Preventing further biodiversity loss requires understanding which processes threaten biodiversity and the effectiveness of management actions in mitigating them. Threatening processes can interact in complex and unexpected ways, but different threats are often managed independently. Here, we develop a conceptual model to identify the conditions needed for management of a single threat to achieve a net conservation benefit in systems with multiple interacting threats, and demonstrate its relevance in a replicated case-study experiment. In Australia, introduced red foxes (Vulpes vulpes) and feral cats (Felis catus) may hunt vulnerable native mammals more effectively after fire, due to loss of understory vegetation. However, the efficacy of broad-scale control of introduced predators in improving native mammal resilience to fire has not been quantified. Using a natural before-after control-impact experiment with 14 prescribed fires, each >200 ha, we tested whether existing landscape-scale fox baiting programs influenced the immediate effects of prescribed fire on these two introduced predators and five medium-sized native mammals, including the threatened long-nosed potoroo (Potorous tridactylus) and southern brown bandicoot (Isoodon obesulus). Fox occupancy increased across both treatments postfire, but baiting reduced the magnitude of increase. In contrast, mean feral cat occupancy remained constant in unbaited areas post-fire, but nearly doubled in fox-controlled areas. Existing landscape-scale fox control programs did not clearly improve the short-term resilience of native mammals to prescribed fire (at least under the current fire and fox management regimes in our study landscapes). In the presence of acute disturbances such as fire, threatened native mammals may require more intensive and integrated management of fire and introduced predators, such as targeted predator control around fire events or protection using natural or artificial refuges).

Large, severe wildfires are a major threat to biodiversity. Land managers often use prescribed fire to mitigate wildfire risks; however the impact of this strategy on many species remains poorly understood. We used a control-impact study to quantify the population response of the long-nosed potoroo (Potorous tridactylus) to prescribed fire. Live trapping was conducted at one unburnt control site and two burnt sites 12- and 24-months after small, patchy winter prescribed fires in a heathy woodland ecosystem, in south-eastern Australia. We estimated population density using spatially explicit capture-recapture analysis, and derived a relative abundance index which we compared to density using linear regression. At 12-months post-fire, estimated mean potoroo densities were 107 individuals per km2 at the control site, 49 at Burn 1 and 119 at Burn 2. Compared to the control, densities were 54% lower at Burn 1 and 11% higher at Burn 2. At 24-months post-fire, densities were 176 potoroos per km2 at the control, 76 at Burn 1 (57% lower than the control) and 137 at Burn 2 (22% lower than the control). There was no evidence that increases in density over time differed among sites. Despite substantial spatial and temporal variation in density, potoroos appeared resilient to patchy winter burns at these sites 2 years post-fire, although a fire-driven decline could not be ruled out due to the absence of pre-fire data. Density and relative abundance were positively correlated (R 2 = 0.90), and the relationship remained strong under a reduced sampling effort of at least four trap nights. These findings suggest that relative abundance may serve as a reliable proxy for potoroo density under certain conditions. This study improves our understanding of how a vulnerable Australian mammal responds to patchy winter burns, and shows that biodiversity conservation and fuel reduction may be compatible goals in some landscapes.

Context A comprehensive understanding of movements and space use can underpin the effective management of threatened species. GPS dataloggers can collect large amounts of high-quality movement data, and recent advances in statistical approaches allow for robust estimates of home range size to be generated. Until recently, technological and practical constraints have generally restricted the collection of movement data via GPS dataloggers to larger species. However, reductions in the size and weight of GPS dataloggers now allow for this technology to be applied to smaller species. Aims The aim of this study was to describe the home range and movement patterns of a nationally vulnerable, native Australian ground-dwelling mammal, the long-nosed potoroo (Potorous tridactylus), in south-west Victoria, mainland Australia. Methods We attached GPS dataloggers to 40 long-nosed potoroos between 2020 and 2022 and estimated home range size using dynamic Brownian Bridge movement models. We evaluated the influence of physiological factors such as body mass and sex on home range size and described patterns of home range overlap between and within sexes. Key results Mean home range sizes were estimated to be 13.73 ha (95% CI: 10.9–16.6) and 6.67 ha (95% CI: 5.49–7.85) for males and females respectively. Home range size scaled with body mass in males but not females, and ranges were largely overlapping – although there was some evidence of intrasexual spatial partitioning of core range areas in females. Conclusions Ours is the first application of GPS dataloggers to this species, and our home range estimates are over twice as large as other reported estimates for mainland Australia. Long-nosed potoroos may range across larger areas than previously predicted on mainland Australia. Implications This knowledge may be used to optimise the management of long-nosed potoroo populations before and after fire – a key threatening process for this species. Our study highlights the value of integrating GPS dataloggers and robust home range estimators when describing the movement ecology of a population.

Feral cats ( Felis catus ) pose a significant global threat to biodiversity, primarily through predation, disease and competition. A key gap in parameterizing models for improving management decisions for feral cat control relates to factors that drive feral cat survival and movement in the wild. Our study objective was to conduct the first continental-scale analysis of survival rates and displacement distances for feral cats. We collated data on 528 feral cats from telemetry studies in naturally-vegetated landscapes across Australia. Using Cox-proportional hazards models, we investigated the effects of sex, presence of larger predators (dingoes, Canis familiaris and introduced foxes, Vulpes vulpes ), presence of introduced prey (rabbits, Oryctolagus cuniculus ), body mass, landscape productivity and feral cat density on feral cat survival. We also analysed the effects of sex, body mass and landscape productivity on feral cat displacement using linear mixed model analysis. Feral cat survival was positively associated with presence of dingoes and increasing body mass, whereas there was no clear association between feral cat survival and sex, presence of rabbits, or cat density. Presence of foxes had a strong negative effect on feral cat survival, but the hazard ratio was associated with considerable uncertainty. Net displacement of male feral cats was nearly two times further than that of females, and the proportion of feral cats making long-distance movements was greater in landscapes with low productivity. Increasing body mass of feral cats was positively related to net displacement, with heavier cats moving further. Analysis of metadata from telemetry studies can provide valuable insights into wildlife survival rates and movement behaviour. Our findings will help inform the development of effective management strategies and improve feral cat management for biodiversity conservation.

Understanding the constraints that dominant predators impose on subordinate species is important for predicting ecosystem dynamics and anticipating outcomes of predator management. Subordinate predators may avoid dominant predators in time or space, making it difficult to quantify antipredator behaviours unless joint spatiotemporal analyses are used. Here, we test whether an invasive dominant predator (red fox Vulpes vulpes) alters the spatiotemporal activity of an invasive subordinate predator (feral cat Felis catus). We collated records of both species from 3667 camera‐traps deployed experimentally across two regions of south‐eastern Australia with simplified predator guilds. Foxes were poison‐baited in some landscapes within each region. We used generalised additive models to quantify changes in predator spatiotemporal activity across geographic space, vegetation types, human footprints and (artificially manipulated) gradients of dominant predator activity. Foxes and cats had similar diel activity patterns when averaged across all sites, but there was important differentiation at a finer scale: cats did not reduce their spatial activity but shifted diel patterns when localised fox activity was high. Cats were crepuscular on average. However, across dry vegetation types of both regions (where foxes were nocturnal), cats shifted to diurnal behaviour with increasing fox activity. In contrast, fox activity was relatively consistent throughout the daily cycle in the wet forest; here cats avoided dawn when fox activity was high. Changes in cat diel activity patterns may facilitate spatial coexistence between these two invasive predators, potentially shifting feral cat impacts onto different native prey. While it is well‐appreciated that predator activity varies spatially and fluctuates throughout the daily cycle,our study demonstrates that diel activity patterns also vary across space, likely mediated by both landscape‐context and fear. Dominant predator avoidance in time also appears to be spatially dynamic – a key nuance overlooked when simply comparing the average activity overlap between two species.

In this paper, we highlight the poor health of the Australian environment and propose a new framing for how we care for Maar Country. We identify the basis for our Law/Lore of the Land and describe six guiding principles for our proposed biocultural landscape restoration approach. We also explore the way that our ancestors used cultural stories to guide the management of Country and we reflect on how we are adopting these same approaches today by giving culturally significant entities primacy in our approach to caring for Country. Finally, we extend an invitation to non-Aboriginal scientists, conservationists, and government agencies to work with us to care for Country, in a respectful and holistic manner.Position statement We, the authors of this paper, are all either Aboriginal Australians or employed by the Eastern Maar Aboriginal Corporation. We are all actively participating in the Pang-ngooteekeeya weeng malangeepa ngeeye project. This paper outlines the Eastern Maar approach to biocultural landscape restoration. The paper outlines the principles that guide the practice and how culturally significant entities are central to the way we view and understand Country. Finally, the paper highlights ways that non-Maar people and organisations can partner with us to care for Eastern Maar Country. Photograph by David Roberts.This article belongs to the Collection Indigenous and cross-cultural wildlife research in Australia.

Fire offers both opportunities and risks for wildlife. Its impact will depend on the fire’s scale, how it alters key resources and how animals move. Understanding how wildlife respond to fire is crucial as climate change is predicted to increase wildfire risk and will likely result in more frequent prescribed fire to reduce wildfire risk. Invasive predators and inappropriate fire regimes in south-eastern Australia threaten the long-nosed potoroo (Potorous tridactylus), a vulnerable marsupial often residing in areas frequently exposed to fire. The cumulative impacts of fire and predation may increase the threat to P. tridactylus after fire, as predators can be more effective in the immediate post-fire environment and P. tridactylus is often dependent on thick ground cover. We present a before-after control-impact experiment describing the influence of prescribed fire on P. tridactylus. We fitted GPS collars to 52 individuals at nine independent sites to test if exposure to prescribed burning reduced their survival or altered their movement behavior. Prescribed fire reduced P. tridactylus survival, yet range size and diffusion (movement) rate remained largely unaffected. With limited fire exposure, P. tridactylus tended to continue using burnt areas whereas activity became restricted to unburnt areas when larger proportions of their home range burnt. Site fidelity was very high - individuals rarely moved their home ranges after fire, regardless of fire exposure. Our results suggest recently burnt areas may be particularly dangerous for P. tridactylus: areas that can be attractive yet confer lower fitness outcomes. P. tridactylus may benefit from smaller fire scars, retention of structurally complex vegetation, and integrating invasive predator control with prescribed burning.

IntroductionTranslocation is a valuable and increasingly used strategy for the management of both threatened and overabundant wildlife populations. However, in some instances the translocated animals fail to thrive. Differences in diet between the source and destination areas may contribute to poor translocation outcomes, which could conceivably be exacerbated if the animals’ microbiomes are unsuited to the new diet and cannot adapt.MethodsIn this study we tracked how the faecal microbiome of a specialist Eucalyptus folivore, the koala (Phascolarctos cinereus), changed over the course of a year after translocation. We assessed microbiome composition by 16S rRNA amplicon sequencing of faecal pellets.ResultsWe found no significant overall changes in the faecal microbiomes of koalas post-translocation (n = 17) in terms of microbial richness, diversity or composition when compared to the faecal microbiomes of koalas from an untranslocated control group (n = 12). This was despite the translocated koalas feeding on a greater variety of Eucalyptus species after translocation. Furthermore, while differences between koalas accounted for half of the microbiome variation, estimated diets at the time of sampling only accounted for 5% of the variation in the koala microbiomes between sampling periods. By contrast, we observed that the composition of koala faecal microbiomes at the time of translocation accounted for 37% of between koala variation in post-translocation diet. We also observed that translocated koalas lost body condition during the first month post-translocation and that the composition of the koalas’ initial microbiomes were associated with the magnitude of that change.DiscussionThese findings suggest that the koala gut microbiome was largely unaffected by dietary change and support previous findings suggesting that the koala gut microbiome influences the tree species chosen for feeding. They further indicate that future research is needed to establish whether the koalas’ gut microbiomes are directly influencing their health and condition or whether aspects of the koala gut microbiomes are an indicator of underlying physiological differences or pathologies. Our study provides insights into how animal microbiomes may not always be affected by the extreme upheaval of translocation and highlights that responses may be host species-specific. We also provide recommendations to improve the success of koala translocations in the future.

First Nations peoples are revitalising diverse cultural fire practices and knowledge. Institutional and societal recognition of these practices is growing. Yet there has been little academic research on these fire practices in south-east Australia, let alone research led by Aboriginal people. We are a group of Indigenous and settler academics, practitioners, and experts focused on cultural fire management in the Victorian Loddon Mallee region. Using interviews and workshops, we facilitated knowledge sharing and discussion. In this paper, we describe three practice-oriented principles to develop and maintain collaborations across Aboriginal groups, researchers, and government in the Indigenous-led revitalisation of fire on Country: relationships (creating reciprocity and trust), Country (working with place and people), and power (acknowledging structures and values). Collaborations based on these principles will be unique to each temporal, social, cultural, and geographic context. Considering our findings, we acknowledge the challenges that exist and the opportunities that emerge to constructively hold space to grow genuinely collaborative research that creates change. We suggest that the principles we identify can be applied by anyone wanting to form genuine collaborations around the world as the need for social-ecological justice grows.

We would like to identify our cultural obligation to speak for Country and culture on behalf of our old people. Data sharing is not applicable to this article as no data sets were generated or analysed during the current study.

It can be challenging to distinguish management impacts from other population drivers, including ‘natural’ processes and co-occurring threats. However, disentangling processes is important, particularly when management may have unintended consequences, such as mesopredator release. We explored the effects of long-term, broadscale poison-baiting programs on the distribution of red foxes Vulpes vulpes (targeted invasive predator), feral cats Felis catus (unmanaged invasive competitor) and two of their threatened native prey in two fire-affected regions of south-eastern Australia. We synthesised data from 3667 camera-trap deployments at 1232 sites (172,052 trap-nights), combining experimental manipulation of foxes and fire with space-for-time approaches. Fox control effectiveness—in terms of decreased probability of fox occurrence and increased probability of prey occurrence—depended on the duration and intensity of the poison-baiting program. The effects of fox control on prey occurrence also varied between the two native prey species: fox control was strongly beneficial to the long-nosed potoroo Potorous tridactylus but had no measurable effect on southern brown bandicoot Isoodon obesulus occurrence. Feral cat occupancy tended to be higher in landscapes with long-term fox control, although we found no effect of fox-bait density on fine-scale cat occurrence. Time since fire (0–80 years) was associated with the occurrence of each study species, but its association with invasive predators also differed among vegetation types. Invasive predators and altered fire regimes are key, often overlapping, biodiversity threats. Our work highlights the importance of fine-scale monitoring and consideration of multiple drivers in distribution models to develop effective, tailored conservation strategies.

1. The mesopredator release theory predicts that the density of subordinate predators will increase as dominant predators decline. Persistent debate around mesopredator release in part reflects the lack of robust, replicated experiments that test this theory, and the use of population indices that confound changes in mesopredator density and detectability. This uncertainty has immediate impacts for conservationists who are faced with managing sympatric invasive predators. 2. We used replicated experimental designs and spatially explicit models to examine whether mesopredator release of the feral cat Felis catus occurs in response to targeted control of the introduced red fox Vulpes vulpes. We surveyed three Control-Impact paired landscapes in a region with long--term fox control (1080 poison baiting) and conducted a Before--After Control--Impact Paired--Series experiment in another region. We used fox occurrence as a simple metric of fox populations and estimated feral cat density with spatial mark--resight models. 3. Lethal fox control had varying effects on fox occurrence, consistent with variation in the duration and intensity of poison baiting. Correspondingly, responses in feral cat density ranged from negligible to a 3.7--fold higher density in fox--baited landscapes. At a fine spatial scale (200 m(2)), feral cat density was negatively associated with fox occurrence probability across both regions. These results were consistent with mesopredator release, although uncertainty was high in the region where fox control had only recently commenced. 4. Feral cat detectability also varied across the (artificially manipulated) gradients of fox occurrence probability. In one region, nonlinear models indicated that feral cats had lower detection and increased movement rates when foxes were uncommon, giving way to density suppression at high fox occurrence probabilities. 5. Synthesis and applications. Our study provides replicated, experimental evidence that dominant predator suppression can be associated with a higher mesopredator density. Mesopredator release can manifest as changes in both behaviour and density, distorting inference if these processes are not distinguished. Our results may help explain why fox control does not consistently improve native prey persistence, suggesting integrated pest management may be necessary to improve conservation outcomes.

Background Borrelia are important disease-causing tick- and louse-borne spirochaetes than can infect a wide variety of vertebrates, including humans and reptiles. Reptile-associated (REP) Borrelia , once considered a peculiarity, are now recognised as a distinct and important evolutionary lineage, and are increasingly being discovered worldwide in association with novel hosts. Numerous novel Borrelia spp. associated with monitor lizards ( Varanus spp.) have been recently identified throughout the Indo-Pacific region; however, there is a lack of genomic data on these Borrelia . Methods We used metagenomic techniques to sequence almost complete genomes of novel Borrelia spp. from Varanus varius and Varanus giganteus from Australia, and used long- and short-read technologies to sequence the complete genomes of two strains of a novel Borrelia sp. previously isolated from ticks infesting Varanus salvator from Indonesia. We investigated intra- and interspecies genomic diversity, including plasmid diversity and relatedness, among Varanus -associated Borrelia and other available REP Borrelia and, based on 712 whole genome orthologues, produced the most complete phylogenetic analysis, to the best of our knowledge, of REP Borrelia to date. Results The genomic architecture of Varanus -associated Borrelia spp. is similar to that of Borrelia spp. that cause relapsing fever (RF), and includes a highly conserved megaplasmid and numerous smaller linear and circular plasmids that lack structural consistency between species. Analysis of PF32 and PF57/62 plasmid partitioning genes indicated that REP Borrelia plasmids fall into at least six distinct plasmid families, some of which are related to previously defined Borrelia plasmid families, whereas the others appear to be unique. REP Borrelia contain immunogenic variable major proteins that are homologous to those found in Borrelia spp. that cause RF, although they are limited in copy number and variability and have low sequence identities to RF variable major proteins. Phylogenetic analyses based on single marker genes and 712 single copy orthologs also definitively demonstrated the monophyly of REP Borrelia as a unique lineage. Conclusions In this work we present four new genomes from three novel Borrelia , and thus double the number of REP Borrelia genomes publicly available. The genomic characterisation of these Borrelia clearly demonstrates their distinctiveness as species, and we propose the names Borrelia salvatorii , ‘ Candidatus Borrelia undatumii’, and ‘ Candidatus Borrelia rubricentralis’ for them. Graphical Abstract

An animal’s diet is a crucial trait that defines their realised ecological niche, especially for dietary specialists such as the koala ( Phascolarctos cinereus ), a threatened arboreal marsupial folivore. Unfortunately, the current methods used to characterise koala diet are labour intensive, biased and/or unreliable. Further, in this study we show that four barcoding genes ( ITS, ETS, CCR and matK ) are unable to resolve potential koala food trees to species. Therefore, we developed and tested a novel SNP-based method for the analysis of koala diet from faeces using the DArTseq platform. This method returned a large number of species-specific SNPs for candidate koala food tree species. Due to low within-species variation, few individuals of each tree species are needed to capture the majority of DArTseq SNP diversity. Nonetheless, we suggest sampling multiple trees to reduce the impact of high allele dropout rates in the DArTseq data. After identifying species-specific SNPs from candidate food tree species from two study sites with different assemblages of eucalypts we were able to detect those SNPs in koala faecal DNA using DArTag, a targeted genotyping assay. This enabled us to semi-quantitatively characterise the koalas’ diets. The food tree species identified were in broad agreement with previously known koala food tree species but also revealed additional species that may contribute to koala diet. This approach provides an important new tool for use in koala ecology and conservation and may prove useful in diet determination for other species where high taxonomic resolution is crucial and dietary DNA is scarce.

Australia is a mega-biodiverse region. Millions of years of geographical isolation have resulted in high species diversity and endemism. So far, >21 000 species of plants, 8000 species of vertebrates, and 110 000 species of insects and other invertebrates have been described (Chapman 2009). An exceptionally high percentage are endemic; 93% of flowering plants, >80% of invertebrates, 87% of mammals, 93% of reptiles, 94% of frogs, 74% of freshwater fishes and >50% of temperate marine fishes in Australia are found nowhere else (Lintermans 2013; Cresswell & Murphy 2017). Since European colonisation, Australia's rich biodiversity has been in rapid decline. This decline has been driven by habitat destruction and fragmentation due to land clearing for agriculture and urbanisation; the introduction of invasive plants, animals, and diseases; the disruption of First Peoples practices in caring for Country, including fire management; and the extraction of water including the modification and regulation of freshwater ecosystems. These pressures are now being exacerbated by climate change. One hundred Australian species have been formally recognised as extinct including 34 mammal species, representing 10% of Australia's endemic mammals at the time of European arrival. Twenty-two freshwater fish species are at high risk of extinction within the next 20 years (Lintermans et al. 2020). One thousand, nine hundred and ninety-five taxa are nationally listed as threatened with extinction (Australian Government 2023) and hundreds more at State and Territory levels. Many once widespread species that are important ecosystem engineers, such as digging mammals, now persist only in small fragments of former natural ranges. The situation is likely far worse than reported, due to unresolved taxonomy (new species being discovered that are already extinct), a lack of systematic and rigorous monitoring of most species and ecosystems, and under-reporting of extinction. Declines are not abating. Population sizes of threatened birds have declined to half (47%), and threatened plants to almost one quarter (73%) of their populations, on average, since 1995 (Threatened Species Index 2022). Three vertebrate species have been declared extinct in the last fifteen years: the Christmas Island PIPISTRELLE (Pipistrellus murrayi), Christmas Island FOREST SKINK (Emoia nativitatis) and Bramble Cay melomys (MELOMYS rubicola). There is a > 50% likelihood that a further 16 vertebrate taxa, for which there have been no recent verified records, are already extinct, with four almost certainly extinct (Garnett et al. 2022). Mass mortality events are increasing. These include an estimated 3 billion vertebrate animals and 60 billion invertebrate animals which were killed or displaced in the Black Summer fires; four mass coral bleaching events on the Great Barrier Reef in the past seven years; multiple major fish kills in the Murray-Darling Basin; and extensive heat-related mortality in flying foxes and cockatoos which are important forest pollinators and seed dispersers (Legge et al. 2023). Feral and free-roaming cats and foxes kill more than 2.6 billion vertebrate animals every year, with the vast majority being native species (Stobo-Wilson et al. 2022). Most ecosystems are in decline and 17 are showing signs of collapse (Bergstrom et al. 2021), including mangroves critical for fish spawning in the Gulf of Carpentaria, and the tall wet forests of Victoria that store more carbon than any other forest on the planet (Keith et al. 2009). Since giant kelp forests were listed as Endangered in 2012, declines have continued and less than 5% of this ecosystem, that was widespread in coastal waters of southeastern Australia, remains. Ninety-five per cent of Australian shellfish reefs (Gillies et al. 2018) and half of our total seagrass area have been destroyed. Ecosystem processes are being eroded rapidly, with pollination by native species, soil turnover through digging, water filtration, and carbon sequestration all much depleted (Bergstrom et al. 2021). Extreme climatic events (2011 to 2017) have led to abrupt and extensive mortality of key marine habitat-forming organisms—corals, kelps, seagrasses, and mangroves—along over 45% of the Australian coastline (Babcock et al. 2019). Climate change combined with Australia's biodiversity decline and extinction threatens human lives and livelihoods. Biodiversity underpins all aspects of our lives. In addition to their aesthetic, spiritual, and cultural values, animals pollinate 90% of crops; 70% of medicines are derived from animals and plants; natural ecosystems remain the only viable large-scale carbon sink; and plants and animals clean our air and water and break down wastes. Roughly half of Australia's Gross Domestic Product (49% or $896 billion) has a moderate to very high direct dependence on nature (ACF 2022). The World Economic Forum (2023) has identified biodiversity loss and ecosystem collapse as the fastest accelerating risks to the global economy and among the top 10 risks for the next decade. Food webs are collapsing and will accelerate extinctions in the coming decades. For example, the loss of corals and the food webs they support will imperil a high diversity of coral reef-dependent organisms. Australia's biodiversity declines are increasingly rapid and potentially irreversible. They will have far-reaching consequences for the economy, human health and well-being, food systems and culture, in addition to diminishing nature itself. These declines also pose an existential risk to Australia's First Peoples who represent one of the oldest living cultures on Earth—and whose cultures were founded on reciprocal relationships with Country, including the very species and ecosystems which are being destroyed. Ninety-seven per cent of Australians want more action to conserve biodiversity, and most consider that ‘every person in Australia’ has a responsibility to act, including all levels of government. Eighty-five percent of Australians are moderately or highly concerned about threats to nature (Borg et al. 2023). Australia's response to the biodiversity crisis has been grossly inadequate and past failure to recognise, respect and support First Peoples cultural land management approaches has exacerbated biodiversity declines (Goolmeer & van Leeuwen 2023). Legislation, policies and planning processes have enabled ongoing biodiversity losses (Hughes et al. 2023). For example, more than 7.7 million hectares of threatened species habitat have been destroyed since 2000; 93% of this was not regulated under national environmental law (Ward et al. 2019). Policy and legislation must contain strong standards that limit ministerial discretion to harm biodiversity. Our laws must also be resourced, implemented and enforced. As a wealthy nation, there is a strong moral argument that the Australian Government should be making evidence-based decisions and investing more in the protection and restoration of biodiversity. Yet Australia performs poorly by international standards, ranking second-worst for spending to recover threatened species out of 109 countries (Waldron et al. 2017). Government funding is only a fraction of what is required to halt and reverse losses. The cost of conserving Australia's listed threatened species has been estimated at $2 billion per year (Wintle et al. 2019), yet Australian Federal, State and Territory governments spent just $122 million on threatened species recovery in the 2018–2019 financial year. A further $2 billion a year for 30 years is needed to restore 13 million hectares of Australia's degraded land (Mappin et al. 2022). Nature conservation spending is dwarfed by spending in other policy areas, for example, it receives less than 0.5% of the amount the Australian Government spent on health in 2022–23. This is despite the demonstrated importance of biodiversity to our physical and mental well-being (Irvine et al. 2023). Alarmed at the lack of an effective response to Australia's biodiversity crisis, a group of leading Australian experts (including Indigenous knowledge holders) united to form the Biodiversity Council. The Biodiversity Council's purpose is to be a trusted expert voice on all aspects of biodiversity and its conservation, to the Australian people and decision-makers, motivating action that enables nature and Country to prosper. The council's vision is that Australia's biodiversity is recognised and valued nationally and globally as a priceless heritage, a foundation for our life and a defining feature of our country, and its future is recovered or secured. While the current trajectory of Australian biodiversity appears bleak, decline is not inevitable. Species recovery is possible with appropriate protection, recovery effort and expenditure as demonstrated in the United States (Suckling et al. 2016). Australia has had some important success stories, including the recovery of some threatened species (e.g. Garnett et al. 2018). Major environmental policy shifts have occurred where there was widespread pressure from a concerned public who were able to step up and add their voices to debate. Public pressure precipitated the end of whaling in Australia, drove the protection of the Franklin River, stopped logging of Wet Tropics rainforests, massively reduced land-clearing in Queensland in the mid-2000s, and hastened the end to native forest logging in Western Australia and Victoria. These examples show what can be achieved when advocacy and public demand lead to political change, greater government and organisational leadership, effective legal protection, and well-resourced recovery efforts. Most Australians (74%) understand that climate change is having a direct impact on Australia's biodiversity, however, only around half of Australians are aware of the extent of biodiversity loss and 60% of people believe that the state of the natural environment in Australia is ‘good’ or ‘very good’ (Borg et al. 2023). Scientific censorship by governments of conservation science (e.g. Driscoll et al. 2021) and lack of media attention have contributed to this situation. For the community to make meaningful contributions to protecting biodiversity, they need tools. Beyond providing information about the problem, the council recognises the importance of empowering communities to protect nature. This involves equipping them with knowledge about how to act, creating opportunities for more people to act, and more effectively supporting and celebrating those already committed to protecting nature every day. The Council will drive transformational change in policy, government investment and corporate responsibility through the development of timely, robust and compelling evidence and solutions. As evidence from the climate debate demonstrates, policy cut-through can only be achieved by adopting a range of different approaches to communicate with different segments of society (Nerlich et al. 2010). Thus, how the Council creates change is grounded in evidence, alongside what it communicates. The Biodiversity Council includes leading experts in a wide variety of environmental and social sciences and Indigenous knowledge. This includes specialists in Indigenous science, Indigenous-led use of Traditional Knowledge, conservation, law, policy, economics, quantitative tools, behaviour change and communications, terrestrial, freshwater and marine mammals, birds, reptiles, fish, frogs, invertebrates, plants, ecosystems, invasive species, fire, genetics, climate impacts and adaptation, integrated landscape management, threat interactions, nature-based solutions, urban ecology and design; and for the wide variety of Australia's regions and ecosystems including alpine, deserts, floodplains, rivers, coastal wetlands, reefs, mangroves, tropical savannas and tall wet forests. Effective inclusion of First People's expertise and perspectives is fundamental for the Biodiversity Council. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples' rights and interests in land are formally recognised over around half of Australia's land mass. Traditional Custodians in all parts of Australia have deep connections, valuable knowledge and cultural obligations to care for culturally-important species and places (United Nations (General Assembly) 2007). It's time for governments, conservationists and researchers alike, to recognise the enduring tangible and intangible value of the Indigenous Estate (Gore-Birch et al. 2022). To ensure First People's perspectives and expertise are effectively included in the priorities and work of the Biodiversity Council, First People are included at all levels of decision-making (Goolmeer & van Leeuwen 2023), including two representatives on the Board, a Co-chief Councillor, and making up one third of the Council. First Peoples are supported to deliver an Indigenous-led work plan. The Council has 37 Councillors and this number is expected to increase as regional and expertise areas are strengthened. In addition to one third of First Peoples representation, the Council strives for gender balance. The founding Council is composed of mid- and later-career experts but there are plans to bring in early career members. Councillors come from university, environmental non-government and First Peoples organisations, or are independent. The Council recognises the wealth of relevant ecological knowledge held by practitioners that work within government agencies, but has not appointed any Councillors that are staff within government agencies, as Councillors must be able to speak freely on issues, including critiquing government decisions and policies. The Council is supported by a small executive team with expertise in organisational development, media and communications, stakeholder engagement and policy innovation. The Council is currently hosted by The University of Melbourne with additional oversight from an advisory board. It receives financial support from philanthropists. The Council interacts with government ministers, political advisers and policy makers and makes submissions. The Council is politically neutral and works in a cross-partisan way to promote evidence-based policies and solutions that will help halt nationwide biodiversity loss. Initial policy-related priorities include providing scrutiny and evidence-based recommendations regarding the reform of national environmental laws, including the need for culturally-significant species and places to be recognised to ensure that Traditional Custodians can fulfil their ongoing connection with, and care for, species (Goolmeer et al. 2022); holding the Australian Government accountable to internationally agreed commitments under the Convention on Biological Diversity's Global Biodiversity Framework; reducing the threats of invasive species, inappropriate water resource developments, land clearing, degradation and climate change; and drawing attention to the current inadequacy of funding to solve Australia's biodiversity crisis. The Council also seeks to inform and motivate the Australian community to take steps to halt biodiversity loss, through their own advocacy, action and daily decision-making, such as pet and waste management, consumption, supporting local restoration initiatives by contributing time or financial resources. Australia has world-class expertise in ecological management and restoration, as evidenced by the success of this journal. The Biodiversity Council seeks to amplify and maximise the impact of all of Australia's biodiversity expertise, including their research and translation work, whether or not they are Council members. Any expert with something important to say about biodiversity who has the evidence to back it up can draw on Council resources and networks to amplify their story. Deploying and assessing ecosystem restoration interventions, and indeed encouraging the investigation of more intensive and controversial interventions, such as accelerated adaptation, culturally-led science, the application of Indigenous Knowledge and the construction of functional ecosystems on degraded land, is something the Council encourages. Staying silent will not achieve the changes that Australian nature desperately needs now, and that are essential to underpin the quality of life of future generations. The Biodiversity Council is not the only voice speaking for biodiversity. The Council aims to motivate and equip many individuals and groups to speak up for biodiversity and become biodiversity champions. This includes activities such as collating the best available science so that groups can speak with confidence and providing science media training to early career biodiversity experts. We very much welcome insights from ecologists and practitioners on biodiversity topics that require a greater profile in the media and politics. People can find our contact details or sign up for our newsletter at https://biodiversitycouncil.org.au/ and follow us on social media to see our analysis, activities and opportunities to contribute. The Biodiversity Council receives funding from The University of Melbourne, Monash University, Deakin University, The University of Western Australia, The Australian National University, The University of Adelaide, The University of Canberra, The University of Sydney, Macquarie University, The University of Queensland, The University of New South Wales, The Ian Potter Foundation, The Ross Trust, Trawalla Foundation, The Rendere Trust, Isaacson Davis Foundation, Coniston Charitable Trust and Angela Whitbread. The authors declare no conflicts of interest. Jaana Dielenberg is a communication and engagement manager, Biodiversity Council, The University of Melbourne (Parkville, VIC, Australia) and School of Agriculture, Food and Ecosystem Sciences, University of Melbourne (Parkville, VIC, Australia); and University Fellow of the Research Institute for the Environment and Livelihoods, Charles Darwin University (Darwin, NT 0810, Australia; Email: [email protected]). Sarah Bekessy is a Professor of Sustainability and Urban Planning, ICON Science Research Group, School of Global, Urban and Social Studies, RMIT University (Melbourne, VIC, Australia; Email: [email protected]). Graeme S. Cumming is a Premier's Science Fellow, Oceans Institute, University of Western Australia (Fairway, Crawley 6009, WA, Australia; Email: [email protected]). Angela J. Dean is a Lecturer, Centre for Biodiversity and Conservation Science, The University of Queensland (St Lucia, QLD, Australia); School of the Environment, The University of Queensland (St Lucia, QLD, Australia) and School of Agriculture and Food Sustainability, The University of Queensland (St Lucia, QLD, Australia; Email: [email protected]). James Fitzsimons is a Senior Advisor, Global Protection Strategies, The Nature Conservancy (Suite 2-01, 60 Leicester Street, Carlton, VIC 3053, Australia); Adjunct Professor, School of Life and Environmental Sciences, Deakin University (221 Burwood Highway, Burwood, VIC 3125, Australia) and Adjunct Professor, School of Law, University of Tasmania (Hobart, TAS 7001, Australia; Email: [email protected]). Stephen T. Garnett is a Professor of Conservation and Sustainable Livelihoods, Research Institute for the Environment and Livelihoods, Charles Darwin University (Darwin, NT 0810, Australia; Email: [email protected]). Teagan Goolmeer is a Research Fellow, School of Molecular and Life Sciences, Curtin University (Perth, WA, Australia; Email: [email protected]). Lesley Hughes is a Professor Emerita, Department of Biological Sciences, Macquarie University (North Ryde, NSW, Australia; Email: [email protected]). Richard T. Kingsford is a Professor of Environmental Science, Centre for Ecosystem Science, School of Biological, Earth and Environmental Sciences (BEES), University of New South Wales Sydney (Sydney, New South Wales 2052, Australia; Email: [email protected]). Sarah Legge is a Professor of Wildlife Ecology, Research Institute for the Environment and Livelihoods, Charles Darwin University (Darwin, NT 0810, Australia) and Professor of Wildlife Ecology, Fenner School of Environment & Society, The Australian National University (Canberra, ACT, Australia; Email: [email protected]). David B. Lindenmayer is a Professor of Ecology and Conservation Biology, Fenner School of Environment & Society, The Australian National University (Canberra, ACT, Australia; Email: [email protected]). Catherine E. Lovelock is a Professor of Biological Sciences, School of the Environment, The University of Queensland (St Lucia, QLD 4072, Australia; Email: [email protected]). Rachel Lowry is a Chief Conservation Officer, World Wide Fund for Nature - Australia (3.01/45 Clarence St, Sydney, NSW 2000, Australia; Email: [email protected]). Martine Maron is a Professor of Environmental Management, School of the Environment, The University of Queensland (St Lucia, QLD, Australia) and Centre for Biodiversity and Conservation Science, The University of Queensland (St Lucia, QLD, Australia; Email: [email protected]). Jessica Marsh is a Adjunct Research Fellow, Harry Butler Institute, Murdoch University (Murdoch, WA 6150, Australia); South Australian Museum, North Terrace (Adelaide, SA 5000, Australia) and Invertebrates Australia (Osborne Park, WA 6017, Australia; Email: [email protected]). Jan McDonald is a Professor of Environmental and Climate Law, Faculty of Law, University of Tasmania (Private Bag 89, Hobart, TAS 7001, Australia; Email: [email protected]). Nicola J. Mitchell is a Associate Professor of Conservation Biology, School of Biological Sciences, University of Western Australia (Crawley, WA 6009, Australia) and Deputy Director, Oceans Institute, The University of Western Australia (Crawley, WA 6009, Australia; Email: [email protected]). Bradley J. Moggridge is a Professor in Indigenous Water Science, Centre for Applied Water Science, University of Canberra (Bruce, ACT 2617, Australia; Email: [email protected]). Rachel Morgain is a Deputy Director, Melbourne Biodiversity Institute, The University of Melbourne (Parkville, VIC, Australia); School of Social and Political Sciences, University of Melbourne (Parkville, VIC, Australia; Email: [email protected]). Patrick J. O'Connor is a Associate Professor Environmental Economics, School of Economics and Public Policy, University of Adelaide (Adelaide, SA, Australia; Email: [email protected]). Jack Pascoe is a Senior Research Fellow, School of Agriculture, Food and Ecosystem Sciences, The University of Melbourne (Parkville, VIC, Australia) and Conservation Ecology Centre (Cape Otway, VIC, Australia; Email: [email protected]). Gretta T. Pecl is a Professor of Marine Climate Ecology, Centre for Marine Socioecology, University of Tasmania (Hobart, TAS, Australia) and Institute for Marine and Antarctic Studies, University of Tasmania (Hobart, TAS, Australia; Email: [email protected]). Hugh P. Possingham is a Professor of Mathematics and Conservation Science, Centre for Biodiversity and Conservation Science, The University of Queensland (St Lucia, QLD, Australia; Email: [email protected]). Euan G. Ritchie is a Professor of Wildlife Ecology and Conservation, School of Life and Environmental Sciences, Deakin University (221 Burwood Highway, Burwood, VIC 3125, Australia; Email: [email protected]). Liam D. G. Smith is a Professor and Director, BehaviourWorks Australia, Monash Sustainable Development Institute, Monash University (Melbourne, VIC, Australia; Email: [email protected]). Rebecca Spindler is an Executive Manager Science and Conservation, Bush Heritage Australia (Melbourne, VIC, Australia); Centre for Ecosystem Science, School of Biological, Earth and Environmental Sciences (BEES), University of New South Wales (Sydney, NSW 2052, Australia) and School of Biology & Environmental Science, Queensland University of Technology (Gardens Point Campus, 2 George St, Brisbane, QLD 4000, Australia; Email: [email protected]). Ross M. Thompson is a Professor and Director, Centre for Applied Water Science, University of Canberra, (Canberra, ACT, Australia; Email: [email protected]). James Trezise is an Executive Director, Biodiversity Council, The University of Melbourne (Parkville, VIC, Australia) and School of Agriculture, Food and Ecosystem Sciences, University of Melbourne (Parkville, VIC, Australia; Email: [email protected]). Kate Umbers is a Senior Lecturer in Zoology, School of Science, Western Sydney University (Penrith, NSW 2751, Australia) and Managing Director and founder Invertebrates Australia (Osborne Park, WA 6017, Australia; Email: [email protected]). John Woinarski is a Professor of Conservation Biology, Research Institute for the Environment and Livelihoods, Charles Darwin University (Darwin, NT 0810, Australia; Email: [email protected]). Brendan A. Wintle is a Professor Biodiversity Science, School of Agriculture, Food and Ecosystem Sciences, University of Melbourne (Parkville, VIC, Australia) and Director, Melbourne Biodiversity Institute, The University of Melbourne (Parkville, VIC, Australia; Email: [email protected]).

ABSTRACT Invasive mammalian predators are implicated in the ongoing decline of a suite of fauna and continue to be a major cause of human–wildlife conflict globally. Lethal control of invasive predators is a common management strategy; however, the use of activity indices to measure management effectiveness is problematic. Non‐invasive genetic sampling may be a viable alternative approach to monitoring as individual animals can be identified, allowing for direct estimation of population density through newly developed spatially explicit capture–recapture techniques. Here we compare inferences derived from a basic activity index (number of scats per survey) and genetic sampling of scats within a before–after control–impact design to evaluate the effectiveness of a lethal control programme targeting red foxes ( Vulpes vulpes ) in south‐eastern Australia. The activity index was highly variable through time and suggested the baiting programme reduced fox activity on the treatment transect relative to changes on the non‐treatment transect. In contrast, genetic sampling and spatially explicit capture–recapture analysis suggested fox density varied little throughout the study, with any changes unable to be attributed to the baiting programme. Additionally, genetic sampling confirmed many individuals persisted through 7 months of baiting. These contrasting results may be partially explained by changes in scat detectability due to seasonal changes in behaviour and the disproportionate contribution of some individuals to scat counts. Our pre‐baiting density estimate of 0.28 foxes km 2 (95% CI: 0.22–0.38) was lower than expected given the high productivity, abundant prey species and lack of larger predators in the study region. Our results highlight the need for cautious interpretation of activity indices and demonstrates the value of incorporating recent methodological and statistical advances when evaluating lethal control programmes.

Context The use of conservation detection dogs (CDDs) is an established, highly efficient means by which data on cryptic and low-density plant and animal species can be collected in a relatively cost-effective way. Nonetheless, the time and resource costs associated with purchasing, training, and maintaining CDDs can be prohibitive, particularly for smaller organisations seeking to contribute to environmental work. A volunteer-based model of CDD training and deployment could make highly skilled teams more accessible to such groups, but little is known about why volunteers might choose to participate in such a program or what factors might maintain their motivation. Aims We previously reported on the effectiveness of a volunteer-based model of CDD training that began with 19 dog-handler teams. In the current study, we identify owner-reported motivations for, and satisfaction with, engaging in this 3 year program. Methods We used a combination of quantitative data from established questionnaires and qualitative data from semi-structured interviews to explore functional motivational themes among volunteers. Key results We identified six functional motivational themes in participants. Overall, volunteers tended to be initially motivated by a desire to engage in a meaningful activity with their dog. Handlers often reported engaging in iterative goal-setting and attainment through successive project stages, a strengthening of the dog–owner relationship and a growing tendency to place more emphasis on environmental/conservation-related goals as the program developed. Conclusions Suitable volunteers and their pet dogs can be trained as skilled CDD-handler teams. Importantly, teams can continue to participate in a volunteer-based program and contribute to conservation efforts for up to 4 years or longer, if their motivations and goals of participation can be facilitated through participation. Implications This is important information as training volunteer CCDs requires a substantial investment in terms of time and other resources. Only by focusing on factors which foster an optimal recruitment strategy and then enhance program satisfaction and participant retention, are such programs likely to be cost-effective in the longer term.

Conservation detection dogs (CDDs) are trained to locate biological material from plants and animals of interest to conservation efforts and are often more effective and economical than other detection methods. However, the financial costs of developing and appropriately caring for CDDs can nonetheless prohibit their use, particularly by smaller conservation organizations. Training skilled volunteers to work with suitable pet dogs may help address this constraint. We sought to further develop the skills of 13 volunteer dog–handler teams that were trained in a previous study to detect myrrh essential oil in controlled laboratory conditions. We assessed search sensitivity, search effort, search precision and false-alert instances through progressive training stages increasing in size and environmental complexity. First, teams searched various-sized areas before and after 12 weeks of search training on a sports-field. Next, teams searched various-sized areas before and after seven weeks of training in bushland. Overall, search sensitivity decreased by approximately 20% in each unfamiliar context, compared to performance in familiar contexts. However, sensitivity typically improved from baseline performance by 10–20% after a period of training. Six teams found at least 78% of targets after training in bushland, yet sensitivity ranged from 29% to 86% between teams. We maintain that the foundational skills developed previously were necessary to prepare volunteer teams for field surveys involving conservation related targets. However, our results highlight the need to also train volunteer CDD teams in search scale and environmental contexts similar to their intended working conditions.

Species distribution models are an essential tool for biodiversity conservation, with important applications such as spatial prioritisation of conservation actions and elucidating relationships between environmental predictors and species responses. These models are most useful to conservation managers when they include factors that can be readily manipulated, such as fire. In this study, we collated a comprehensive dataset of mammal records from a fire-prone region in south-east Australia where mammals have suffered declines in recent decades. We used species distribution modelling to (1) determine the relative influence of climate, fire, vegetation and topography on ground-dwelling mammal distributions; (2) determine species responses to time since fire, and; (3) provide spatial predictions of habitat suitability for conservation planning. Climate was the predominant driver of habitat suitability for most species, although other factors were influential in some cases. Time since fire was an important factor driving the distribution of only two of 16 modelled species which were more likely to be recorded in recently burnt vegetation. Habitat suitability varied spatially among species however multi-species habitat suitability was highest in the drier and hotter eastern section of the landscape, highlighting a key area for conservation efforts. The outputs from our models can be used for practical conservation actions such as finding new populations or identifying sites for reintroductions. We conclude that presence-only species distribution models are useful for determining species fire responses, complementing more systematic methods, and that including dynamic variables, such as time since fire, can increase their conservation relevance.