Incredible discovery hidden beneath major Aussie tourist highway
Deep underground, in pitch-black layers of porous limestone rock, hundreds of metres beneath the surface, scientists have found a thriving ecosystem filled with strange, blind creatures. Known as stygofauna, that may hold the key to protecting Australia's groundwater for generations to come.
These tiny animals live in water-filled cracks and pockets within underground limestone aquifers (rock formations that store water). They've adapted to total darkness over millions of years, often losing their eyesight and developing unusual features to survive in cold, low-oxygen conditions.
Though smaller than a grain of rice, stygofauna play a surprisingly big role. They help keep groundwater clean by feeding on bacteria and breaking down organic matter, acting like a natural filtration system deep below the surface. In simple terms, they're nature's underground clean-up crew, quietly recycling the water many Australians rely on, CSIRO Senior Research Scientist Dr Paul McInerney told Yahoo News.
It's not the first discovery of stygofauna in general, but it does highlight the need for careful groundwater management in that region, McInerney explained. In a new report, he said that by researching these communities, we can better understand groundwater ecosystems, assess aquatic health and how human activity affects our water.
The creatures were found in the Beetaloo Sub-basin in the Northern Territory — a region rich in gas reserves and the subject of ongoing development interest. Scientists sampled water from 33 bores, using fine mesh nets, environmental DNA (eDNA) testing, and specialist video cameras that can record footage up to 200 metres underground.
"We used a specialist bore-hole video camera that shines a light in front of the lens and lowered it into the well using a cable. This allowed us to record footage up to 200m below the surface," McInerney said. "In some wells, there were no visible stygofauna. However, the eDNA analysis of water samples revealed the presence of stygofauna."
The study found unique combinations of species in different locations, highlighting just how localised and potentially fragile these ecosystems are. Among the stygofauna found were tiny, translucent creatures, including one resembling a prawn.
Populations of the shrimp-like species Parisia unguis found in the Beetaloo Sub-basin were genetically different from one another, meaning the groups living in different bores don't mix much and are likely isolated from each other. That matters because it shows just how fragile and localised these underground ecosystems are. If each population of Parisia unguis is isolated, then damage to even one bore or area could wipe out a unique genetic group that doesn't exist anywhere else.
The Beetaloo Sub-basin in the Northern Territory is currently a major focus of gas exploration and development. While full-scale commercial production hasn't commenced yet, significant activities are underway by companies such as Empire Energy, Tamboran Resources and Santos.
Recently, there have been ongoing protests against gas exploration and fracking in the Beetaloo Sub-basin. Traditional owners, including members of the Nurrdalinji Aboriginal Corporation, have voiced strong opposition, citing concerns over environmental impacts, threats to sacred sites, and inadequate consultation processes. Environmental groups and activists have also joined these protests, highlighting potential risks to groundwater and climate implications
McInerney said the CSIRO's research did not directly investigate the impact of gas drilling or mining. However, he said any activity that disrupts aquifers could put these creatures, and the delicate ecosystems they support, at risk. "Any activities that change the physical or chemical condition of aquifers in the Beetaloo Sub-basin may threaten the persistence and distribution of stygofauna species," he said.
In other words, disturbing the water table through drilling, pollution, or overuse could damage or even wipe out entire populations of creatures we barely understand.
One of the most compelling reasons to care about these hidden ecosystems is how little we know about them — and how much we could lose before we ever get the chance to study them. Scientists say stygofauna could one day act as indicators of pollution or aquifer stress, but we're not there yet.
Pumping too much groundwater threatens thousands of underground species
Households to face decades of water restrictions due to worrying trend
'Poor management': regulator in hot water over licences
The latest research has laid the groundwork for bigger questions, and possibly more focused conservation. "There is potential for new projects to expand the known distribution of NT stygofauna and to improve our understanding of their ecology," McInerney said.
"Results of these and other CSIRO studies are important for informing appropriate policy and management responses to development proposals."
Though invisible to most of us, stygofauna exist across Australia — not just in the NT — and are found anywhere aquifers offer the right balance of pore space, water flow and nutrient conditions.
Understanding them helps us to support agriculture, industry, and even our drinking water.
Love Australia's weird and wonderful environment? 🐊🦘😳 Get our new newsletter showcasing the week's best stories.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
17 hours ago
- Yahoo
Hope For Healthy Hearts: Enzyme Breakthrough Could Tame Cholesterol
Scientists at the University of Texas at Arlington have identified a new enzyme that can help control cholesterol levels. The enzyme discovered by the researchers can be shut off, effectively helping the body maintain healthy cholesterol levels. The breakthrough development could pave the way for new treatments to help the millions of Americans with elevated cholesterol levels. Subhrangsu S. Mandal, lead author of a new study and professor of chemistry at UT Arlington, said the team found that by blocking the enzyme IDO1, inflammation within immune cells called macrophages could be controlled. 'Inflammation is linked to so many conditions… By better understanding IDO1 and how to block it, we have the potential to better control inflammation and restore proper cholesterol processing, stopping many of these diseases in their tracks,' said Mandal, per UTA. While some inflammation is beneficial, when it becomes abnormal due to triggers such as stress or injury, it can damage cells, disrupt normal functions, and even increase the risk of disease. The researchers found that the enzyme IDO1 is active during inflammation. This produces a substance called kynurenine, which disrupts the macrophages' ability to process cholesterol effectively. However, when IDO1 is blocked, macrophages regain their ability to absorb cholesterol. Moreover, the team found that another enzyme that can drive inflammation, nitric oxide synthases (NOS), worsens the effects of IDO1. Blocking NOS, the team theorizes, could provide another avenue for controlling information-linked cholesterol problems. 'These findings are important because we know too much cholesterol buildup in macrophages can lead to clogged arteries, heart disease and a host of other illnesses,' Mandal said. 'Understanding how to prevent the inflammation affecting cholesterol regulation could lead to new treatments for conditions like heart disease, diabetes, cancer and others.'
Yahoo
19 hours ago
- Yahoo
That distinctive springtime smell: Asparagus pee
Along with many other delights, springtime brings the beginning of the asparagus growing season. Regardless of whether you prefer the green, purple or white variety, asparagus provides a rich source of vitamins and minerals, and its consumption as part of a healthy diet may reduce risk of cancer and cardiovascular-related diseases. Despite the nutritional benefits of asparagus, many are opposed to eating the vegetable due to its pungent aftereffects. As Benjamin Franklin wrote in 1781, 'A few stems of asparagus eaten, shall give our urine a disagreable odour.' This odor has become so well known that post-consumption urine is now often referred to as 'asparagus pee.' Scientists believe the odor in question is due to two chemicals: methanethiol and S-methyl thioester. When enzymes in the human digestive tract break down the asparagusic acid that's naturally present in the vegetable, these volatile compounds are created. When voided from the body, they become foul-smelling gas, wafting up from your asparagus pee. And just because you don't smell it doesn't mean you're not making it. Two studies have shown that people who are unable to smell the odor in their own urine also don't detect it in the urine of known producers. Yes, volunteers sniffed samples of other people's asparagus pee. Though most everyone probably produces the scent to some degree, it seems not everyone's noses pick up on it. In fact, a study my colleagues and I conducted in 2017 found that only 40 percent of those surveyed reported detecting the odor in their urine. A lower proportion of women were able to detect the odor, compared to men, despite women being thought to have a more keen sense of smell. We asked almost 7,000 participants from two large cohort studies to respond to the prompt 'After eating asparagus, you notice a strong characteristic odor in your urine.' By linking the questionnaire data with genetic data, we were able to show that the ability to smell or not to smell depends on a person's genetic makeup. Hundreds of variants in the DNA sequence across multiple genes involved in sense of smell are strongly associated with the ability to detect asparagus metabolites in urine. Asparagus isn't the only food that has genetically linked controversial smell or taste effects. Some people avoid eating cilantro because they claim it has a 'soapy' aftertaste. A study using data from almost 30,000 users of 23andMe found genetic variants in olfactory receptors linked to people's perception of this adverse taste. Maybe you can conduct your own survey at the next family meal that includes a platter of asparagus – or soon after. This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit, independent news organization bringing you facts and trustworthy analysis to help you make sense of our complex world. It was written by: Sarah Coseo Markt, Harvard University Read more: Can you pass this smell test? Oral nicotine pouches deliver lower levels of toxic substances than smoking – but that doesn't mean they're safe Don't believe everything you hear about pesticides on fruits and vegetables Sarah Coseo Markt receives funding from the National Institutes of Health.


Fox News
20 hours ago
- Fox News
How sensationalized headlines about 'brain plastic' are undermining trust in safe, sustainable materials
Earlier this year, a terrifying claim swept headlines and social media: "You have a spoon's worth of plastic in your brain." The warning, based on a study published in Nature Medicine, set off a cultural firestorm, dominating news cycles, TikToks and dinner table conversations. It was the kind of phrase designed to go viral, and it did. But here's what didn't go viral: the follow-up. Experts later flagged the study for a critical flaw: To quantify microplastics in samples, the study relied on equipment with limitations in distinguishing plastics from other materials, leading to potential false positives. An independent expert noted: "The method is lauded for its ability to detect smaller micro- and nanoplastics than other methods can, but it will give you a lot of false positives if you do not adequately remove biological material from the sample. Most of the presumed plastic they found is polyethylene, which to me really indicates that they didn't really clean up their samples properly." The nuance, though important, didn't make the headlines. This highlights a broader issue: there's no globally standardized methods for the collection, detection and quantification of microplastics. Some microplastics studies may fail to identify whether the particle is a mineral, an organic material or something else, yet still misidentify them and claim they are microplastics. And without standardized methodologies for identifying and quantifying the different types of particles, it is difficult to generate reliable data and assess their true impact. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) states, "While there are many studies on microplastics in food, the current state of science is limited in its ability to inform regulatory risk assessment… due to several factors, including a continued lack of standardized definitions, reference materials, sample collection and preparation procedures, and appropriate quality controls, to name a few." Yet recent coverage has prioritized drama over scientific nuance, creating confusion rather than clarity. Let's be clear: microplastics are real. Everyday life, from tire dust to synthetic fibers, produces these particles. They're in the environment and potentially our bodies. But presence alone doesn't constitute a crisis. The real question is what this means for human health and how to respond responsibly. The FDA has made clear that "current scientific evidence does not demonstrate that levels of microplastics or nanoplastics detected in foods pose a risk to human health." When we treat preliminary research as settled science – or worse, viral clickbait – we lose the ability to make smart decisions. This is particularly true in the case of materials like PET, the plastic used in food packaging, water bottles and medical supplies. PET is among the safest, most rigorously tested plastics, approved globally by regulators including the FDA and EFSA. Why is this misinformation dangerous? Because it undermines trust in safe and sustainable materials like PET, which is both lightweight and recyclable. According to life cycle assessments (LCA), a PET bottle produces significantly lower greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions than alternative containers like glass bottles or aluminum cans, and requires less energy to produce. It enables safe hydration, reduces food waste and makes modern healthcare possible. Yet consumers increasingly question PET, not because science changed, but because headlines did. That disconnect carries real-world consequences. This is exactly why it is so important for our regulatory agencies to step up and address the lack of standardization in microplastics research and to develop methods and standards that allow for consistent and comparable results in research. Only then will we be able to have a more disciplined public conversation around microplastics that we can be confident is based on dependable evidence, and which stops the confusion of comparing apples to oranges. None of this is to dismiss the broader challenge of plastic pollution. Our industry – and society – must invest in better systems: smarter product design, stronger recycling infrastructure and more rigorous scientific research. But meaningful progress starts with clarity, not confusion. The public deserves facts. Not just headlines.