn calories, which means they starve to death before springtime.
     

  2. Red Nose Syndrome is better by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Too bad the bats don't have Red Nose syndrome. If they did, they could at least lead Santa's sleigh through the snow!

  3. Excellent news by __roo · · Score: 5, Informative

    This is great news. For those who haven't been following it, white nose syndrome is an emergent disease affecting bats. It's caused by a fungus that grows on the skin of the animals, and has been killing millions of bats across many parts of the eastern United States (map). A decontamination protocol has been established for researchers and cavers who come into contact with the animals. This is the first really optimistic piece of news about the disease that I've seen.

    --
    Building Better Software
  4. Re:Is a reduction by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I just wanted to add, that I am a donor to the Nature Conservancy. They do a lot of good work, and I am happy to see that my money is helping to save these little critters. If you are looking for a worthy cause, you should check them out. Unlike some other environmental organizations (Sierra Club, Greenpeace, NRDC, etc.) they focus on pragmatic solutions rather than political lobbying, advertising, and public relations.

  5. Administration... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Hopefully the treatment will be amenable to some sort of relatively 'hands off' dispersal method. Veterinary care as all well and good(and, certainly, if it doesn't work in that environment, it probably doesn't work, so it's an obvious place to do R&D); but cave conditions are difficult enough that you won't make a dent in mortality unless you can 'dust' a cave, or set up aerosol dispersal at a cave entrance, or some other wholesale distribution mechanism. Even something that you have to spray directly on affected animals would be pretty tricky in a lot of these roosting environments.

  6. Re:Is a reduction by plover · · Score: 2

    I'm glad they do 'real work' with their money, but don't underestimate the value of a successful lobbying campaign. If the resources of the government can be brought to bear, they have the capability to make much bigger changes, even if they seem hobbled by compromises and special interests.

    --
    John
  7. Re:Fungi not bacteria by plover · · Score: 2

    And the bacteria are fighting the effects of the fungus. Go reread the summary.

    --
    John
  8. Re:Is a reduction by hey! · · Score: 5, Informative

    As ShanghaiBill says, Bats aren't rodents. I'll just add that bats and rodents are about as taxonomically unrelated as two mammals can possibly be.

    Bats are more closely related to horses, bears, rhinos, even whales -- like most mammals they're members of the huge and diverse superorder Laurasiatheria. Rodents are in the much smaller superorder Euarchontoglires, the only non-extinct members of which are: rodents, rabbits, hares, pikas, tree shrews, flying lemurs, and the various primates.

    --
    Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  9. Mixed feelings about this by Prune · · Score: 3, Informative

    Sure, they can be cute; however, in terms of human health, bats are reservoirs for rabies and various coronaviruses that affect humans. For example, a recent paper in Nature showed that SARS can go from some bats to humans without an intermediate host, and the same likely applies to MERS. Worse, ebola-infected bats have also been found. Then, there's this quote from wiki: "Bats harbor more viruses than rodents and are capable of spreading disease over a wider geographic area owing to their ability to fly and their migration and roosting patterns."
    My question for the armchair epidemiologists here is to what extent this is outweighed by bats' feeding on mosquitoes (in the areas which this story concerns).

    --
    "Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason."
    1. Re:Mixed feelings about this by weilawei · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Cute, and potentially deadly weapons of mass destruction! Note that your concern about germs has not gone unconsidered in history.

      Excerpted from The Scientific Method by Louis Fieser:

      The carrying power of a 10-11 gram bat is indeed amazing, some 15-18 grams; the incendiary bomb was in this range (17.5 grams). Bats can carry such loads for miles. And bats with dummy bombs released in housed areas dragged the loads into sites highly favorable for fire-starting. We released bats successfully at various altitudes both from the B-2 S and from an open Attack Bomber, in which flying was great fun. The smoke bombs functioned satisfactorily and provided further information. Col. Epler and the Qther officers all favored a full-scale trial with live incendiaries to be injected for a 10-minute take-off just before release. I considered a live test highly hazardous and likely to lead to disclosure o£ the project. I also thought it unnecessary. But the officers insisted that a report to the CWS and AAF chiefs would be incomplete without it and so, on a Saturday, a live test was scheduled for the following Monday.

      Everything went off on schedule, and shortly after dinner the bomber flew in loaded with shrieking, kicking bats. The airmen had taken delight in a form of hunting which consisted in swinging landing nets at the mouth of an inexhaustible cave, and the crates were all jam full. The crates were loaded into the truck and the refrigeration turned on full tilt. But the howling went on without abate for a couple of hours, and it became evident that the refrigerating unit was not adequate to cope with such a large amount of body heat all of a sudden. So we mounted a series of fans in positions to blow air in over cakes of ice. Finally, about midnight, the noise ceased; hibernation had been accomplished. A night watch of soldiers took over, and we turned in.

      The next day the bats were still nicely quiet and we started a trial with the lightest of the dummy bombs. A first batch of bats in hibernation with weights attached was dumped out of the bomber at a low altitude, 2,000 ft. as I recall. The ground crew scurried around in jeeps and eventually located a group of free-fallers large enough to show that few if any of the bats had come out of hibernation. Other batches were released from higher and higher altitudes, which made reconnaissance increasingly difficult. Eventually it was clear that the bats were not in hibernation but dead. Our cooling had been too efficient, too sudden.

      Imagine, then, a surprise attack on Tokyo in which a succession of bombers would operate at high altitude for about half an hour, say starting at midnight, each delivering a load of bat-bombs equivalent to some 3,700 fires. There would be no explosions or fire bursts to give warning, and the bombers would depart. With the activated mechanisms all set for a fourhour delay, bombs in strategic and not easily detectable locations would start popping all over the city at 4 a.m. An attractive picture? AU those working on the project thought so. Then, suddenly, X-ray was cancelled. I never learned the reason, but can make a guess. The bats would be vectors for bombs, but they would be vectors also for germs. Our side might be accused of initiating biological warfare. But the job was done very effectively by M-69s.

    2. Re:Mixed feelings about this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      incorrect.
      Typically less than 1% of a bat population is sick (rabies, etc.). The reason this fallacy has gained traction is that bats, normally a very shy creature, are more likely to come into human contact when they are sick. They become easier to capture and less likely to fly away when a human approaches them.

      i would highly recommend looking at a valid scientific website and not just wiki.

      http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/01/110131133323.htm

    3. Re:Mixed feelings about this by plopez · · Score: 2

      You're a genius! To save the bats we refer to them as 'wetware weapons delivery systems' and the DoD and right wing politicians will start throwing money at the problem.

      --
      putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
  10. Re:Is a reduction by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Insightful

    don't underestimate the value of a successful lobbying campaign.

    For every lobbying campaign, there is an equal and opposite lobbying campaign. So a lot of money is spent to accomplish nothing. Why should I donate to an organization that is then going to lobby the government to raise my taxes so I can pay again? Instead of lobbying or lawsuits, the NC worked with the Forest Service, and a state university, provided funding to pull together experts with complementary skills, and solved a real problem. I consider that a much better use of my money that donating to the Sierra Club, so they can lobby the government to shut down nukes, so we can burn more coal, or sue power companies for building windmills that might kill a few birds.

  11. Bats don't control mosquitoes by brianerst · · Score: 2

    Mosquitoes are an insignificant part (under 1%) of the diet of insectivorous bats. Bats prefer moths and wasps - many more calories per catch. Bats will eat mosquitoes, they just prefer just about anything else.

    1. Re:Bats don't control mosquitoes by weilawei · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Interestingly enough, it's difficult to find quantitative information ranking mosquito predators. I tried, and all I came up with was a literature review on British mosquito predation, which primarily listed lots of things known to eat mosquitoes if placed in a tank with only mosquitoes. That paper also made the comment that it's difficult to find information. The phrase "poorly understood" is frequently found in the papers I did come across.

    2. Re:Bats don't control mosquitoes by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      There appear to be absolutely no creatures which subsist primarily on mosquitoes, but nobody knows for sure. The problem is that you have to analyze stomach contents to find mosquitoes, you can't just analyze some mosquitoes to find out who eats them.

      As far as anybody can tell, though, we could lose mosquitoes entirely with no big secondary effects. So let's get on eradicating those fuckers. Way more important than anything the Gates foundation has claimed to do.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    3. Re:Bats don't control mosquitoes by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 2

      Mosquitoes are an insignificant part (under 1%) of the diet of insectivorous bats. Bats prefer moths and wasps - many more calories per catch. Bats will eat mosquitoes, they just prefer just about anything else.

      I've seen some pretty impressive insect eating campaigns by bats. One was late day when there were hundreds of swallows flting above a church and catching gawd knows how many insects, must have been a hatch that day. Then as it was almost dark, the swallows flew away to be instantaneously replaced by bats. Likewise hundreds of them. Now imagine should the swallows and bats go away. The insects like that. But we might not.

      Second was one evening I was driving in the woods, and my headlights suddenly illuminated several bats jumping up and down on the road. This was around the beginning of the white nose thing, and I thought they might be ill. Further watching showed however, that they were curb stomping insects. Quite efficiently it would appear.

      I encourage bats and other insect eaters to take up residence in my yard.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    4. Re:Bats don't control mosquitoes by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 2

      Sounds like a great idea until they take up residence in your house.

      They normally huddle in trees. But the eaves and soffits of your house are much better for huddling in to stay warm, because besides being cozy and secluded, they naturally collect heat during the day. It is a very annoying process to exclude the bats without killing them once they're moved in, and once they're out you have to immediately seal every opening over 1/4 inch in diameter or they'll come back. Yes, that small.

      Living in a wooded development, we've had issues with Squirrels, bats and chipmunks.

      As it turns out, there is a fairly simple solution to all three. First thing is you need to seal up the ingress points. Turns out we had a triple walled Chimney which was part of an ill thought out scheme to use as ventilation. But the wire mesh deteriorated over the years. So you have to take care of that. But now you might have animals trapped inside. Stinky dead squirrel sucks.

      Now where's the trick. You make a egress point on the side of the house. I drilled out a 4 inch diameter hole in the sheet metal that formed the gable. Then I took some thin firring strips, and a piece of transparent plastic and made a 4 foot by 2 foot box that fit over the hole in the gable, open at the bottom end. So now you have an egress point - one they cannot get back in the house through. They can see the light, and after getting thirsty/hungry enough, they take a jump and are free. You need to be certain the escape hatch is long enough that the bats can't get back up. Has to be smooth inside.

      Since then, with the house properly sealed, and free of critters, I just took off the egress point, and put a cover over the hole, and painted it to match the rest of the gable. Problem over. Point is that the house needs sealed.

      Man you should hear how pissed off squirrels get when they find their normal entrance/exit blocked. Sounded like a frat party in the attic for a day until they made the big jump.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
  12. Re:Fungi not bacteria by Hognoxious · · Score: 4, Funny

    Don't worry about the bacteria getting out of hand. If necessary we'll kill them with a virus. Or gorillas.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  13. Lobbying worse than useless by SuperKendall · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If the resources of the government can be brought to bear ....

    Then they will fuck everything up, and burn hundreds of millions of dollars in the process that could have gone into doing something real.

    The problem will go unsolved and everyone living around the problem will be a hundred times worse off than they were before.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  14. Re:Is a reduction by Dutch+Gun · · Score: 4, Insightful

    10%

    Very few people nowadays the word "decimation" with it's original meaning, and I'm guessing the author didn't here either. Or rather, we should probably say that the word has evolved to mean "an arbitrarily large percentage" and not just 10%. I see that definition listed as #3 in Merriam-Webster, where the original meaning is #1. Those should probably be reversed now. #2, in case you're wondering, is related to taxation. Go figure.

    I went to the article to find out that this fungus was apparently introduced ten years ago, which obviously seems to indicates human involvement, and explains why the bat have no natural defense. I think this also justifies human involvement in finding a solution.

    --
    Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
  15. Here's the real news about the Pd cure by wherrera · · Score: 3, Informative

    The article referred to in the original news above is fluff. Here's the actual publication being used to effect a probiotic cure for the bats:

    http://journals.plos.org/ploso...

    1. Re:Here's the real news about the Pd cure by kizniche · · Score: 2
      The article you reference is not done by the same group that conducted the treatment trials. In fact, the bacteria in that article is a completely different genus. The link below is the research that led up to this treatment. I am an author on the paper below and am a researcher at Georgia State University who was a part of the group that conducted the treatment trials.

      http://www.biomedcentral.com/1...

  16. Re:Is a reduction by DamnOregonian · · Score: 4, Informative

    Very few people nowadays the word "decimation" with it's original meaning, and I'm guessing the author didn't here either. Or rather, we should probably say that the word has evolved to mean "an arbitrarily large percentage" and not just 10%. I see that definition listed as #3 in Merriam-Webster, where the original meaning is #1. Those should probably be reversed now. #2, in case you're wondering, is related to taxation. Go figure.

    Eradicating would have perhaps been a better word to use.
    Fatality rate for the total bat population in affected caves is 90-100%. In many caves in Missouri, the bats are *gone*.

    I went to the article to find out that this fungus was apparently introduced ten years ago, which obviously seems to indicates human involvement, and explains why the bat have no natural defense. I think this also justifies human involvement in finding a solution.

    Very likely human involvement. The fungus is natural in European caves, and European bats can have the fungus on them without becoming colonized by it.
    The fungus is thought to spread between American caves by people.

  17. Re:Is a reduction by codeButcher · · Score: 4, Funny

    Rodents are in the much smaller superorder Euarchontoglires, the only non-extinct members of which are: rodents, rabbits, hares, pikas, tree shrews, flying lemurs, and the various primates.

    You forgot to specifically mention managers and politicians in that rodent group..... oh wait, my bad, there it is right at the end: primates.

    --
    Free, as in your money being freed from the confines of your account.
  18. MOD PARENT UP by damn_registrars · · Score: 2

    The A/C with the citation describing how rare rabies actually is in bats hit the nail on the head. Too many people subscribe to the counterfactual mythology of bats being common vectors of disease.

    --
    Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
  19. Not a Cure by kizniche · · Score: 2
    The trials that were conducted were a treatment, not a cure. A cure insinuates the organism is no longer susceptible to the disease, which is not the case with these treatments. A better article, that represents our research and treatments, and quotes us better, is the MNN article below.

    http://www.mnn.com/earth-matte...