Applied ecology and conservation research group

Lethal control of semi-arid, red fox populations fails to reduce their abundance but may create increased fox activity

Post author By Euan Ritchie
Post date 15 May 2025

Authors: Lorenzo Galletta, Anthony R Rendall, Matthew Lefoe, Mary Thorpe, Brit Hides, Ben Holmes, and Euan G Ritchie

Published in: Biological Invasions

Abstract

Biological invasions threaten biodiversity globally. In Australia, introduced and invasive European red foxes (Vulpes vulpes) are a major predator of native wildlife, and are implicated in numerous species extinctions, prompting large-scale fox population control programs. Lethal control—typically via poison (1080) baiting—is common, but the consistency of its efficacy has been questioned, and the desired outcomes are frequently not measured or evaluated.

We aimed to assess the success and impacts of lethal fox control on fox activity, and subsequent effects on a co-occurring, invasive mesopredator (feral cat, Felis catus), and native and invasive prey species. We surveyed three locations in the Wimmera region of Victoria, each experienced a different baiting regime (no baiting, standard systematic baiting, intensified baiting). Camera traps were deployed from April 2021 to August 2023 to determine predator activity alongside non-target herbivores.

Baiting treatment was not associated with differences in fox or cat activity. Nurcoung (no baiting) had the lowest activity of both cats and foxes across the study. Fox activity patterns under standard baiting were higher than intensified baiting.

Our results suggest that fox control might destabilise population dynamics of foxes, potentially facilitating increased activity levels through higher emigration rates from the surrounding agricultural environments.

Our study highlights the critical importance of appropriately monitoring the outcomes of invasive species control programs to ensure the a priori strategic objectives are achieved. To achieve more effective fox population suppression broader, landscape-scale approaches that take a nil-tenure approach are essential.

Galletta L, Rendall AR, Lefoe M, Thorpe M, Hides B, Holmes B, Ritchie EG (2025) Lethal control of semi-arid, red fox populations fails to reduce their abundance but may create increased fox activity. Biological Invasions PDF DOI

Science communication The Conversation

The Conversation: Farmers fear dingoes are eating their livestock – but predator poo tells an unexpected story

Post author By Euan Ritchie
Post date 12 May 2025

Dingo (Canis dingo) Kristian Bell/Shutterstock

By Rachel Mason (PhD candidate in Conservation Biology, Deakin University) and Euan Ritchie (Professor in Wildlife Ecology and Conservation, School of Life & Environmental Sciences, Deakin University).

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Killing carnivores to protect livestock, wildlife and people is an emotive and controversial issue that can cause community conflict. Difficult decisions about managing predators must be supported by strong scientific evidence.

In Australia, predators such as dingoes and foxes are often shot or poisoned with baits to prevent them from killing sheep and cattle. Feral cats and foxes are also killed to protect native wildlife.

But research elsewhere suggests public perceptions of how predators affect ecosystems and livestock are not always accurate.

Our recent study sought to shed light on these controversies. We examined the scat, or poo, left behind by dingoes, foxes and cats. We focused on the mallee region of Victoria and South Australia where there are calls to resume dingo culling to stop them killing livestock.

A contentious issue

Our study took place in the Big Desert-Wyperfeld-Ngarkat reserve complex in the semi-arid mallee region of Victoria and South Australia. This continuous ecosystem comprises about 10,000 km² of protected native mallee bushland, and is entirely surrounded by crop and livestock farming areas.

Fox-baiting is conducted along the boundaries of Victorian-managed reserve areas. Dingo baiting occurs in the South Australian-managed section of the park.

Since March 2024, the small dingo population has been protected in Victorian-managed areas due to their critically low numbers in the region.

Prior to the change, Victorian farmers and authorised trappers could control dingoes on private land and within public land up to 3km from farms. Farmers say they have lost livestock since dingoes were protected.

What are predators eating in the mallee region?

We collected and analysed 136 dingo, 200 fox and 25 cat scats to determine what each predator in the area was eating and how their diets differed.

Livestock was not a major part of the diet of dingoes, foxes or cats. Some 7% of fox scats contained sheep or cattle remains. This was more than that of dingoes, at 2% of scats. No feral cat scats contained livestock remains.

The dingo diet was dominated by kangaroos, wallabies and emus, which comprised more than 70% of their diet volume.

Cats and foxes consumed more than 15 times the volume of small native mammals compared with dingoes, including threatened species such as fat-tailed dunnarts.

Frequency of occurrence of threatened and near-threatened species in the diet of dingoes, foxes and cats in the Big Desert-Wyperfeld-Ngarkat park complex. Rachel Mason

Our data must be interpreted with caution. Scat analysis cannot differentiate between livestock killed by predators and those that are scavenged. It also can’t tell us about animals that a predator killed but did not eat.

In 2022–23, when we collected the scats, rainfall in the area was high and prey was abundant. So, while we found livestock were not likely to be a substantial part of these predators’ diets at the time of our research, this can change depending on environmental conditions.

For example, fire and extended drought may force predators to move further to find food and water. They may move from conservation areas to private land, where they could prey on livestock.

Volume of prey categories in the diet of dingoes, foxes and cats in the Big Desert-Wyperfeld-Ngarkat complex. Rachel Mason

A taste for certain prey

A predator’s poo doesn’t tell the full story of how it affects prey populations.

To understand this further, we used motion-sensing wildlife cameras to assess which prey were available in the ecosystem. We compared it to the frequency they occurred in predator’s diets. This allowed us to determine if dingoes, foxes or cats target specific prey.

We found foxes and cats both consumed small mammals proportionally more than we expected, given the prey’s availability in the study area. Cats consumed birds at a higher rate than expected, and dingoes consumed echidnas more than expected.

Further intensive monitoring work is needed to determine how these dietary preferences affect the populations of prey species.

Embracing the evidence

The findings build on a substantial previous research suggesting foxes and cats pose a significant threat to native mammals, birds, reptiles and other wildlife, including many threatened species. Our results suggest foxes may cause more harm to sheep than dingoes overall – a finding consistent with research elsewhere in Victoria.

Dingoes were the only predator species that regularly preyed on kangaroos and wallabies. These species are abundant in the region. They can also compete with livestock for grazing pastures, consume crops and degrade native vegetation.

Currently, dingoes are killed on, or fenced out of, large parts of Australia due to their perceived threat to livestock.

Lethal control of invasive species remains important to protect native wildlife and agriculture. But such decisions should be based on evidence, to avoid unforeseen and undesirable results.

For example, fox control can lead to increased feral cat numbers and harm to native prey. Fewer dingoes may mean more feral goats and kangaroos.

Non-lethal and effective alternatives exist to indiscriminately killing predators to protect livestock, such as protection dogs and donkeys. These measures are being embraced by farmers and graziers globally, often with high and sustained success.

In Australia, governments should better embrace and support evidence-based and effective approaches that allow farming, native carnivores and other wildlife to coexist.

Publications Research

Megafire severity, fire frequency and their interactions with habitat affect post-fire responses of small mammal and reptile species

Post author By Euan Ritchie
Post date 30 April 2025

Authors: Don A Driscoll, Zac Walker, Desley A Whisson, Euan G Ritchie, Chloe Sato, and Kristina J Macdonald

Published in: Biological Conservation

Abstract

Climate change is driving extreme fires in many ecosystems around the world. There is an urgent need to understand how co-occurring and interacting threats compound megafire impacts on habitats and wildlife.

Using repeated surveys after the 2019–20 Australian megafires, we investigated how the abundance and occupancy of five small mammal and reptile species were influenced by fire severity, fire frequency, feral herbivore impacts, three key habitat components (logs, moss, and weeds), and their interactions.

We found that fire severity, fire frequency, weeds and logs were the most important factors affecting species abundance and occupancy. Increasing fire severity caused precipitous declines of the threatened broad-toothed rat Mastacomys fuscus and glossy grass skink Pseudemoia rawlinsoni. The impact of fire frequency depended on environmental covariates. High fire frequency led to low abundance of the water skink Eulamprus tympanum and M. fuscus if there were no logs. However, both species increased with fire frequency if logs were abundant, implying that logs can ameliorate negative impacts of frequent fire. The threatened Eulamprus kosciuskoi needed fewer than two fires in the past 80 years as well as high moss cover to achieve high abundance. Two threatened alpine skinks, E. kosciuskoi and P. cryodroma, declined with increasing weed cover.

Our study highlights that elucidating interactions between fire and habitat attributes helps to characterise wildfire refuges. Countering the expected impacts of repeated megafires globally will likely require increased protection of refuges from frequent burning, supplementing shelter such as logs where scarce, and mitigating co-occurring and compounding threats.

Driscoll DA, Walker Z, Whisson DA, Ritchie EG, Sato C, Macdonald KJ (2025) Megafire severity, fire frequency and their interactions with habitat affect post-fire responses of small mammal and reptile species. Biological Conservation PDF DOI

Publications Research

What’s on the menu? Examining native apex- and invasive meso-predator diets to understand impacts on ecosystems

Post author By Euan Ritchie
Post date 29 April 2025

Authors: Rachel T Mason, Anthony R Rendall, Robin D Sinclair, Angela JL Pestell, and Euan G Ritchie

Published in: Ecological Solutions and Evidence

Abstract

Understanding how carnivores impact ecological communities is essential for guiding effective management actions and conserving biodiversity. Quantifying predators’ diets, including prey selectivity, allows for the assessment of the relative effects native and invasive predators may have on prey populations.

In Australia, populations of a native, terrestrial apex predator, the dingo Canis dingo/C. familiaris, and introduced and invasive subordinate mesopredators, the European red fox Vulpes vulpes and feral cat Felis catus, co-occur, but there is limited understanding of their relative impacts on native and invasive prey in different ecosystems. To assess the possible effects of dingoes, foxes and cats on prey, we examined their diet and prey selectivity across a ~10,000 km² semi-arid mallee ecosystem.

Using macroscopic scat analysis, we identified strong dietary niche separation. Larger-bodied dingoes primarily consumed large marsupial herbivores, whereas foxes and cats primarily consumed smaller prey, including introduced and native rodents and birds. Foxes had the broadest diet, and the greatest dietary overlap with cats (O_jk = 0.81), compared with dingoes (O_jk = 0.50) or between dingoes and cats (O_jk = 0.36).

Livestock were identified in 2% of dingo and 7% of fox scats. Cats and foxes consumed more than 15 times the volume of small native mammals compared with dingoes, including threatened species such as fat-tailed dunnarts Sminthopsis crassicaudata. Cats and foxes also selectively consumed small mammals relative to their estimated availability and consumed fewer large mammals. In contrast, dingoes consumed fewer birds and more echidnas relative to their availability.

Our results suggest limited intraguild competition within this semi-arid ecosystem, as dingoes are primarily exerting top-down pressure on large herbivores, whereas invasive mesopredators are disproportionately impacting smaller prey, including threatened native mammals.

Our findings suggest that ongoing conservation management of dingoes, red foxes and feral cats must consider the variation in diets, impacts on prey and ecological roles of these different predator species, and avoid indiscriminate lethal control methods. Quantifying actual, rather than assumed, impacts of predators on threatened native species, large herbivores and livestock is essential to achieve effective and integrated ecosystem management.

Mason RT, Rendall AR, Sinclair RD, Pestell AJL, Ritchie EG (2025) What’s on the menu? Examining native apex‐ and invasive meso‐predator diets to understand impacts on ecosystems. Ecological Solutions and Evidence PDF DOI

Publications Research

Remotely sensed fire heterogeneity and biomass recovery predicts empirical biodiversity responses

Post author By Euan Ritchie
Post date 14 April 2025

Authors: Rebecca K Gibson, Don A Driscoll, Kristina J Macdonald, Grant J Williamson, Rachael H Nolan, Tim S Doherty, Dale G Nimmo, Euan G Ritchie, Mark Tozer, Liz Tasker, Aaron Greenville, Adam Roff, Alex Callen, Alex Maisey, Alexandria Thomsen, Alfonsina Arriaga-Jimenez, Alison Foster, Alison Hewitt, Amy-Marie Gilpin, Andrew Denham, Andrew Stauber, Berin Mackenzie, Brad Law, Brad Murray, Brian Hawkins, Bridget Roberts, Chad T Beranek, Chris Dickman, Chris J Jolly, Chris McLean, Chris Reid, Craig Dunne, David Hancock, David Keith, Elise Pendall, Elise Verhoeven, Emma Cook, Emma Spencer, Felicity Grant, Frank Koehler, George Madani, Glenda Wardle, Grant Linley, James M Cook, Jedda Lemmon, John Gould, Jonathan K Webb, Joshua Lee, Julia Rayment, Karen Marsh, Kaya Klop-Toker, Laura Schweickle, Mark Ooi, Matthew Beitzel, Matthias Boer, Michael Hewins, Michael Mahony, Mikayla Green, Mike Letnic, Murraya Lane, Oliver W Kelly, Owen Price, Renee Brawata, Rohan Bilney, Ross Crates, Ryan R Witt, Ryan Shofner, Sally A Power, Samantha L Wallace, Sarah E Stock, Shelby A Ryan, Stephanie Pulsford, Thomas Newsome, Tom Le Breton, Vanessa Allen, Vivianna Miritis, and Zac Walker

Published in: Global Ecology and Biogeography

Abstract

Aim: To compare field-based evidence of plant and animal responses to fire with remotely sensed signals of fire heterogeneity and post-fire biomass recovery.

Location: South-eastern Australia; New South Wales.

Time period: 2019–2022.

Major taxa studied: A total of 982 species of plants and animals, in eight taxonomic groups: amphibians, birds, fish, insects, mammals, molluscs, plants and reptiles.

Methods: We collated 545,223 plant and animal response records from 47 field surveys of 4613 sites that focussed on areas burnt in 2019–2020. For each site, we calculated remotely sensed signals of fire heterogeneity and post-fire biomass recovery, including the delayed recovery index. Meta-regression analyses were conducted separately for species that declined after fire (negative effect sizes) and species that increased after fire (positive effect sizes) for each buffer size (250 m, 500 m, 1 km, 1.5 km, 2 km and 2.5 km radius).

Results: We found that species exposed to homogenous high-severity fire (i.e., low fire heterogeneity) were more likely to exhibit decreased abundance/occurrence or inhibited recovery. Areas with delayed recovery of biomass also had significant negative on-ground responses, with lower abundance or occurrence in areas where biomass recovery was slower.

Main conclusions: The fire heterogeneity index and the delayed recovery index are suitable for inclusion in monitoring and reporting systems for tracking relative measures over time, particularly when field survey data is not available at the landscape scales required to support reporting and management decisions. Locations with remotely sensed signals of delayed recovery should be prioritised for protection against further disturbances that may interfere with the recovery process. Research attention must next focus on how cumulative fire heterogeneity patterns of successive fires affect the post-fire recovery dynamics to further inform the application of remote sensing indicators as management tools for biodiversity conservation.

Gibson RK, Driscoll DA, Macdonald KJ, Williamson GJ, Nolan RH, Doherty TS, Nimmo DG, Ritchie EG, Tozer M, Tasker L, Greenville A, Roff A, Callen A, Maisey A, Thomsen A, Arriaga‐Jimenez A, Foster A, Hewitt A, Gilpin A, Denham A, Stauber A, Mackenzie B, Law B, Murray B, Hawkins B, Roberts B, Beranek CT, Dickman C, Jolly CJ, McLean C, Reid C, Dunne C, Hancock D, Keith D, Pendall E, Verhoeven E, Cook E, Spencer E, Grant F, Koehler F, Madani G, Wardle G, Linley G, Cook JM, Lemmon J, Gould J, Webb JK, Lee J, Rayment J, Marsh K, Klop‐Toker K, Schweickle L, Ooi M, Beitzel M, Boer M, Hewins M, Mahony M, Green M, Letnic M, Lane M, Kelly OW, Price O, Brawata R, Bilney R, Crates R, Witt RR, Shofner R, Power SA, Wallace SL, Stock SE, Ryan SA, Pulsford S, Newsome T, Le Breton T, Allen V, Miritis V, Walker Z (2025) Remotely sensed fire heterogeneity and biomass recovery predicts empirical biodiversity responses. Global Ecology and Biogeography PDF DOI

Publications Research

‘Megafire’ — you may not like it, but you cannot avoid it

Post author By Euan Ritchie
Post date 5 April 2025

Authors: Grant D Linley, Chris J Jolly, Tim S Doherty, William L Geary, Dolors Armenteras, Claire M Belcher, Rebecca Bliege Bird, Andrea Duane, Michael-Shawn Fletcher, Melisa A Giorgis, Angie Haslem, Gavin M Jones, Luke T Kelly, Calvin K F Lee, Rachael H Nolan, Catherine L Parr, Juli G Pausas, Jodi N Price, Adrián Regos, Euan G Ritchie, Julien Ruffault, Grant J Williamson, Qianhan Wu, and Dale G Nimmo

Published in: Global Ecology and Biogeography

Abstract

Aim: The term ‘megafire’ is increasingly used to describe large fires worldwide. We proposed a size-based definition of megafire—fires exceeding 10,000 ha arising from single or multiple related ignition events. A recent perspective in Global Ecology and Biogeography argues against a size-based definition of megafire and suggest that the term is too emotive for scientific use. We highlight that many scientific terms originate from common terms. These terms are often defined once they enter the scientific lexicon, enhancing both scientific understanding and public communication. We argue that standardised definitions facilitate better prediction, preparation, and management of fire events.

Location: Worldwide.

Time period: 2022–2023.

Methods: We conducted an updated structured review of the term ‘megafire’ and its use and definition in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, collating definitions and descriptions and identifying the criteria frequently invoked to define the term.

Results: We demonstrate an increase in the use of ‘megafire’ in the scientific literature since our original definition in 2022, with many studies adopting the > 10,000 ha size-based criterion.

Main conclusions: We contend that abandoning the term is neither practical, possible, nor beneficial. Instead, consistent usage underpinned by clear definitions is essential. Adopting a clear, size-based definition of megafire strengthens clarity and comparability across research and management practices globally. Precision in terminology is crucial for advancing research, improving communication, and informing effective fire management and policy.

Linley GD, Jolly CJ, Doherty TS, Geary WL, Armenteras D, Belcher CM, Bliege Bird R, Duane A, Fletcher M, Giorgis MA, Haslem A, Jones GM, Kelly LT, Lee CKF, Nolan RH, Parr CL, Pausas JG, Price JN, Regos A, Ritchie EG, Ruffault J, Williamson GJ, Wu Q, Nimmo DG (2025) ‘Megafire’ — you may not like it, but you cannot avoid it. Global Ecology and Biogeography PDF DOI

Science communication The Conversation

The Conversation: Australians want nature protected. These three environmental problems should be top of the next government’s to-do list

Post author By Euan Ritchie
Post date 2 April 2025

The striking Palm Cockatoo, (Probosciger aterrimus) is only found at the northern tip of the Cape York Peninsula, as well as parts of Papua New Guinea and the Aru Islands, Indonesia. Christina Zdenek

By Euan Ritchie (Professor in Wildlife Ecology and Conservation, School of Life & Environmental Sciences, Deakin University), John Woinarski (Professor of Conservation Biology, Charles Darwin University) and Martine Maron (Professor of Environmental Management, The University of Queensland).

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Australia is a place of great natural beauty, home to many species found nowhere else on Earth. But it’s also particularly vulnerable to introduced animals, diseases and weeds. Habitat destruction, pollution and climate change make matters worse. To conserve what’s special, we need far greater care.

Unfortunately, successive federal governments have failed to protect nature. Australia now has more than 2,000 threatened species and “ecological communities” – groups of native species that live together and interact. This threatened list is growing at an alarming rate.

The Albanese government came to power in 2022 promising to reform the nation’s nature laws, following a scathing review of the laws. But it has failed to do so.

If re-elected, Labor has vowed to complete its reforms and introduce a federal Environment Protection Agency, in some other form.

The Coalition has not made such a commitment. Instead, it refers to “genuine conservation”, balancing the environment and the economy. They’ve also promised to cut “green tape” for industry.

But scientific evidence suggests much more is required to protect Australia’s natural wonders.

Fighting invaders

Labor has made a welcome commitment of more than A$100 million to counter “highly pathogenic avian influenza”. This virulent strain of bird flu is likely to kill millions of native birds and other wildlife.

The government also provided much-needed funding for a network of safe havens for threatened mammals. These safe-havens exclude cats, foxes and other invasive species.

But much more needs to be done. Funding is urgently needed to eradicate red imported fire ants, before eradication becomes impossible. Other election commitments to look for include:

increased biosecurity funding, to prevent new incursions
long-term investment in eradicating major pests and weeds from key sites
support for research into new tools to control invasive species such as feral cats, for which no broad-scale solution is currently possible
no reversal or weakening of policies aimed at curbing invasive pests such as feral horses in national parks
new laws to ensure threat abatement plans are implemented
adequate funds to manage invasive species across Australia’s expanding protected areas
national coordination and leadership to stop the indiscriminate use of poisons that can spread through ecosystems and food-chains, killing non-target animals such as owls, quolls, Tasmanian devils, reptiles and frogs.

Stopping land clearing and habitat destruction

The states are largely responsible for controlling land clearing. But when land clearing affects “matters of national environmental significance” such as a nationally listed threatened species or ecological community, it becomes a federal matter.

Such proposals are supposed to be referred to the federal environment minister for assessment under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act.

But most habitat destruction is never referred. And if it is, it’s mostly deemed “not a controlled action”. That means no further consideration is required and the development can proceed.

Only about 1.5% of the hundreds of thousands of hectares of land cleared in Australia every year is fully assessed under the EPBC Act.

This means our threatened species and ecological communities are suffering a “death by a thousand cuts”.

How do we fix this? A starting point is to introduce “national environmental standards” of the kind envisaged in the 2020 review of the EPBC Act by Professor Graeme Samuel.

A strong Environment Protection Agency could ensure impacts on biodiversity are appropriately assessed and accounted for.

Protecting threatened species

Habitat destruction at Lee Point, Darwin. Martine Maron

For Australia to turn around its extinction crisis, prospective elected representatives and governments must firmly commit to the following actions.

Stronger environmental law and enforcement is essential for tackling biodiveristy decline and extinction. This should include what’s known as a “climate trigger”, which means any proposal likely to produce a significant amount of greenhouse gases would have to be assessed under the EPBC Act.

This is necessary because climate change is among the greatest threats to biodiversity. But the federal environment minister is currently not legally bound to consider – or authorised to refuse – project proposals based on their greenhouse gas emissions. In an attempt to pass the EPBC reforms in the Senate last year, the Greens agreed to postpone their demand for a climate trigger.

Key threats to species, including habitat destruction, invasive species, climate change, and pollution, must be prevented or reduced. Aligning government policies and priorities to ensure environmental goals aren’t undermined by economic and development interests is essential.

A large increase in environmental spending – to at least 1% of the federal budget – is vital. It would ensure sufficient support for conservation progress and meeting legal requirements of the EPBC Act, including listing threatened species and designing and implementing recovery plans when required.

Show nature the money!

Neither major party has committed to substantial increases in environmental spending in line with what experts suggest is urgently needed.

Without such increased investment Australia’s conservation record will almost certainly continue to deteriorate. The loss of nature hurts us all. For example, most invasive species not only affect biodiversity; they have major economic costs to productivity.

Whoever forms Australia’s next government, we urge elected leaders to act on the wishes of 96% of surveyed Australians calling for more action to conserve nature.

Publications Research

Smart camera traps and computer vision improve detections of small fauna

Post author By Euan Ritchie
Post date 16 March 2025

Authors: Angela JL Pestell, Anthony R Rendall, Robin D Sinclair, Euan G Ritchie, Duc T Nguyen, Dean M Corva, Anne C Eichholtzer, Abbas Z Kouzani, and Don A Driscoll

Published in: Ecosphere

Abstract

Limited data on species’ distributions are common for small animals, impeding conservation and management. Small animals, especially ectothermic taxa, are often difficult to detect, and therefore require increased time and resources to survey effectively. The rise of conservation technology has enabled researchers to monitor animals in a range of ecosystems and for longer periods than traditional methods (e.g., live trapping), increasing the quality of data and the cost-effectiveness of wildlife monitoring practices.

We used DeakinCams, custom-built smart camera traps, to address three aims:

To survey small animals, including ectotherms, and evaluate the performance of a customized computer vision object detector trained on the SAWIT dataset for automating object classification.
At the same field sites and using commercially available camera traps, we evaluated how well MegaDetector—a freely available object detection model—detected images containing animals.
We evaluated the complementarity of these two different approaches to wildlife monitoring.

We collected 85,870 videos from the DeakinCams and 50,888 images from the commercial cameras. For object detection with DeakinCams data, SAWIT yielded 98% precision but 47% recall, and for species classification, SAWIT performance varied by taxa, with 0% precision and recall for birds and 26% precision and 14% recall for spiders. For object detections with camera trap images, MegaDetector returned 99% precision and 98% recall. We found that only the DeakinCams detected nocturnal ectotherms and invertebrates.

Making use of more diverse datasets for training models as well as advances in machine learning will likely improve the performance of models like YOLO in novel environments.

Our results support the need for continued cross-disciplinary collaboration to ensure that large environmental datasets are available to train and test existing and emerging machine learning algorithms.

Pestell AJL, Rendall AR, Sinclair RD, Ritchie EG, Nguyen DT, Corva DM, Eichholtzer AC, Kouzani AZ, Driscoll DA (2025) Smart camera traps and computer vision improve detections of small fauna. Ecosphere PDF DOI

Publications Research

Quantifying taxon-specific habitat connectivity requirements of urban wildlife using structured expert judgement

Post author By Euan Ritchie
Post date 11 March 2025

Authors: Stephanie K Courtney Jones, Luke S O’Loughlin, Danswell Starrs, Jacinta E Humphrey, Stephanie A Pulsford, Hugh Allan, Matt Beitzel, Kym Birgen, Suzi Bond, Jenny Bounds, Deborah Bower, Renee Brawata, Ben Broadhurst, Emma Carlson, Simon Clulow, Saul Cunningham, Luke Dunn, Lisa Evans, Bruno Ferronato, Donald B Fletcher, Arthur Georges, Amy-Marie Gilpin, Mark A Hall, Brian Hawkins, Anke Maria Hoeffer, Brett Howland, Damian C Lettoof, Mark Lintermans, Michelle Littlefair, Tanya Latty, Tyrone H Lavery, Zohara Lucas, George Madani, Kim Maute, Richard NC Milner, Eric J Nordberg, Thea O’Loughlin, Woo O’Reilly, Megan O’Shea, Laura Rayner, Euan G Ritchie, Natasha M Robinson, Stephan D Sarre, Manu E Saunders, Ben C Scheele, Julian Seddon, Rob Speirs, Ricky Spencer, Ingrid Stirnemann, David M Watson, Belinda A Wilson, Peter J Unmack, Yuying Zhao, and Melissa A Snape

Published in: Biological Conservation

Abstract

Urban planning which enhances native biodiversity in and around cities is needed to address the impacts of urbanisation and conserve urban biodiversity. The “Biodiversity Sensitive Urban Design” (BSUD) framework incorporates ecological knowledge into urban planning to achieve positive biodiversity outcomes through improved urban design and infrastructure development. BSUD includes principles to direct strategic design and placement of connected wildlife habitat. However, effective BSUD implementation requires defining and quantifying the landscape-scale habitat connectivity needs of a range of taxon groups within urban contexts.

The aim of our study was to use expert elicitation to address these gaps in landscape-scale habitat connectivity currently limiting the capacity of urban planning. We estimated habitat connectivity needs for seven representative taxon groups in urban environments, including ideal habitat, habitat constraints, barriers to movement, and movement thresholds that determine habitat connectivity.

In using expert elicitation to quantify habitat connectivity requirements for urban biodiversity, our study provides insights on both the usefulness of expert elicitation to inform urban habitat connectivity planning generally, and the functional habitat connectivity requirements of our focal taxon groups specifically. Overall, we consider our expert-derived estimates of connected habitat to be a highly useful set of baseline data for habitat and connectivity modelling and urban planning for a range of taxon groups.

Courtney Jones SK, O’Loughlin LS, Starrs D, Humphrey JE, Pulsford SA, Allan H, Beitzel M, Birgen K, Bond S, Bounds J, Bower D, Brawata R, Broadhurst B, Carlson E, Clulow S, Cunningham S, Dunn L, Evans L, Ferronato B, Fletcher DB, Georges A, Gilpin A-M, Hall MA, Hawkins B, Hoeffer AM, Howland B, Lettoof DC, Lintermans M, Littlefair M, Latty T, Lavery TH, Lucas Z, Madani G, Maute K, Milner RNC, Nordberg EJ, O’Loughlin T, O’Reilly W, O’Shea M, Rayner L, Ritchie EG, Robinson NM, Sarre SD, Saunders ME, Scheele BC, Seddon J, Speirs R, Spencer R, Stirnemann I, Watson DM, Wilson BA, Unmack PJ, Zhao Y, Snape MA (2025) Quantifying taxon-specific habitat connectivity requirements of urban wildlife using structured expert judgement. Biological Conservation PDF DOI

Science communication The Conversation

The Conversation: Environment Minister Tanya Plibersek has been taken to court over 11 threatened species. Here’s why

Post author By Euan Ritchie
Post date 4 March 2025

Carnaby’s Black Cockatoo. Imogen Warren/Shutterstock

By Euan Ritchie, Professor in Wildlife Ecology and Conservation, School of Life & Environmental Sciences, Deakin University.

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

What do the Australian lungfish, ghost bat, sandhill dunnart and southern and central greater gliders have in common? They’re all threatened species that need a formal “recovery plan” – but do not have one.

Today, environmental group the Wilderness Society launched a case in the Federal Court against Environment Minister Tanya Plibersek, arguing she and successive environment ministers have failed to meet their legal obligations to create threatened species recovery plans.

Other species forming the basis of the case are Baudin’s cockatoo, the Australian grayling, Carnaby’s black cockatoo, red goshawk, forest red-tailed black cockatoo and the Tasmanian wedge-tailed eagle.

Many other species and ecological communities also don’t have recovery plans. If successful, the case would set a precedent compelling future environment ministers to meet their legal obligations and improve Australia’s dire conservation record. This is a significant moment for conservation in Australia – testing how accountable environment ministers are in preventing species extinctions.

Why do recovery plans matter?

Threatened species recovery plans lay out very clearly why species or ecological communities are in trouble and the actions necessary to save them. Once a plan is in place, it can directly benefit the species by tackling threats and safeguarding habitat.

Proposals such as a new farm, suburb or mining project can be assessed by the environment minister and rejected if they are inconsistent with recovery plans and place threatened species at increased risk of extinction. Recovery plans have helped dozens of species come back from the brink.

Under Australia’s national environmental laws, the environment minister must decide whether a recovery plan is required for a species or ecological community listed as threatened.

If a plan is ordered, it must typically be created within three years. But a 2022 Auditor-General’s report found just 2% of plans met this timeframe.

Recovery is possible, but plans are vital

Successive governments have failed to keep up with creating and implementing recovery plans in a timely manner. The perennial and chronic lack of funding for conservation means there’s little capacity to do the vital but time-consuming work of planning and recovery.

As a result, the federal government has increasingly shifted to offering conservation advices in place of recovery plans. Conservation advices can be produced and updated faster than recovery plans. This is useful if, say, a new threat emerges and needs a rapid response.

But there’s a key legal difference. When the environment minister is considering a project such as land clearing for new farmland or a mine, they need only consider any conservation advice in place. When a recovery plan is in place, the minister is legally obliged not to approve actions which are contrary to its objectives and would make the plight of a species or ecological community worse.

A conservation advice can be thought of more like a fact sheet without the same legal weight or accountability that recovery plans have.

In March 2022, the Morrison government scrapped recovery plans for 176 threatened species and habitats, despite thousands of submissions arguing against this.

After the Albanese government took power in May 2022, it pledged to end “wilful neglect” of the environment and to introduce stronger environmental laws. Sadly, this commitment has not been honoured.

Why do we need recovery plans?

The range of northern Australia’s ghost bats has shrunk significantly. Ken Griffiths/Shutterstock

Australia’s species protection record is unenviable. Since European colonisation, more than 100 species have been driven to extinction and more than 2,000 species and ecological communities are listed at risk of suffering the same fate.

For a species to be considered threatened, its population has to have shrunk or meet other criteria putting it at risk of extinction. The severity of the decline and hence its extinction risk will determine how it’s categorised, from vulnerable through to critically endangered. Recovery plans lay out the research required to actually recover these species, meaning helping their populations to grow out of the danger zone.

A key role for these plans is to coordinate planning and action between relevant interest groups and agencies. This is especially important for species found across state and territory borders, such as the southern greater glider and the migratory swift parrot. The greater glider should have had a recovery plan in place since 2016, but does not.

Are individual plans still worthwhile?

Faced with so many species in need of protection and limited funding, prominent figures including former Environment Minister Peter Garrett have argued we should focus our efforts on protecting ecosystems rather than single species to make the best use of scarce funds.

But there is a deeper issue. Australia is one of the wealthiest nations in the world. It has the capacity to greatly increase conservation spending without impoverishing humans, and should do so for the benefit of the economy, culture and our health and wellbeing.

That’s not to say ecosystem protection isn’t worthwhile. After all, ecosystems are made up of species and their interactions with each other and their environment. You cannot have healthy species without healthy ecosystems and vice versa.

But if we focus only on protecting large expanses of wetland, forest and grasslands, we risk overlooking a key issue. Two species in the same ecosystem can be very differently affected by a specific threat (predation by foxes, for instance). Some species can even have conflicting management needs. For some species, invasive species are the biggest threat, while climate change and intensified fire regimes threaten others the most.

Extinction is a choice

The sandhill dunnart is one of 11 species listed in the court case. Kristian Bell/Shutterstock

As Australia’s natural world continues to deteriorate, climate change deepens and worsening wildlife woes abound, these issues will no doubt be front of mind for many in the upcoming federal election.

It can be easy to see these trends as inevitable. But they are not – the collapse of nature is a choice. We have what we need for success, including traditional, ecological and conservation knowledge. What’s sorely needed is political will.

There were once fewer than 50 northern hairy-nosed wombats alive. Today, that number exceeds 400. When supported, conservation can succeed.

Almost all Australians want their government to do more to save our species. Let us hope whoever forms the next government takes up that challenge – even if it takes court cases to prompt action.

Publications

Addressing Australia’s biodiversity crisis

Post author By Euan Ritchie
Post date 6 February 2025

Authors: Euan G Ritchie and Dale Nimmo

Published in: Science

As Australia’s 2025 federal election approaches, political parties and candidates must demonstrate increased commitment to addressing climate change and biodiversity loss. Without urgent action, species and ecosystems already under severe pressure will continue to decline and collapse, and global biodiversity targets, such as establishing a trend of recovery by 2030, will be nearly impossible to achieve. Australia must become a conservation leader by protecting and repairing its extraordinary and largely endemic biodiversity.

More than 2000 species and over 100 ecological communities are threatened with extinction in Australia, and the list continues to grow rapidly. Koalas were listed as endangered in 2022 under national environmental law, and the Great Barrier Reef is deteriorating through repeated bleaching events. Yet funding for conservation in Australia is insufficient and well below levels of other nations with similar socioeconomic characteristics and capacity, such as the United States.

Australia’s primary environmental law, the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, has failed to enable the federal government to effectively protect the environment and cannot adequately address current and future environmental challenges. The current federal government promised to reform the law to remedy these shortfalls, but the process has stalled.

In the meantime, Australia’s government is hoping to greatly improve conservation outcomes by creating a “nature repair market”. This initiative would reward individuals and corporations for investing in nature restoration projects. Conservation investment from industry is welcome, but this market may not fill the void in government funding. Moreover, a market mechanism may be less efficient than direct investment from government. Either way, the market’s credibility will be undermined if the downward trend of Australia’s biodiversity continues due to ineffective environmental laws.

The next Australian government must prioritize conservation by fast-tracking environmental law reform and strengthening enforcement. Development proposal assessments should explicitly consider emissions as “climate triggers” and either rule out proposals deemed too severe or require developers to meaningfully mitigate the impacts of projects. Only urgent action to address climate change can prevent long-term and widespread environmental damage. An annual investment of $7.3 billion AUD, about 0.3% of gross national product, for 30 years would support substantial progress toward protecting and recovering Australia’s environments and species. Australia’s next administration must commit to this investment to help meet national and global environmental and conservation goals.

Ritchie EG, Nimmo DG (2025) Addressing Australia’s biodiversity crisis. Science PDF DOI

Media Science communication The Conversation

The Conversation: Labor’s dumping of Australia’s new nature laws means the environment is shaping as a key 2025 election issue

Post author By Euan Ritchie
Post date 3 February 2025

Controversy over land clearing at the Lee Point (Binybara) housing development site, near Darwin, highlights the urgent need for environmental law reform. Image credit: Euan Ritchie

By Peter Burnett (Australian National University), Euan Ritchie, (Deakin University), and Jaana Dielenberg (Charles Darwin University).

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has shelved the proposed reforms to Australia’s 25-year-old environment laws, citing a lack of parliamentary support for the changes.

The decision breaks Labor’s 2022 election commitment to overhaul the protections. The Albanese government is now the latest in a string of governments that have tried and failed to reform the law known formally as the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act.

This is despite two major independent reviews calling for wholesale change.

Labor’s capitulation does not, however, change the facts. Australia’s natural environment is deteriorating rapidly. Laws are urgently needed to protect our nation’s valuable natural assets.

Establishing effective laws is an investment that will benefit Australia’s biodiversity, economy, cultural values, health and wellbeing. Nature is now a key 2025 election issue.

How did we get here?

An independent review of the EPBC Act, known as the Samuel Review, was completed in 2020 under the former Coalition government. It found that without urgent changes, most of Australia’s threatened plants, animals and ecosystems will become extinct.

Federal Environment Minister Tanya Plibersek promised to act on the review’s recommendations, via a plan Labor badged as “Nature Positive”.

The centrepiece of reform is to set national environmental standards that would be overseen by an independent regulator and watchdog called Environmental Protection Australia (EPA). But reform was split into three stages.

Stage one legislated for national markets in nature repair and expanded the requirement to assess potential impacts on water resources under the EPBC Act. The so-called “water trigger” now captures “unconventional gas” projects such as shale gas recovery in the Northern Territory’s Beetaloo Basin. The law passed in December 2023, but the markets are not yet functioning.

Stage two of the reforms, including establishing a federal EPA, came before the Senate in late 2024. Plibersek had reportedly made a deal with the crossbench to secure passage. But this deal was scuttled by Albanese at the eleventh hour.

The Government could pass legislation for Environment Protection Australia today if it agrees to close a loophole that would prevent the EPA looking at native forest logging.

Let's do it.https://t.co/ynI3EGMxEW
— David Pocock (@DavidPocock) November 17, 2024

Delay of Nature Positive bills measures for improved compliance with existing environment law a terrible loss, means continued illegal clearing of endangered species habitat . The other elements though could be done NOW administratively + by regulationhttps://t.co/ImgTPWBY1T
— LEAN Australia (@LEANAustralia) February 1, 2025

Stage two was relisted for discussion in the upcoming first parliamentary sitting week of 2025, this week. But on Saturday, Albanese told The Conversation the government would, again, not be proceeding with the reform this term.

The reforms have been delayed for so long that we are now closer to the next statutory review of the laws, due in 2029, than to the last one.

Stage three, which covers the bulk of substantive reform recommended in the Samuel Review, is yet to be seen publicly.

What will happen after the next election?

Albanese must go to the polls by May 17, but there is speculation the election may be as early as March. So what is the likely fate of these environmental reforms in the next term?

A Roy Morgan poll on Monday found if a federal election were held now, the result would be a hung parliament. So the result is looking tight.

Government control of the Senate is rare. So whoever is in power after the election is very likely to rely on crossbench support for any reforms.

Albanese has ruled out forming a coalition with the Greens or crossbenchers in the event of a hung parliament. However, Opposition Leader Peter Dutton says he would negotiate with independents to form government.

A returned Albanese majority government would probably revisit the scuttled deal on stage two. With elections in the rear-view mirror, Albanese may be prepared to wear some political pain early in the next term to secure a deal. He would also still need to roll out the bulk of the Nature Positive reforms, the detail of which remains hidden behind a vague “stage three” banner.

A minority Albanese government may face a tougher ask: demands from an environmentally progressive crossbench for major commitments to environmental reform in return for promises of support on budget and confidence.

A Coalition government would be coming from a very different angle. Dutton has painted Nature Positive as a “disaster” for the economy, expressing particular concern about impacts on the mining sector.

The Coalition’s environmental agenda is increasingly focused on “cutting green tape” – in other words, reducing bureaucratic hurdles for developers – and repealing bans on nuclear power stations. Finding crossbench support in the Senate for this agenda could be challenging.

The Greens have vowed to make environmental protection a key election issue, urging voters to cast their ballot for nature this election.

A recent poll published by the Biodiversity Council shows 75% of Australians support strengthening national environmental law to protect nature. Only 4% are opposed and the rest are undecided.

But converting a high level of broad support into votes is another thing altogether – especially during a cost-of-living crisis.

Crystal clear consequences

The political crystal ball remains cloudy. But when it comes to the state of Australia’s environment, the picture is clear.

The environment continues to decline and the consequences are increasingly serious. These consequences extend beyond further irreversible loss and the increasing cost of environmental repair, to include the economic and social consequences of losing more of the natural assets on which our quality of life depends.

The building blocks of successful reform are all on the table, where the Samuel Review put them in 2020.

When will governments accept that kicking the can down the road is selling us all down the drain?

Logging is leaving koalas homeless. Image credit: AAP, supplied by WWF Australia

Media Research The Conversation

The Conversation: 1080 baits are used to kill foxes, cats and dingoes – but other animals can be more likely to eat them

Post author By Euan Ritchie
Post date 20 January 2025

1080 poison is regularly used to kill introduced foxes (Vulpe vulpes) but many native animals, such as kangaroos, echidnas and quokkas also dig up and eat the bait. Image credit: Milosz Maslanka/Shutterstock

By Rachel Mason, Anthony Rendall, and Euan Ritchie, Deakin University.

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Around the world, humans routinely kill carnivores to protect livestock and game, increase human safety and conserve native wildlife. Unfortunately, killing carnivores often creates new problems including population booms of native and invasive prey species such as rabbits, kangaroos, goats and deer. More herbivores can mean more damage to crops and native vegetation.

1080 is lethal to introduced animals such as dogs – but it can also harm some native animals. Image credit: Todd Powell/Shutterstock

In many parts of Australia, dingoes, foxes and – to a lesser degree – feral cats are routinely poisoned with 1080 (sodium fluoroacetate) to protect livestock and native animals. Predator baiting is sometimes done intensively to help threatened wildlife populations recover after disasters such as the 2019–20 megafires.

Despite widespread use, predator baiting with 1080 is controversial for social, cultural, environmental and economic reasons. Recent opponents include farmers whose livestock protection dogs died in agony after eating 1080 baits.

In southeastern states, land managers may use techniques such as burying the poisoned baits to ensure carnivores are most likely to dig up and eat them. But our new research shows these techniques may not be working as intended.

Why do we use 1080 bait?

Invasive predators such as foxes and cats have driven many native species to the edge. Their silent, stealthy hunting is implicated in dozens of extinctions of small animals.

That means poison baits can be an important conservation tool to control numbers of foxes and feral cats and give native species a better chance of survival. But baiting comes with the risk that other animals will eat it.

In Australia, 1080 has long been seen as a kind of “wonder poison” – a chemical deadly to introduced species that many native animals are highly resistant to. The toxin is derived from “poison pea” plants of the Gastrolobium genus, mostly found in regions of Western Australia. Many native animals in these regions have evolved a high tolerance to the poison.

Quokkas have been recorded eating up to 95% of baited meat deployed to control foxes, while goannas are adept at finding and eating poisoned baits. These species are resistant to the poison, and aren’t normally harmed by consuming baits.

But southeastern Australia has no species of poison pea, meaning native animals in this region may be more susceptible to 1080 than elsewhere.

Which animals actually eat the bait?

Our research suggests a huge number of poison baits buried according to best practice methods are potentially being dug up and eaten by other animals.

To find out which animals might be doing this, we buried non-toxic liver baits in dirt mounds, a method currently considered to be best practice. Then we set up remote motion-sensing cameras at our sites in the semi-arid Wyperfeld National Park in northwestern Victoria and recorded what happened for 70 days.

Our footage captured native mice such as this Mitchell’s hopping mouse digging up the mounds and eating many of the baits. Image credit: Rachel Mason/Deakin University

What did we find? Foxes and dingoes accounted for just 12% of the baits dug up or eaten. Of the 146 interactions with baits, 88% were non-target species – primarily, native mice species such as Mitchell’s hopping mouse (Notomys mitchellii) and silky mice (Pseudomys apodemoides).

The single dingo which took the bait dug it up only after 60 days. Foxes took the bait 17 times, but they were typically slow to do so too, averaging 41 days. By contrast, native mice dug up baits after an average of 13 days.

We also saw western grey kangaroos dig up and eat baits. Echidnas, rabbits and house mice often unearthed baits and left them uneaten on the surface, making them available to be found and consumed by other animals.

In sites with denser vegetation, we found native mice were more likely to dig up and eat the baits. But they were less likely to do so in open areas.

Dingoes and foxes (target species, in orange) did not dig up many baits relative to non-target species (in blue). Image credit: Rachel Mason/Deakin University

What about dingoes?

Baiting for dingoes and “wild dogs” is still done routinely, even though DNA testing shows the canids roaming Australia are mostly pure dingo. Recent research has shown that dingoes are largely avoiding breeding with domestic dogs. The “wild dogs” being poisoned to protect lambs and other livestock are almost all dingoes.

Shepherd dog breeds such as Maremma dogs have been bred to guard sheep from wild predators. Image credit: Marco Branchi/Shutterstock

This poses a major problem for baiting programs. While dingoes are susceptible to 1080 poison, they have lived in Australia for thousands of years. Aside from humans, dingoes are the top terrestrial predator everywhere outside Tasmania. To many First Nations people, these canids are culturally important and are often considered kin.

Graziers have long seen dingoes as a threat, given these predators can take sheep, goats, cattle and other livestock. But there are now non-lethal and highly effective predator-smart methods to safeguard livestock, such as predator-proof fencing and guardian animals such as Maremma dogs. These methods reduce livestock losses without the need to kill dingoes.

Keeping dingoes alive can often actually benefit graziers, as dingoes scare off or eat competing herbivores such as kangaroos and feral goats.

What does this mean for baiting?

Our research shows predator baiting has the potential to harm more native species than previously realised. That means baiting programs must be conducted carefully according to local conditions and the wildlife present.

More targeted methods for controlling predator species are being developed. Feral cats are now being targeted with machines which spray poisonous gel on their fur which cats will groom off, leaving other animals unharmed.

Using 1080 to control invasive predators has undoubtedly helped to save many native species. Even so, we must continue to evaluate the best approaches for predator control and wildlife conservation in Australia.

As the biodiversity crisis deepens and more species march towards extinction, we must find ways of better targeting our methods of control to protect livestock and safeguard native species – including the dingo.

Research

Assessing target and non-target species interactions with buried non-toxic meat baits across fire mosaics

Post author By Euan Ritchie
Post date 17 January 2025

Authors: Rachel T Mason, Anthony R Rendall, Robin D Sinclair, and Euan G Ritchie

Published in: Wildlife Research

Abstract

Context: Lethal 1080 baiting to control invasive predators, or to reduce livestock predation by canids, is a widespread management tool used throughout Australia and New Zealand. Techniques to reduce the impact of 1080 baiting on non-target species exist, but their efficacy, including effects of environmental variation and disturbance on baiting outcomes, remains poorly understood.

Aims: We aimed to experimentally quantify the extent to which target and non-target species dig up and consume buried baits, and to examine how habitat variation and fire affect such interactions.

Methods: Remote cameras were deployed for 70 days to monitor the fate of non-toxic baits in the semi-arid Big Desert-Wyperfeld region of southeastern Australia. Species digging up or eating baits (collectively ‘bait interactions’) were identified, and the effects of environmental factors on bait interaction rates were assessed.

Key results: Non-target species accounted for 128 (88%) of 146 total bait interactions, primarily native mice species. Target species interacted with fewer baits and took longer to record bait interactions, with foxes (Vulpes vulpes) averaging 41 days for 17 bait interactions and one dingo (Canis familiaris/Canis dingo) taking 60 days, whereas native mice interactions occurred after ~13 days. At sites where foxes and dingoes were detected, both target species almost always interacted with baits (83%), whereas non-target species interacted with baits at less than half of the sites they were detected (42%). Areas with greater variation in fire frequency (pyrodiversity) and mid-successional vegetation were associated with more native mice-bait interactions.

Conclusions: Non-target species interacted with baits more often and sooner than target species, suggesting efforts to reduce predator populations could have inadvertent effects on other species. The influence of fire and vegetation variables on bait interaction rates also highlights the importance of accounting for landscape features when designing lethal control programs.

Implications: Predator control can benefit native wildlife, and help to reduce livestock loss; however, managers must account for environmental factors that may influence which species are most likely to be affected by toxic baits, and by extension possible broader impacts on ecosystems. Monitoring to assess baiting outcomes and limit the negative consequences for non-target species constitutes best practice.

Mason RT, Rendall AR, Sinclair RD, Ritchie EG (2025) Assessing target and non-target species interactions with buried non-toxic meat baits across fire mosaics. Wildlife Research PDF DOI

Publications

Large-scale and long-term wildlife research and monitoring using camera traps: a continental synthesis

Post author By Euan Ritchie
Post date 17 January 2025

Authors: Tom Bruce, Zachary Amir, Benjamin L Allen, Brendan F Alting, Matt Amos, John Augusteyn, Guy-Anthony Ballard, Linda M Behrendorff, Kristian Bell, Andrew J Bengsen, Ami Bennett, Joe S Benshemesh, Joss Bentley, Caroline J Blackmore, Remo Boscarino-Gaetano, Lachlan A Bourke, Rob Brewster, Barry W Brook, Colin Broughton, Jessie C Buettel, Andrew Carter, Antje Chiu-Werner, Andrew W Claridge, Sarah Comer, Sebastien Comte, Rod M Connolly, Mitchell A Cowan, Sophie L Cross, Calum X Cunningham, Anastasia H Dalziell, Hugh F Davies, Jenny Davis, Stuart J Dawson, Julian Di Stefano, Christopher R Dickman, Martin L Dillon, Tim S Doherty, Michael M Driessen, Don A Driscoll, Shannon J Dundas, Anne C Eichholtzer, Todd F Elliott, Peter Elsworth, Bronwyn A Fancourt, Loren L Fardell, James Faris, Adam Fawcett, Diana O Fisher, Peter J S Fleming, David M Forsyth, Alejandro D Garza-Garcia, William L Geary, Graeme Gillespie, Patrick J Giumelli, Ana Gracanin, Hedley S Grantham, Aaron C Greenville, Stephen R Griffiths, Heidi Groffen, David G Hamilton, Lana Harriott, Matthew W Hayward, Geoffrey Heard, Jaime Heiniger, Kristofer M Helgen, Tim J Henderson, Lorna Hernandez-Santin, Cesar Herrera, Ben T Hirsch, Rosemary Hohnen, Tracey A Hollings, Conrad J Hoskin, Bronwyn A Hradsky, Jacinta E Humphrey, Paul R Jennings, Menna E Jones, Neil R Jordan, Catherine L Kelly, Malcolm S Kennedy, Monica L Knipler, Tracey L Kreplins, Kiara L L’Herpiniere, William F Laurance, Tyrone H Lavery, Mark Le Pla, Lily Leahy, Ashley Leedman, Sarah Legge, Ana V Leitão, Mike Letnic, Michael J Liddell, Zoë E Lieb, Grant D Linley, Allan T Lisle, Cheryl A Lohr, Natalya Maitz, Kieran D Marshall, Rachel T Mason, Daniela F Matheus-Holland, Leo B McComb, Peter J McDonald, Hugh McGregor, Donald T McKnight, Paul D Meek, Vishnu Menon, Damian R Michael, Charlotte H Mills, Vivianna Miritis, Harry A Moore, Helen R Morgan, Brett P Murphy, Andrew J Murray, Daniel J D Natusch, Heather Neilly, Paul Nevill, Peggy Newman, Thomas M Newsome, Dale G Nimmo, Eric J Nordberg, Terence W O’Dwyer, Sally O’Neill, Julie M Old, Katherine Oxenham, Matthew D Pauza, Ange J L Pestell, Benjamin J Pitcher, Christopher A Pocknee, Hugh P Possingham, Keren G Raiter, Jacquie S Rand, Matthew W Rees, Anthony R Rendall, Juanita Renwick, April Reside, Miranda Rew-Duffy, Euan G Ritchie, Chris P Roach, Alan Robley, Stefanie M Rog, Tracy M Rout, Thomas A Schlacher, Cyril R Scomparin, Holly Sitters, Deane A Smith, Ruchira Somaweera, Emma E Spencer, Rebecca E Spindler, Alyson M Stobo-Wilson, Danielle Stokeld, Louise M Streeting, Duncan R Sutherland, Patrick L Taggart, Daniella Teixeira, Graham G Thompson, Scott A Thompson, Mary O Thorpe, Stephanie J Todd, Alison L Towerton, Karl Vernes, Grace Waller, Glenda M Wardle, Darcy J Watchorn, Alexander W T Watson, Justin A Welbergen, Michael A Weston, Baptiste J Wijas, Stephen E Williams, Luke P Woodford, Eamonn I F Wooster, Elizabeth Znidersic, and Matthew S Luskin

Published in: Biological Reviews

Abstract

Camera traps are widely used in wildlife research and monitoring, so it is imperative to understand their strengths, limitations, and potential for increasing impact.

We investigated a decade of use of wildlife cameras (2012–2022) with a case study on Australian terrestrial vertebrates using a multifaceted approach. We:

synthesised information from a literature review
conducted an online questionnaire of 132 professionals
hosted an in-person workshop of 28 leading experts representing academia, non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and government, and
mapped camera trap usage based on all sources.

We predicted that the last decade would have shown:

exponentially increasing sampling effort, a continuation of camera usage trends up to 2012
analytics to have shifted from naive presence/absence and capture rates towards hierarchical modelling that accounts for imperfect detection, thereby improving the quality of outputs and inferences on occupancy, abundance and density, and
broader research scales in terms of multi-species, multi-site and multi-year studies.

However, the results showed that the sampling effort has reached a plateau, with publication rates increasing only modestly. Users reported reaching a saturation point in terms of images that could be processed by humans and time for complex analyses and academic writing.

There were strong taxonomic and geographic biases towards medium–large mammals (>500 g) in forests along Australia’s southeastern coastlines, reflecting proximity to major cities. Regarding analytical choices, bias-prone indices still accounted for ~50% of outputs and this was consistent across user groups. Multi-species, multi-site and multiple-year studies were rare, largely driven by hesitancy around collaboration and data sharing.

There is no widely used repository for wildlife camera images and the Atlas of Living Australia (ALA) is the dominant repository for sharing tabular occurrence records. However, the ALA is presence-only and thus is unsuitable for creating detection histories with absences, inhibiting hierarchical modelling.

Workshop discussions identified a pressing need for collaboration to enhance the efficiency, quality and scale of research and management outcomes, leading to the proposal of a Wildlife Observatory of Australia (WildObs). To encourage data standards and sharing, WildObs should:

promote a metadata collection app
create a tagged image repository to facilitate artificial intelligence/machine learning (AI/ML) computer vision research in this space
address the image identification bottleneck via the use of AI/ML-powered image-processing platforms
create data commons for detection histories that are suitable for hierarchical modelling, and
provide capacity building and tools for hierarchical modelling.

Our review highlights that while Australia’s investments in monitoring biodiversity with cameras position it to be a global leader in this context, realising that potential requires a paradigm shift towards best practices for collecting, curating, sharing and analysing ‘Big Data’.

Our findings and framework have broad applicability outside Australia to enhance camera usage to meet conservation and management objectives ranging from local to global scales. This review articulates a country/continental observatory approach that is also suitable for international collaborative wildlife research networks.

Bruce T, Amir Z, Allen BL, Alting BF, Amos M, Augusteyn J, Ballard G, Behrendorff LM, Bell K, Bengsen AJ, Bennett A, Benshemesh JS, Bentley J, Blackmore CJ, Boscarino‐Gaetano R, Bourke LA, Brewster R, Brook BW, Broughton C, Buettel JC, Carter A, Chiu‐Werner A, Claridge AW, Comer S, Comte S, Connolly RM, Cowan MA, Cross SL, Cunningham CX, Dalziell AH, Davies HF, Davis J, Dawson SJ, Di Stefano J, Dickman CR, Dillon ML, Doherty TS, Driessen MM, Driscoll DA, Dundas SJ, Eichholtzer AC, Elliott TF, Elsworth P, Fancourt BA, Fardell LL, Faris J, Fawcett A, Fisher DO, Fleming PJS, Forsyth DM, Garza‐Garcia AD, Geary WL, Gillespie G, Giumelli PJ, Gracanin A, Grantham HS, Greenville AC, Griffiths SR, Groffen H, Hamilton DG, Harriott L, Hayward MW, Heard G, Heiniger J, Helgen KM, Henderson TJ, Hernandez‐Santin L, Herrera C, Hirsch BT, Hohnen R, Hollings TA, Hoskin CJ, Hradsky BA, Humphrey JE, Jennings PR, Jones ME, Jordan NR, Kelly CL, Kennedy MS, Knipler ML, Kreplins TL, L’Herpiniere KL, Laurance WF, Lavery TH, Le Pla M, Leahy L, Leedman A, Legge S, Leitão AV, Letnic M, Liddell MJ, Lieb ZE, Linley GD, Lisle AT, Lohr CA, Maitz N, Marshall KD, Mason RT, Matheus‐Holland DF, McComb LB, McDonald PJ, McGregor H, McKnight DT, Meek PD, Menon V, Michael DR, Mills CH, Miritis V, Moore HA, Morgan HR, Murphy BP, Murray AJ, Natusch DJD, Neilly H, Nevill P, Newman P, Newsome TM, Nimmo DG, Nordberg EJ, O’Dwyer TW, O’Neill S, Old JM, Oxenham K, Pauza MD, Pestell AJL, Pitcher BJ, Pocknee CA, Possingham HP, Raiter KG, Rand JS, Rees MW, Rendall AR, Renwick J, Reside A, Rew‐Duffy M, Ritchie EG, Roach CP, Robley A, Rog SM, Rout TM, Schlacher TA, Scomparin CR, Sitters H, Smith DA, Somaweera R, Spencer EE, Spindler RE, Stobo‐Wilson AM, Stokeld D, Streeting LM, Sutherland DR, Taggart PL, Teixeira D, Thompson GG, Thompson SA, Thorpe MO, Todd SJ, Towerton AL, Vernes K, Waller G, Wardle GM, Watchorn DJ, Watson AWT, Welbergen JA, Weston MA, Wijas BJ, Williams SE, Woodford LP, Wooster EIF, Znidersic E, Luskin MS (2025) Large‐scale and long‐term wildlife research and monitoring using camera traps: a continental synthesis. Biological Reviews PDF DOI

The Conversation

The Conversation: Mind-bending, body-snatching, blood-sucking: parasites are bizarre yet vital for life on Earth

Post author By Euan Ritchie
Post date 2 January 2025

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Parasite, zombie, leech – these words are often used to describe people in unkind ways. Many of us recoil when ticks, tapeworms, fleas, head lice or bed bugs are even mentioned. Coming across such unwelcome guests – in our hair, on our skin or in our beds – can be a real nightmare.

Some parasites cause horrific deformities and diseases, maiming and killing millions of people and wildlife. Others may help boost immunity or provide the basis of food chains.

Parasites are often demonised and misunderstood. But the more we study these oddities and wonders of evolution, the more we appreciate their vital roles in ecosystems and our complex relationships with them. They’re essential to life on Earth.

As an ecologist with a focus on wildlife and conservation, I wrote this article to share some of my fascination for parasites and the importance of their extraordinary lives.

What is a parasite?

Parasites rely on living organisms for food, to grow and to reproduce.

They can either live on the outside (ectoparasites) or inside (endoparasites) of their hosts. Far from being invited dinner guests, parasites typically turn up of their own accord and feed at the host’s expense, consuming part or all of them.

Parasites can live within their host (or hosts) for short or extended periods – in some cases many years – going largely unnoticed. For instance, one man lived with a tapeworm in his brain for more than four years until the headaches and strange smells become too much to bear. In other cases, parasites can kill their host.

Perhaps the most gruesome type of parasite, parasitoids, kill their hosts in order to reproduce. The disturbing chest-bursting scene from the 1979 movie Alien is a truly visceral sci-fi example of a parasitoid.

In real life, examples include spider wasps that first immobilise their spider prey, lay an egg on them, and bury them. Then when the egg hatches, the wasp larvae devour the incapacitated spider. That is, of course, if another animal such as a “bin chicken (Sacred Ibis)” or insect doesn’t intervene.

Parasites are typically much smaller than their hosts. Many are furnished with equipment for latching on and remaining attached, including hooks, suckers and “teeth”.

Endoparasites such as tapeworms are often flat, allowing them to live within the tight spaces inside other organisms. The flatworm Diplozoon paradoxum that lives in gills of some fish must conjoin with another to reach adulthood and reproduce. Once fused, they form a permanent, lifelong bond and mate with each other over many years.

As much as 40% of all animal species may be parasites, and this mode of life might have evolved more than 200 times in the animal kingdom. But parasitism is not solely confined to animals. Many plants, fungi, protists, bacteria and viruses are parasites too.

Parasite powers

The leech scene in the iconic 1986 movie Stand By Me comes back to me every time I walk through a damp forest. The idea of providing a blood meal for another species sparks fear in many people. But leeches may also come to our aid, either by helping to reduce pooling of blood or reestablishing blood flow to areas post-surgery. Their anaesthetic saliva also has anti-inflammatory and anticoagulant properties, which are advantageous for medical procedures.

As the blood of leeches contains DNA from their past meals, conservation scientists can use them to search for rare and cryptic wildlife.

One of the world’s most widespread parasites is Toxoplasma gondii. Some estimates suggest as many as one in three people are affected. This parasite’s main host is cats, large and small species. House cats are frequently infected, spreading this parasite through their faeces.

While many infected people appear to have no symptoms, serious effects can include organ damage, complications with pregnancy or abortion, erratic risk-taking behaviour, mental conditions, and more traffic accidents than unaffected people.

Sometimes extra legs are a hindrance not helpful. Image credit: Brett Goodman and Pieter Johnson

There are potential “benefits” too. Research suggests Toxoplasma infection, which can increase confidence and risk-taking, may even be linked with increased entrepreneurial and business-related activities. Indeed, this same study found that nations with higher rates of toxoplasmosis had a lower proportion of individuals concerned about failure related to new business ventures.

Toxoplasma gondii manipulates its host to increase transmission and continue its life cycle. Infected rodents may become unwitting participants in a game of cat-and-mouse-and-parasite in which they lose their fear of cats and instead become attracted to them.

Rather than manipulating host behaviour, as in the case of fungi that turn ants into zombies, some parasites cause body malformations. This makes hosts more likely to become prey for subsequent hosts and hence to continue the parasite’s life cycle. One of the most striking examples is a trematode (flatworms often known as flukes) that causes missing legs, extra legs or deformed legs in frogs and other amphibians. Extra legs, in some cases several, serve no function and simply impede movement, making it harder to escape predators.

Parasites are fundamental to ecosystems and require conservation

Parasites are a big part of life on Earth. A study on the Californian coast found the sheer mass of parasites exceeded that of top predators. In particular, the biomass of trematodes was greater than that of birds, fish, burrowing shrimps and polychaetes (marine worms).

The presence of parasites (*Gyrodactylus turnbulli*) can affect how colourful male guppies are, influencing their ability to attract mates. Image credit: 5snake5 via Wikimedia commons

Evidence suggests ecosystems rich in parasites are healthier than those with fewer parasites. But there is increasing concern for the survival of these species amid a growing extinction crisis. So a global plan for parasite conservation was proposed in 2020, with priorities including increased data collection and genetic analysis, making conservation assessments, and raising public awareness.

Sadly, parasites can inflict great pain, meat allergies, suffering, and a heavy death toll. Malaria, schistosomiasis (sometimes referred to as snail fever, bilharzia, and Katayama fever), and sleeping sickness are just a few examples.

But they also shape our world in profound ways, have crucial ecological roles, and paradoxically, may in some cases help keep us healthier. Though it may be confronting to admit, we need parasites as much as they need us.

The Conversation

The Conversation: Decorating your Christmas tree? Try these crafts inspired by Aussie plants and animals

Post author By Euan Ritchie
Post date 13 December 2024

Image credit: Laura Driessen

By Caitlyn Forster, University of Sydney; Euan Ritchie, Deakin University, and Laura Nicole Driessen, University of Sydney.

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

While we’re busy preparing for Christmas, many Australian native plants and animals are also busy – growing, flowering and raising their young. What better time to celebrate this explosion of life?

Let’s set aside the holly, snowmen and reindeer this Christmas and decorate our homes with some of Australia’s most remarkable species instead.

Drawing on themes from our research on wildlife, ecology and astronomy, we’ve prepared this handy guide to an Aussie festive season.

It’s not too late to get crafty and deck the halls with Christmas beetle baubles and paper parrots for a Christmas with a difference.

Christmas beetle baubles

As their name suggests, Christmas beetles would have to be our most notable Christmassy insect. These little beauties give our eucalyptus trees their own little baubles. The trees provide food for the beetles, which become most abundant at this time of year.

Use our Christmas beetle stencils and some spray paint to give your baubles a fresh new look.

Have you heard about the Christmas Beetle Count? This project is tracking Christmas beetle populations across Australia through the power of citizen science. People have recorded nearly 15,000 observations of beetles, including some not seen in decades.

By gaining more knowledge of which species of beetles are around, we can learn how they are doing in the face of a changing climate and urbanisation. It can also help us understand what needs to be preserved in order for Christmas beetles to thrive in future ecosystems.

Put some spines among pines (or gum leaves)

Making a Christmas echidna will be a delightful way to introduce a bit of sensory play into your home. Image credit: Shannon Drayton-Taylor

The echidna is one of only two egg-laying mammals in Australia. The other is the egg-laying and venomous playtpus.

Fun fact: relative to body size, the short-beaked echidna is the mammal with the world’s largest prefrontal cortex. This area of the brain is crucial for decision-making. Perhaps these humble, bumbling balls of spikes make better choices than we humans do?

Clay models of this marvellous monotreme make wonderful additions to any table or tree. Make your own with some clay for the body, some sticks for the spines and a couple of small gumnuts for eyes.

Swap the reindeer for tree kangaroos

For a local substitution for flying reindeer, why not consider kangaroos in the treetops?

In the far north, two species of tree kangaroos bound and crash through the treetops of our tropical rainforests.

The powerful Lumholtz and Bennett’s tree kangaroos are built for climbing. They can also jump up to 15 metres from the treetops to the ground, unharmed.

Create your own by cutting little kangaroo-shaped silhouettes out of cardboard, and draw on a face and put it on your Christmas tree.

A female tree kangaroo is best, because then you can tuck special treats like chocolates into their pouch. It’s the ultimate wildlife advent calendar.

Just don’t despair if these guys leap off the tree, as this is quite normal behaviour.

Elegant Yuletide Eclectus parrots

Better than matching knitted jumpers, Eclectus parrots make the ultimate Christmas couples. These parrots from Cape York come in vivid green (male) and stunning two-tone blue and red (female).

Males seek to impress females with their plumage and vocal repertoire. If successful, they’ll engage in acrobatic aerial displays by showing off their colourful feathers, prior to mating. Several males will bring food to a single female while she incubates eggs in a deep tree hollow.

Making origami eclectus parrots can be a simple way to add some native birds to your Christmas tree. Image credit: Shannon Drayton-Taylor

Make your own origami bird decorations using coloured paper. Once the bird is folded, add some ribbon so they can be placed on your tree. Consider creating a whole family of adults and chicks, just as they would in the wild.

You can even use recycled paper and colour it to suit other Christmas-coloured birds such as king parrots, rosellas or lorikeets.

If you’re into backyard or street cricket, you could even take advantage of time spent waiting around when you’re fielding to do a bird count using the citizen science app eBird. Download the app, count the birds you see and contribute to citizen science.

Look up to the sky for inspiration

The ‘Great Celestial Emu’ an image of the night sky captured at the Elvina engraving site in Ku-ring-gai Chase National Park, near Sydney, annotated with an outline of the emu shape. Image credit: Barnaby Norris and Ray Norris

The “Great Celestial Emu” is a beautiful feature of the night sky in the southern hemisphere.

Indigenous Australian stories about the Emu in the Sky come from all over the country.

Compared to constellations named by Babylonian and Ancient Greek astronomers, the emu is unique. In this case the name is not given to a group of stars forming a recognisable pattern. Instead, the emu shape is a silhouette made up of dark patches of gas and dust blocking light from the Milky Way. This is the Dark Emu in the title of Bruce Pascoe’s bestselling book.

The head is the dark Coalsack Nebula next to the Southern Cross and the neck extends through the middle of the “pointer stars” (Alpha and Beta Centauri). In December, the head of the emu is visible in the early morning before dawn.

We added the Great Celestial Emu to our Christmas tree by sprucing up a silver bauble with glitter.

Finish with some gardening and foraging

We can bring the outside in, or we can head out to enjoy nature in all its glory.

Being in nature has many benefits for health and wellbeing.

Many Australian plants will be flowering over summer, and they can be collected, dried, and placed in clear baubles to create simple, beautiful decorations for your tree.

Or you can get planting and grow your own Christmas tree, such as a cypress pine local to your area or even a Christmas bush.

Publications Research

Biodiversity impacts of the 2019–2020 Australian megafires

Post author By Euan Ritchie
Post date 13 November 2024

Published in: Nature

Authors: Don A Driscoll, Kristina J Macdonald, Rebecca K Gibson, Tim S Doherty, Dale G Nimmo, Rachael H Nolan, Euan G Ritchie, Grant J Williamson, Geoffrey W Heard, Elizabeth M Tasker, Rohan Bilney, Nick Porch, Rachael A Collett, Ross A Crates, Alison C Hewitt, Elise Pendall, Matthias M Boer, Jody Gates, Rebecca L Boulton, Christopher M Mclean, Heidi Groffen, Alex C Maisey, Chad T Beranek, Shelby A Ryan, Alex Callen, Andrew J Hamer, Andrew Stauber, Garry J Daly, John Gould, Kaya L Klop-Toker, Michael J Mahony, Oliver W Kelly, Samantha L Wallace, Sarah E Stock, Christopher J Weston, Liubov Volkova, Dennis Black, Heloise Gibb, Joshua J Grubb, Melodie A McGeoch, Nick P Murphy, Joshua S Lee, Chris R Dickman, Victor J Neldner, Michael R Ngugi, Vivianna Miritis, Frank Köhler, Marc Perri, Andrew J Denham, Berin D E Mackenzie, Chris A M Reid, Julia T Rayment, Alfonsina Arriaga-Jiménez, Michael W Hewins, Andrew Hicks, Brett A Melbourne, Kendi F Davies, Matthew E Bitters, Grant D Linley, Aaron C Greenville, Jonathan K Webb, Bridget Roberts, Mike Letnic, Owen F Price, Zac C Walker, Brad R Murray, Elise M Verhoeven, Alexandria M Thomsen, David Keith, Jedda S Lemmon, Mark K J Ooi, Vanessa L Allen, Orsi T Decker, Peter T Green, Adnan Moussalli, Junn K Foon, David B Bryant, Ken L Walker, Matthew J Bruce, George Madani, Jeremy L Tscharke, Benjamin Wagner, Craig R Nitschke, Carl R Gosper, Colin J Yates, Rebecca Dillon, Sarah Barrett, Emma E Spencer, Glenda M Wardle, Thomas M Newsome, Stephanie A Pulsford, Anu Singh, Adam Roff, Karen J Marsh, Kye Mcdonald, Lachlan G Howell, Murraya R Lane, Romane H Cristescu, Ryan R Witt, Emma J Cook, Felicity Grant, Bradley S Law, Julian Seddon, Karleah K Berris, Ryan M Shofner, Mike Barth, Torran Welz, Alison Foster, David Hancock, Matthew Beitzel, Laura X L Tan, Nathan A Waddell, Pamela M Fallow, Laura Schweickle, Tom D Le Breton, Craig Dunne, Mikayla Green, Amy-Marie Gilpin, James M Cook, Sally A Power, Katja Hogendoorn, Renee Brawata, Chris J Jolly, Mark Tozer, Noushka Reiter, and Ryan D Phillips

Abstract

With large wildfires becoming more frequent, we must rapidly learn how megafires impact biodiversity to prioritize mitigation and improve policy. A key challenge is to discover how interactions among fire-regime components, drought and land tenure shape wildfire impacts.

The globally unprecedented 2019–2020 Australian megafires burnt more than 10 million hectares, prompting major investment in biodiversity monitoring. Collated data include responses of more than 2,000 taxa, providing an unparalleled opportunity to quantify how megafires affect biodiversity.

We reveal that the largest effects on plants and animals were in areas with frequent or recent past fires and within extensively burnt areas. Areas burnt at high severity, outside protected areas or under extreme drought also had larger effects. The effects included declines and increases after fire, with the largest responses in rainforests and by mammals.

Our results implicate species interactions, dispersal and extent of in situ survival as mechanisms underlying fire responses. Building wildfire resilience into these ecosystems depends on reducing fire recurrence, including with rapid wildfire suppression in areas frequently burnt. Defending wet ecosystems, expanding protected areas and considering localized drought could also contribute. While these countermeasures can help mitigate the impacts of more frequent megafires, reversing anthropogenic climate change remains the urgent broad-scale solution.

Driscoll DA, Macdonald KJ, Gibson RK, Doherty TS, Nimmo DG, Nolan RH, Ritchie EG, Williamson GJ, Heard GW, Tasker EM, Bilney R, Porch N, Collett RA, Crates RA, Hewitt AC, Pendall E, Boer MM, Gates J, Boulton RL, Mclean CM, Groffen H, Maisey AC, Beranek CT, Ryan SA, Callen A, Hamer AJ, Stauber A, Daly GJ, Gould J, Klop-Toker KL, Mahony MJ, Kelly OW, Wallace SL, Stock SE, Weston CJ, Volkova L, Black D, Gibb H, Grubb JJ, McGeoch MA, Murphy NP, Lee JS, Dickman CR, Neldner VJ, Ngugi MR, Miritis V, Köhler F, Perri M, Denham AJ, Mackenzie BDE, Reid CAM, Rayment JT, Arriaga-Jiménez A, Hewins MW, Hicks A, Melbourne BA, Davies KF, Bitters ME, Linley GD, Greenville AC, Webb JK, Roberts B, Letnic M, Price OF, Walker ZC, Murray BR, Verhoeven EM, Thomsen AM, Keith D, Lemmon JS, Ooi MKJ, Allen VL, Decker OT, Green PT, Moussalli A, Foon JK, Bryant DB, Walker KL, Bruce MJ, Madani G, Tscharke JL, Wagner B, Nitschke CR, Gosper CR, Yates CJ, Dillon R, Barrett S, Spencer EE, Wardle GM, Newsome TM, Pulsford SA, Singh A, Roff A, Marsh KJ, Mcdonald K, Howell LG, Lane MR, Cristescu RH, Witt RR, Cook EJ, Grant F, Law BS, Seddon J, Berris KK, Shofner RM, Barth M, Welz T, Foster A, Hancock D, Beitzel M, Tan LXL, Waddell NA, Fallow PM, Schweickle L, Le Breton TD, Dunne C, Green M, Gilpin A-M, Cook JM, Power SA, Hogendoorn K, Brawata R, Jolly CJ, Tozer M, Reiter N, Phillips RD (2024) Biodiversity impacts of the 2019–2020 Australian megafires. Nature PDF DOI

Publications Research

Widespread resilience of animal species, functional diversity, and predator–prey networks to an unprecedented gigafire

Post author By Euan Ritchie
Post date 12 November 2024

Published in: Journal of Applied Ecology

Authors: Grant D Linley, Chris J Jolly, Eamonn I F Wooster, Emma E Spencer, Mitchell A Cowan, William L Geary, Alana de Laive, Damian R Michael, Euan G Ritchie, and Dale G Nimmo

Abstract

Climate change is altering fire regimes globally, leading to an increased incidence of large and severe wildfires, including gigafires (>100,000 ha), that homogenise landscapes. Despite this, our understanding of how large, severe wildfires affect biodiversity at the landscape scale remains limited.

We investigated the impact of a gigafire that occurred during the unprecedented 2019–20 Australian ‘Black Summer’ on terrestrial fauna. We selected 24 study landscapes, each 0.785 km² in size, that represented a gradient in the extent of high severity fire, unburnt vegetation, and the diversity of fire severity classes (‘pyrodiversity’). We used wildlife cameras to survey biodiversity across each landscape and quantified species activity, community and functional diversity, and predator–prey network metrics. We used Bayesian mixed-effects models to assess the influence of fire-induced landscape properties on these measures.

Most native species showed resilience to the 2019–20 wildfires, displaying few relationships with fire-induced properties of landscapes, including the extent of high severity fire, unburnt vegetation, or pyrodiversity.

Community and functional diversity and measures of predator–prey networks were also largely unaffected by fire-induced landscape properties, although landscapes with a greater proportion of high severity fire had higher abundance and richness of introduced animal species.

Despite prevailing narratives of widespread ecological destruction following the 2019–20 wildfires, our findings suggest widespread resilience, potentially facilitated by evolutionary adaptations of animals to fire. Interventions aimed at helping such species recover may not be necessary and could instead focus on the subset of species that are vulnerable to severe fire. While mixed-severity fires are often advocated to promote biodiversity through pyrodiversity, our results suggest that such management efforts might not be necessary in our study region. Given that severe fire favours introduced animal species, invasive species management could focus on large, severely burnt areas.

Linley GD, Jolly CJ, Wooster EIF, Spencer EE, Cowan MA, Geary WL, De Laive A, Michael DR, Ritchie EG, Nimmo DG (2024) Widespread resilience of animal species, functional diversity, and predator–prey networks to an unprecedented gigafire. Journal of Applied Ecology PDF DOI

Science communication

Euan Ritchie wins Eureka prize for ‘Promoting Understanding of Science’

Post author By Euan Ritchie
Post date 23 September 2024

I’m extremely honoured to have been awarded the 2024 Eureka prize for Promoting Understanding of Science.

I would like to acknowledge my fellow finalists, Dr Vanessa Pirotta (Macquarie University) and Associate Professor Suzie Sheehy (University of Melbourne) who are each equally deserving of this recognition.

I feel privileged to work with so many amazing and inspiring people each day, and to be able to help tell our scientific stories, which have never been more important given the dual climate change and biodiversity decline and extinction crises we confront.

I encourage everyone to tell their scientific stories, you never know who might be listening, and stories told well can change the world.

I also extend my thanks to the Australian Museum for hosting the ‘Oscars’ of Australian science, and Celestino, for supporting this important award category recognising the role of communicating research beyond scientific journals and academia.

I want to thank Deakin University for allowing me to do the work that I do, and my family, friends, colleagues, and students for their ongoing support.

I would to acknowledge that my work has occurred across the unceded Country of First Nations Peoples, Australia’s first scientists and storytellers.

Here’s a little snippet of the awards ceremony; thanks to thanks to my wonderful wife and science communicator extraordinaire, Jen for capturing this memory for me.