Access to this full-text is provided by Wiley.
Content available from Ecology and Evolution
This content is subject to copyright. Terms and conditions apply.
Ecology and Evolution. 2021;11:11749–11761.
|
11749www.ecolevol.org
Received: 10 April 2021
|
Revised: 22 June 2021
|
Accepted: 25 J une 2021
DOI: 10.1002/ece 3.79 20
ORIGINAL RESEARCH
A national- scale dataset for threats impacting Australia’s
imperiled flora and fauna
Michelle Ward1,2,3 | Josie Carwardine4 | Chuan J. Yong1,2 | James E. M. Watson1,2 |
Jennifer Silcock5,6 | Gary S. Taylor7 | Mark Lintermans8 | Graeme R. Gillespie9,10 |
Stephen T. Garnett11 | John Woinarski11 | Reid Tingley12 | Rod J. Fensham5 |
Conrad J. Hoskin13 | Harry B. Hines14,15 | J. Dale Roberts16 | Mark J. Kennard17,18 |
Mark S. Harvey16,19 | David G. Chapple12 | April E. Reside1,2
1Centre for Biodiversity and Conser vation Science, The University of Queenslan d, St Lucia, QL D, Australia
2School of Earth and Env ironmental Sci ences, The Univer sity of Que ensland, Brisb ane, QLD, Australia
3World Wide Fund for Nature- Australia, Brisbane, QLD, Aus tralia
4CSIRO Land and Water, Brisb ane, QLD, Australia
5Depar tment of Environment and Science, Queensland Herbarium, Brisb ane, QLD, Australia
6School of Biologic al Sciences, The Uni versit y of Queensland, Br isbane, QLD, Australia
7School of Biological Sciences, Austr alian Ce ntre for Evolutionary Biology and Biod iversity, The Uni versit y of Adelaide, Ad elaide , SA, Au stralia
8Centre for Applied Water Science, University of Ca nberr a, Canberr a, ACT, Aust ralia
9Flora an d Fauna Div ision, D epar tment of Environm ent, Pa rks and Water Secu rity, Nor thern Territory, Palmerston, SA , Australia
10School of Biosc iences , Univer sity of M elbourne, Melbourne, VIC , Australia
11Threatened Spe cies Recovery Hub, Resea rch Institute for the Environment and Live lihoods, Char les Dar win Universit y, Darwin, NT, Australia
12School of Biological Sciences , Monash University, Clay ton, VI C, Aus tralia
13College of Science & Engineerin g, James Co ok Univer sity, Townsville, QLD, Aust ralia
14Departme nt of Environm ent and Scie nce, Queenslan d Parks and Wildlife Servi ce and Partnerships, Bellbowrie, QLD, Aust ralia
15Biodive rsity, South Brisb ane, QLD, Aus tralia
16Schoo l of Biological Sciences, The Universit y of Wester n Austr alia, A lbany, WA, Austral ia
17Australian Rivers Institute, Griffith University, Natha n, QLD, Aust ralia
18National Enviro nment al Science Progr amme, N orth ern Aus tralia Environmental Resources Hub, Da rwin , NT, Australia
19Depar tment of Terrestria l Zoolog y, Western Austra lian Museum, Weslshpool DC, WA, Australia
This is an op en access arti cle under the ter ms of the Creat ive Commo ns Attri bution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduc tion in any medium ,
provide d the original wor k is properly cited.
© 2021 The Authors . Ecology and Evolution published by John Wiley & S ons Ltd.
Correspondence
Michelle Ward, Centre for Biodiver sity and
Conser vation Science, T he Unive rsit y of
Queens land, St Lucia, QLD, Australia .
Email: m.ward@uq.edu.au
Abstract
Australia is in the midst of an extinction crisis, having already lost 10% of terrestrial
mammal fauna since European settlement and with hundreds of other species at high
risk of extinction. The decline of the nation's biota is a result of an array of threaten-
ing processes; however, a comprehensive taxon- specific understanding of threats
and their relative impacts remains undocumented nationally. Using expert consulta-
tion, we compile the first complete, validated, and consistent taxon- specific threat
and impact dataset for all nationally listed threatened taxa in Australia. We confined
our analysis to 1,795 terrestrial and aquatic taxa listed as threatened (Vulnerable,
11750
|
WARD et A l.
1 | INTRODUCTION
The sixth mass extinction is arguably the worst environmental cri-
sis humanity currently faces (Ceballos et al., 2020), with species
becoming extinct 100– 1,000 times faster than Ear th's biota has
experienced over the last ten million years (Barnosky et al., 2011;
Ceballos et al., 2015; Pimm et al., 2014). Recent estimates show
that one million species are now threatened with extinction (hereon
“threatened”) globally and could go extinct in the next centur y
(IPBES, 2018), with at least 515 terrestrial vertebrates likely to be
lost within the nex t 20 years (Ceballos et al., 2020). In Australia,
25 taxa (ten birds, seven mammals, six reptiles, one butterfly, and
twenty fish) are likely to become extinct within the next 20 years
unless major conservation action is undertaken (“taxa” is used
through the manuscript to collectively refer to species, subspecies,
and important populations; Geyle, Braby, et al., 2021; Geyle, Tingley,
et al., 2021; Geyle et al., 2018; Lintermans et al., 2020). This decline
is driven by rapidly increasing direct and indirect pressures of human
activities on species survival.
Australia is a large, sparsely populated continent that was geo-
graphically isolated until the late Miocene when biotic interchange
with Asia commenced (Commonwealth of Australia, 2019; Woinarski
et al., 2015). That isolation, coupled with harsh climates, rapid cli-
mate changes, and ca. 50,0 00 years of anthropogenically driven fire
and hunting (Black et al., 2012; Crisp et al., 2011; Johnson, 2006;
NSW Government, 2010; Wroe et al., 2013) has resulted in the
unique evolution of biodiversity that is megadiverse and globally
important (Black et al., 2012; Lindenmayer et al., 2010; Mittermeier
& Mit termeier, 1997). Since 1788, European settlement has signifi-
cantly changed the Australian environment by introducing novel
species (e.g., woody and herbaceous weeds, cane toads, and cats;
Lintermans et al., 2013; Woinarski et al., 2011), widespread clearing
of native vegetation for intensive agriculture and urban development
(Ward et al., 2019), ungulate grazing (e.g., sheep and cattle; Kuiper &
Parker, 2013), spreading alien disease (e.g., Phytophthora cinnamomi,
Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis; Skerrat t et al., 2007), and altering
fire regimes (Woinarski et al., 2015). These changes have resulted
in threatening processes that have an especially profound impact
on native species. However, the state of knowledge of the most im-
portant threats and threat impacts responsible for the declines and
extinctions is fundamentally lacking.
Previous efforts to assess threats to Australia's Environment
Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act (1999)
listed threatened species include the Australian Government's
Species Profiles and Threats Database (hereaf ter “SPRAT”;
Allek et al., 2018; Commonwealth of Australia, 2021a; Kearney
et al., 2019), where “invasive species and disease” is listed as the
most prevalent of a set of key threats impacting on nationally
threatened Australian fauna and flora (Allek et al., 2018; Kearney
et al., 2019, 2020). However, the SPR AT dataset does not address
habitat loss, fragmentation, and degradation as a threat, nor in-
clude the most up- to- date knowledge on the level of impac t each
threat has on each t axon. This more detailed knowledge held by
relevant experts has, until now, been uncollated or undocumented
at a national- scale. Consequently, policy- makers, decision- makers,
and practitioners are unable to access a comprehensive dataset of
taxon- specific threats, including information that systematically
differentiates between negligible threats from those that cause
significant, catastrophic declines over contemporary time periods
(Cross et al., 2019).
Australia requires an improved dataset that identifies the impor-
tance of different threats at the taxonomic level at which the entity
is listed as threatened. The IUCN’s Threat s Classification Scheme
(IUCN, 2015; Salafsky, 2008) and Threat Impac t Scoring System
Endangered, or Critically Endangered) under Australian Commonwealth law. We en-
gaged taxonomic experts to generate taxon- specific threat and threat impact informa-
tion to consistently apply the IUCN Threat Classification Scheme and Threat Impact
Scoring System, as well as eight broad- level threats and 51 subcategory threats, for all
1,795 threatened terrestrial and aquatic threatened taxa. This compilation produced
4,877 unique taxon– threat– impact combinations with the most frequently listed
threats being Habitat loss, fragmentation, and degradation (n = 1, 210 taxa), and Invasive
species and disease (n = 966 taxa). Yet when only high- impact threats or medium-
impact threats are considered, Invasive species and disease become the most prevalent
threats. This dataset provides critical information for conservation action planning,
national legislation and policy, and prioritizing investments in threatened species
management and recovery.
KEYWORDS
Australian threatened species, EPBC Act, IUCN Threat Classification Scheme, IUCN Threat
Impact Scoring System, Threat impacts, Threatened species
|
11751
WARD et Al.
(IUCN, 2012a) are globally recognized approaches for classifying
threats and ranking the level of impact each threat has on specific
species (IUCN, 2012a). The IUCN Threat Impact Scoring System
includes information on the timing of the threat , the proportion of
the total population affected, and the overall declines caused by the
threat. This method has been applied to IUCN Red List assessments
of some species globally, including Australian species such as koala
(Phascolarctos cinereus), quokka (Setonix brachyurus), freshwater
fishes, and all Australian birds (Birdlife International, 2018; Brooks
et al., 2019; Burbidge & Woinarski, 2020; Garnet t et al., 2019;
Lintermans & Allan, 2019; Woinarski & Burbidge, 2020), but not yet
comprehensively for all threatened taxa.
Here, we engaged taxonomic experts in generating t axon-
specific threat and threat impact information to consistently
apply the IUCN Threat Classification Scheme and Threat Impact
Scoring System to produce the most up- to- date data on currently
recognized threatening processes affecting all nationally listed
threatened taxa in Australia. We produced a comprehensive taxon–
threat– impact dataset that identifies all IUCN threat types and
detailed threat notes, in addition to eight new broad- level threats
and 51 subcategory threats, for all 1,795 threatened terrestrial
and aquatic threatened taxa. We created this novel categorization
based on extensive discussion with experts and managers, which
draws heavily upon existing categories but is modified in order
to have a classification that was fit to the Australian context of
threats, governance of threatened species recover y, and threat
abatement planning. The categories can also be used for commu-
nicating the major causes of threatened species decline to a range
of audiences. In total, our dataset contains 4,877 taxon– threat–
impact combinations, which includes timing, scope, and severity
for all combinations, where available. This information will allow
for comprehensive, consistent, national- scale assessment of taxon-
specific threatening processes and their degree of impact, to guide
appropriate conservation actions that will facilitate taxa to persist
and recover in the future.
2 | MATERIALS AND METHODS
2.1 | Threatened taxa in Australia
Under Australia's EPBC Act 1999, there are six categories of
threat status: Extinct, Extinct in the Wild, Critically Endangered,
Endangered, Vulnerable, and Conservation Dependent. We confined
our analysis to 1,795 terrestrial and aquatic taxa listed as threatened
(Vulnerable, Endangered, Critically Endangered, or Extinct in the
Wild) under Australia's EPBC Act as of July 2018. We excluded taxa
that were listed as E xtinct or Conservation Dependent (the latter
pertaining only to commercially harvested fish taxa that have a spe-
cific conser vation program; however, the cessation of which would
result in the species becoming Vulnerable, Endangered, or Critically
Endangered). For taxa that are not endemic to Australia, information
was compiled on all threatening processes.
2.2 | Knowledge synthesis process
To synthesize knowledge and collate the taxon– threat– impact
dataset, we followed five key steps: (i) identifying key data needs;
(ii) designing and preparing the expert assessment; (iii) implement-
ing the expert consu lt at io n (H ad we n et al., 2011; Pullin et al., 2016);
(iv) encoding the expert responses; and (v) completing a technical
validation. The exper t consultation process was carried out from
December 2019 to September 2020. As facilitators of the assess-
ment process, we emailed fourteen experts to first describe the
data required (i.e., threats and threat impact scores per taxon),
provide instructions for the assessment, and distribute datasheets
required for the assessment. Experts were chosen based on their
extensive expertise in taxon groups, of which many had already
begun the process of consolidating information on threats for their
respective taxa of interest . The experts then consulted with rel-
evant colleagues and searched existing literature to identify and
complete the dataset (see Appendix S1) for taxon- specific threats
and the components of each threat needed to estimate its likely
impact using timing, scope, and the overall severit y of the threat.
In some cases, full systematic Conser vation Action Planning work-
shops were completed for individual taxon to detail their threats
and the likely impact of each (Black- throated Finch Recovery
Team, 2020). The overall threat impact is then classified as high,
medium, low, negligible, or insufficient data (i.e., missing values
from timing, scope, and severity) using the IUCN Threat Impact
Scoring System (Garnett et al., 2019; IUCN, 2012a). Once the infor-
mation was received and reviewed, follow- up consultations were
conducted with the lead experts to resolve any uncer taint y and
seek additional clarification regarding specific threats. Facilitators
the n encod ed the exper t's respo nses resulting in a consiste nt , com-
prehensive list of all threats and the impact of each threat to every
taxon, where knowledge was available. The dataset was encoded to
include the IUCN threat categories (variable name: IUCN threat level
1, IUCN threat level 1 description, IUCN threat level 2, IUCN threat
level 2 description, IUCN threat level 3, and IUCN threat level 3 de-
scription), eight broad- level threat categories, and 51 subcategory
threats (variable name: Broad- level threats, Subcategory threats;
Table 1). The ad dit io nal broa d- l ev el th reats an d sub categ ory th re ats
were necessary as the IUCN threat categories failed to capture
some threats that Australian taxa are exposed to, including Habitat
loss, fragmentation, and degradation, and Disrupted ecosystem and
population processes. The threat categories developed here deviate
from the IUCN approach in an effort to identif y what threats taxa
experience (e.g., habitat loss, degradation, and fragmentation) as
well as the ultimate cause of those threats (e.g., housing develop-
ment). These categories also allow a threatened species manager
to understand the direct threat to the species and hopefully have
more information on actions. For example, a biodiversity officer in a
state government likely c annot do much about a climate change re-
sulting in habitat alteration, but might be more equipped to address
habitat loss, degradation, and fragmentation. While the IUCN does
provide a Stresses Classification Scheme (IUCN, 2012b), we found
11752
|
WARD et A l.
that these categories were not fit for our purpose. For example,
ecosystem conversion and ecosystem degradation are usually in-
extricably linked; and in many cases, species are impacted by both.
In addition, we required a classification which linked the threat to
an action. If the same threat stresses two species differently, the
threat abatement at a high level would remain the same. Therefore,
TABLE 1 The eight broad- level threat categories and 51 subcategor y threats used in the Australia- wide analysis on what threatening
processes impact threatened taxa. The symbols are used in Figure 2
Broad- level threats Symbol Subcategor y threats
Adverse fire regimes Increase in fire frequency/intensity
Suppression in fire frequency/intensity
Other change in fire regime/trend unspecified
Changed surface and groundwater regimes Alteration to groundwater levels
Alteration to sur face water flows and infiltration
Dams and altered flow regimes
Climate change and severe weather Climate change and severe weather- unsp ecified
Habitat shifting and alteration
Increased frequency/severity of droughts
Sea- level rise
Storms and flooding
Temperature extremes
Disrupted ecosystem and population processes Genetic introgression/hybridization
Lack of recruitment
Problematic native species
Small, restricted, and reduced population
Habitat loss, fr agment ation, and degr adation Agriculture and aquaculture
Energy production and mining
Fisheries
Forestr y
Geological events
Military development
Transportation and service corridors
Urban and commercial development and maintenance
Other natural system modific ations
Invasive species and diseases Disease
Invasive amphibian
Invasive bird
Invasive fish
Invasive invertebrate
Invasive predator
Invasive rabbit
Invasive reptile
Invasive rodent
Invasive ungulate
Invasive weed
Overexploitation and ot her dire ct harm from
human activities
Collision
Direct harvest
Human intrusion
Persecution
Unintentional poisoning
Unintentional hunting
Entanglement
Bycatch
Pollution Effluent and wastewater
Garbage and solid waste
Herbicides and pesticides
Light pollution
Nutrient loads
Oil spills
Seepage from mining
|
11753
WARD et Al.
for this research, it was better to focus on using threats that could
be more easily lin ked to thre at abat ement actions . Th es e categor ies
we r e discu s s e d and dec ide d up o n durin g thr ee wo r k s hops he ld fr o m
July to August 2020 with independent experts from the Australian
Threatened Species Scientific Committee (TSSC) (Commonwealth
of Australia, 2020) and close collaborators of the TSSC. During
these workshops, participants used relevant literature (Cattarino
et al., 2018; Kearney et al., 2020) to help guide discussion and de-
cide upon Australian- specific broad- level and subcategory threats.
2.3 | IUCN Threat Impact Scoring System
The IUCN Threat Impact Scoring System (Table 2) scores threats
to a taxon based on the timing of the threat (i.e., past, ongoing,
future), the scope of the threat (defined as the proportion of the
whole population af fected), and severity of the threat on the taxon
(i.e., the overall declines caused by the threat; Garnett et al., 2019;
IUCN, 2012a). The IUCN threat impact scores are summed to pro-
vide the overall threat impact (based on IUCN 2012; IUCN, 2012a;
Table 3). For example, Mary River Cod (Maccullochella mariensis) is
threatened by fishing and harvesting, which is an ongoing (timing = 3)
threat, affecting the whole population (scope = 3), and causes slow,
but significant declines (severity = 1). The overall impact is 7, result-
ing in an overall impact score of “medium.”
Exper ts were provided with datasheets that elicited their esti-
mates of scope, severity, and timing. The overall threat impact scores
were automatically calculated in the datasheet based on predefined
IUCN thresholds driven by the summed value of the timing, scope,
and severity scores (>7 = high impact, >5 = medium impact, >2 =
low impact, and >0 = negligible impact). Some taxonomic groups had
existing information that was included in the datasheets before they
were sent to expert s (Table 4).
2.4 | Technical validation
We developed the final dataset in R (version 1.2.5033), which en-
compassed a validation process. This validation process was un-
dertaken by each of the expert teams by cross- checking threat
TABLE 2 IUCN Threat Impact Scoring System (based on
IUCN, 2012a) applied in the Australia- wide analysis on threatening
processes impacting threatened t axa
Criteria
Categories
and score s
Timing
Only in the past and unlikely to return 0
In the past but now suspended and likely to return 0
Ongoing 3
Only in the future 1
Unknown 0
Scope
Affec ts the whole population (>90%) 3
Affec ts the majorit y of the population (50%– 90 %) 2
Affec ts the minority of the population (<50%) 1
Unknown 0
Severity
Causing or likely to c ause ver y rapid declines (>30%
over 10 years or three generations, whichever is
longer)
3
Causing or likely to c ause rapid declines (20%– 30%
over 10 years or three generations, whichever is
longer)
2
Causing or likely to c ause relatively slow but
significant declines (<20% over 10 years or three
generations, whichever is longer)
1
Causing or likely to c ause fluctuations 1
Causing or likely to c ause negligible declines 0
No declines 0
Unknown 0
TABLE 3 IUCN threat impact scores where timing, scope, and severity are summed (based on IUCN, 2012a). Relative levels of impac t are
color- coded as dark purple (high impact), maroon (medium impact), tangarine (low impact), and bronze (negligible impact)
Scope
Whole
(3)
Majority
(2)
Minority
(1)
Negligible
(0)
Ongoingthreat
(3)
Severity Very
rapid
(3)
Rapid
(2)
Slow
(1)
Negli-
gible(0)
8
7
6
8
7
6
5
7
6
5
4
6
5
4
3
Very
rapid
(3)
Rapid
(2)
Slow
(1)
Negli-
gible
(0)
7
6
5
4
6
5
4
3
5
4
3
2
4
3
2
1
Futurethreat
(1)
High impact Medium impact Low impact Negligible/No
impact
9
11754
|
WARD et A l.
TABLE 4 Existing threat data used in the data collation process to assist in synthesizing and formulating the taxa– threat– impact dat aset
Taxonomic group Experts Data incorporated
Mammals John Woinarski,
Andrew Burbidge
Woinarski et al. (2014) comprehensively reviewed the conser vation status of all Australian
mammals. We used this dataset to initially describe the threat s and scores based on their
scoring method. These threats and impact scores were then verified by experts during the
elicitation process (Lumsden & Jemison, 2015).
Birds Stephen Garnett Garnet t et al. (2019) and Garnett and Baker (2021) provided dat a for each threatened
Australian bird taxon, threat s, and threat scores which were directly embedded within this
dataset. The original Garnett et al. (2019) bird dataset s contain 244 taxa (118 from the 2020
dataset and 126 from the 2019 dataset). Of the 135 nonextinct EPBC- listed bird t axa, 57 had
updated data from the 2020 assessment (Garnett & Baker, 2021); and data for the remaining
78 bird taxa came from Garnett et al. (2019). These threats and impact scores were verified
by exper ts dur ing the expert consult ation process (Department of the Environment, 2013).
Reptiles Reid Tingley, David
Chapple
We incorporated all data from Tingley et al. (2019) and Chapple et al. (2017), who identified
all threatening processes impac ting Australian squamates. These threats and impac t scores
were directly embedded within t his dataset and then verif ied by expert s during the expert
consultation process. Data for all other reptile taxa were gathered during the exper t
consultation (Legge et al., 2019; Woinarski et al., 2014).
Frogs Graeme G illespie,
David Hunter, Conrad
Hoskin, Harry Hines,
Dale Roberts
Existing data for Australian frogs (Gillespie et al., 2020 ; Heatwole & Rowley, 2018) were
incorporated and additional threat impact information was elicited from relevant experts
(Garnet t & Baker, 2021; Tingley et al., 2019).
Fish Mark Lintermans,
Mark Kennard,
Helene Marsh, Colin
Simpfendorfer, and
Lesley Gidding- Reeve
Data for Australian threatened freshwater taxa from existing threat assessment s was
incorporated (e.g., Lintermans, 2013 and Lintermans et al., 2013). Additional threat impact
information was sourced from the 2019 freshwater and marine Red List assessment and
elicited from relevant experts (Chapple et al., 2017).
Invertebrates Gar y Taylor While there are existing data (Taylor et al., 2018) for Australian threatened invertebrates,
additional threat impact information was required for data consistency. Therefore, the expert
elicitation process outlined ab ove was undertaken.
Existing data for threats to EPBC- listed invertebrate s (Heatwole & Rowley, 2018) were guided
by threat impact s identified in t heir EPBC listing and IUCN red list (Lintermans, 2013) (not
exhaustive, restric ted to the p erceived main threats), and supplemented with data from
exper t consultation process (Gillespie et al., 2020).
Plants Jennifer Silcock, Rod
Fensham
Existing data for threats to EPBC- listed plant s (Silcock & Fensham (2018) and Silcock
et al., 2020) were supplemented with data from exper t elicit ation (Commonwealth of
Australia, 2021b; Taylor et al., 2018).
Group
No. of
threatened taxa
% of total
threatened taxa
No. of taxa in
Australia
% of group listed
as threatened
Plants 1,339 74 . 6% 18,706 7. 2%
Birds 135 7. 5% 828 16 .3%
Mammals 107 6.0% 386 27. 7 %
Invertebrates 65 3 .6% 320,000 0.02%
Reptiles 61 3.4% 917 6.6%
Fish 51 2.8% 5,0 00 (or 315
freshwater
fish)
1.0% (or 12% of
freshwater fish)
Frogs 37 2.1% 227 16. 3%
Tot a l 1,795
TABLE 5 Over view of the number
of threatened taxa per group within
Australia, proportion of threatened
taxa within each group out of the total
number of threatened taxa in Australia,
and proportion of threatened taxa within
each group out of the total taxa in each
group within Australia (Chapman, 20 09;
Commonwealth of Australia, 2021a)
FIGURE 1 Proportion of Australian threatened taxa impacted by broad- level threats. Each bar chart represents a different group,
including plants, invertebrates, fish, frogs, reptiles, birds, and mammals. Threat s including Habitat loss, fragmentation, and degradation
(dark blue), Invasive species and disease (indigo), Adverse fire regimes (purple), Disrupted ecosystem and population processes (magenta),
Overexploitation and other direct harm from human activities (coral), Changed surface and groundwater regimes (orange), Climate change and
severe weather (gold), and Pollution (yellow)
|
11755
WARD et Al.
0.0% 10%20% 30%40%
Proportion of threatened plants
Broadlevel threat
0% 10% 20% 30%
Proportion of threatened mammals
0% 10% 20%
Proportion of threatened reptiles
Broad levelthreat
0% 10%
Broad levelthreat
0% 10% 20%
0% 10% 20%
Proportion of threatened frogs
0% 10% 2%
Proportion of threatened birds
Proportion of threatened invertebrates Proportion of threatened fish
Pollution
Habitat loss, fragmentation and degradation
Invasive species and diseases
Adverse fire regimes
Disrupted ecosystem and population processes
Changed surface and groundwater regimes
Climate change and severe weather
noitulloP
Habitat loss, fragmentation, and
degradation
Invasive species and diseases
Adverse fire regimes
Overexploitation and other
direct harm from human
activities
Changed surface and
groundwater regimes
Climate change and
severe weather
Pollution
Habitat loss, fragmentation, and
degradation
Invasive species and diseases
Adverse fire regimes
Overexploitation and other direct
harm from human activities
Changed surface and
groundwater regimes
Climate change and
severe weather
Pollution
Disrupted ecosystem and
population processes
Changed surface and
groundwater regimes
and degradation and degradation
Invasive species and diseases
Adverse fire regimes
Adverse fire regimes
Overexploitation and other direct harm from human activities
Invasive species and
diseases
Changed surface and
groundwater regimes
and degradation and degradation
Invasive species and
diseases
Invasive species and
diseases
Adverse fire regimesAdverse fire regimes
Changed surface and
groundwater regimes groundwater regimes
20%
Changed surface and
11756
|
WARD et A l.
categories (IUCN, broad- level, and subcategories), threat codes, and
threat impact scores, taxonomy, and standardizing taxon names and
threat statuses.
3 | RESULTS
3.1 | Australia's threatened taxa
Of all the EPBC Act listed threatened taxa in Australia, plants are
the numerically dominant threatened group (74.6%), yet only 7.2%
of 18,706 accepted/described plants in Australia are threatened.
Mammals represent only 6% of all listed threatened taxa, yet c.28%
of all Australian mammals are listed as threatened (Table 5). On aver-
age, each taxon was threatened by three subcategory threats (me-
dian = 2; range = 1 – 1 5 ) .
3.2 | Broad- level and subcategory
threatening processes
Our investigation summarizes threats using eight broad- level threats
and 51 sub- c at eg ory thre at s tha t to ge the r im pac t upon 1,795 terres-
trial and aquatic taxa, totaling 4,877 unique taxon– threat combina-
tions. The most frequently listed broad- level threats were Habitat
loss, fragmentation, and degradation (n = 1,210 taxa), Invasive species
and diseases (n = 966 taxa), and Adverse fire regimes (n = 683 taxa).
However, different taxonomic groups are threatened by different
pressures (Figure 1). For example, while Habitat loss, fragmentation,
and degradation is the key threatening process for invertebrates, fish,
reptiles, and plants, Invasive species and diseases threaten the most
birds, frogs, and mammals.
Examination of the subcategor y threats can aid understanding of
the main causes of each broad- level threat within which it is nested
(Figure 2). The most frequently listed subcategory- level threats
were Invasive weeds (nested within Invasive species and disease with
n = 565 taxa), Agriculture and aquaculture (nested within Habitat loss,
fragmentation, and degradation with n = 411 taxa), and Other natural
system modifications (also nested within Habitat loss, fragmentation,
and degradation n = 398 taxa).
3.3 | Impact of threats across taxa
The ranking of threats changes when the impact of the broad- level
threat is considered (Figure 3). When only high- impact or medium-
impact threats are considered, Invasive species and diseases (n = 143
taxa and n = 614 taxa, respectively) become the key threats to taxa
compared to Habitat loss, fragmentation, and degradation (n = 68 taxa
and n = 410 taxa, respectively). For 9.6% (n = 464) of taxon– threat
FIGURE 2 Number of threatened
Australian taxa and relative level of impact
for each subcategor y threat, nested
within the corresponding broad- level
threat class. See Table 2 for symbols
representing each broad- level threat.
Relative levels of impact are color- coded
as dark purple (high impact), maroon
(medium impact), tangarine (low impact),
bronze (negligible impact), and teal
(insufficient data). The scale bar indicates
the cumulative number of taxa impacted
per threat
Increase in fire
Other fire
c
han
g
e
Suppression in fire
Alteration to g
r
oun
d
water
Alteration to surface water
Dams and altered fl
o
w regimes
Climate
c
han
g
e
D
r
ought
Habitat shifting and alteration
Sea
l
e
vel rise
Storms and flooding
T
emperature
T
T
e
xtremes
Genetic
La
c
k of recruitment
P
r
o
b
lematic natives
Small population
Small/restricted population
S
S
Agriculture
Ene
r
gy p
r
oduction and mining
Fisheries
Forest
r
y
Geological
e
vents
Milita
r
y d
e
velopment
Other mod.
T
ranspo
T
r
tation
Urban d
e
velopment
Disease
I
n
v
asive amphibian
I
n
v
asive bi
r
d
I
n
v
asive fish
I
n
v
asive i
n
ve
r
tebrate
I
n
v
asive predator
I
n
v
asive rabbit
I
n
v
asive reptile
I
n
v
asive
r
odent
I
n
v
asive ungulate
W
eeds
Bycat
c
h
Collision
Direct ha
r
vest
Entanglement
Human intrusion
P
e
r
secution
Unintentional hunting
Unintentional poisoning
Effluent and wast
e
water
Garb
a
g
e and solid waste
Herbicides and pesticides
Light pollution
n
Nutrient loads
Oil spills
Seep
a
g
e f
r
om mining
600
Insufficient data
500
50
0
High impact
Medium impact
Low impact
Negligible impact
Insufficient data
|
11757
WARD et Al.
combinations, impact scores were unattainable due to insufficient
data, which appear to be associated with a lack of understanding
of the level of impact that habitat modifications have on threat-
ened species. This outcome reflec ts the reality of complex threat-
ening processes and critical knowledge gaps concerning threat s to
Australia's threatened biodiversity, where experts are able to iden-
tify a possible threat but are not able to confidently evaluate the
degree of impact it has on a particular taxon.
4 | DISCUSSION
Our results build on other global and continental analyses that have
explored which threatening processes affect most taxa. Global
analyses have revealed overexploitation as the prevalent threat-
ening process (Maxwell et al., 2016; Yiming & Wilcove, 2005), but
across Australia, we show that mitigating the impacts of habitat loss,
fragmentation, and degradation will benefit the greatest number
of taxa overall. Since 2000, 85% of Australia's threatened species
lost habitat , equating to 7.7 million hectares, and ef forts to amelio-
rate this ongoing loss have had little effect (Ward et al., 2019). As
habitat loss is primarily driven by agriculture and urban develop-
ment (Evans, 2016), it is a politically polarizing issue (Lindenmayer
et al., 2014). However, habitat is the most fundamental need of spe-
cies, and its continued loss will result in ongoing declines regardless
of how well other threats are managed. Threats such as invasive spe-
cies are also severely affecting Australian threatened taxa, despite
many initiatives aimed at reducing their impacts; for example, Non-
Governmental Organisations and Commonwealth and state govern-
ments have invested heavily in the creation of predator- proof refuges
and managing feral cats at various geographical scales via massive
baiting efforts (Commonwealth of Australia, 2014; Department of
the Environment, 2015). Our dataset shows that mitigating habitat
loss, invasive species, and disease, along with improving fire regimes,
and whe re possible, adapt at ion to climate change, is crucial for cur b-
ing species declines.
We anticipate this dataset will provide critical information to
he l p in fo r m co n se r va t i on an d ma n age m e nt st ra t e gi e s fo r Au st r al i a ' s
threatened species and threatening processes at local, regional,
and national scales. For example, when used in combination with
other key climate information, this dataset could assist in guiding
action to build species resilience in the face of climate change and
other related c atastrophic events, such as the 2019– 2020 mega-
fires (Legge et al., 2020; Ward et al., 2020). Our dataset can help
guide actions for abating existing threats to bushfire- impacted
species to help aid recovery and avoid fur ther declines. This
FIGURE 3 The most important threats
to threatened Australian taxa change
when impact is considered. The diagrams
show the number of taxa per impact score
within the broad- level threat (a) Habitat
loss, fragmentation, and degradation, (b)
Invasive species and diseases, (c) Adverse
fire regimes, and (d) Climate change and
severe weather. Impact was determined
through the evaluation of timing, severity,
and scope for each threat per taxon.
Where a taxon was threatened by multiple
subcategories within a broad threat,
we used the maximum impacting level
in this analysis. For example, if a taxon
was assessed as being threatened by
Residential and commercial development
at a low impact and Agriculture and
aquaculture at a high impact under the
IUCN classification scheme, which both
fall under the broad- level threat of Habitat
loss, fragmentation, and degradation, the
broad- level threat was considered high
impact for that taxa
11758
|
WARD et A l.
taxon– threat– impact dataset can also be used to infer the ben-
efit of managing a particular threat and aid in recovery planning
(Cattarino et al., 2015, 2018). For example, the Endangered south-
eastern subspecies of the Spot- tailed Quoll (Dasyurus maculatus
maculatus) has 12 recorded threats, one of which is considered to
be of high impac t, two are of medium impact, and nine are of low
impact. This indicates that while the one high- impacting threat,
invasive foxes, is a high priorit y for mitigation, lower impacting
threat s su ch as ca ne toads and mort ality ass ociated wi th road traf-
fic ar e li k e l y to be lo w e r pr io r i t i e s fo r mi t i g a t i o n . Th e da t aset ma y be
used at the local scale, where decision- makers can use the severity
score to decide which of the threats present in their jurisdiction
are the most impor tant and feasible to address. Another example
might be Southern Bent- wing Bat (Miniopterus orianae bassanii),
which is threatened by human intrusion. This threat is continuing
(timing = 3), primarily problematic in maternit y caves (scope = 1),
and can cause ver y rapid declines (severit y = 3). Therefore, while
the scope is low, the overall impact of human intrusion is medium,
and managers of these important roosts (e.g., Warrnambool City
Council and Naracoorte Lucindale Council) may decide to prior-
itize protecting these roosts from human disturbance (Lumsden
& Jemison, 2015). This dataset can also be used to refine regu-
latory processes given the level of impact to particular taxa. For
example, under the EPBC Act, actions associated with a particular
development proposal or other activities that are likely to cause
“significant impac t” to a threatened taxon require special consid-
eration (Department of the Environment, 2013). This dataset may
aid decision- makers in determining “significant impact” of potential
activities for each of Australia's nationally listed threatened taxa.
Our results highlight the urgent need to address the many high-
and medium- impact threats, the majority of which consisted of
invasive species and diseases and habitat loss, fragmentation, and
degradation. This newly collated, consistent, national- scale infor-
mation contributes to taxon- specific or threat- specific assessment
to guide appropriate conservation actions that will facilitate taxa
to persist and recover in the future.
A limitation of this taxon– threat– impact dataset is that it only
integrates historic and recent information up to present day. This
dataset therefore c annot be used to assess the impacts of changes
in threat exposure and intensit y over time, but we hope future re-
visions of the dataset will enable this. Being national in scale means
that spatially variable dif ferences or threats from other countries
have also not been considered. Interac tions among threats are not
specifically considered, but there is increasing evidence of cumula-
tive and synergistic impacts of co- occurring and interacting threats
(Legge et al., 2019). A further limitation is that the dataset focuses
on nationally listed taxa as of 2018 and many taxa potentially eligi-
ble for listing are currently unlisted (e.g., Lintermans et al., 2020),
and this number is likely to increase as Australia’ biota experiences
broad- scale catastrophic event s such as the 2019– 2020 bushfires
(Evans, 2016). Therefore, there are likely to be many taxa threat-
ened with extinction for which management efforts, such as leg-
islative instruments, to mitigate threats are currently nonexistent.
While this is the most up- to- date data available, there are several
threats such as anthropogenic- driven climate change resulting in ad-
verse fire regimes, increased droughts, spreading invasive species,
and range sh if ts tha t are expec te d to worsen in impact and thre ate n
more species than are currently listed. Such emerging threats must
be incorporated in future iterations of this threat analysis. It is our
vision that this dataset will periodically be updated and improved.
We recommend that the most reliable way for this dataset to be
maintained and sustained is to tie it to the formal EPBC Act assess-
ment process.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This project was supported by the Australian Government's National
Environmental Science Programme through the Threatened Species
Recovery Hub. M.W. is supported by an Australian Government
Research Training Program Scholarship. Special thanks to Helene
Marsh, Colin Simpfendorfer, and Lesley Gidding- Reeve and
the Marine and Freshwater Species Conservation team at the
Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment and Energy
for contributing to the taxon– threat– impact dataset. We would also
like to thank our reviewers, Michael Hoffman and one anonymous
person, for their insightful and helpful comments that greatly im-
proved this paper.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
The authors declare no competing interests.
AUTHOR CONTRIBUTION
Michelle Ward: Conceptualization (equal); Formal analysis (equal);
Investigation (equal); Methodology (equal); Project administration
(equal); Validation (equal); Visualization (equal); Writing- original
draft (equal); Writing- review & editing (equal). Josie Carwardine:
Formal analysis (equal); Writing- review & editing (equal). Chuan J.
Yon g: Validation (equal); Writing- review & editing (equal). James
E. M. Watson: Conceptualization (equal); Supervision (equal);
Visualization (equal); Writing- review & editing (equal). Jennifer
Silcock: Data curation (equal); Validation (equal); Writing- review &
editing (equal). Gary S. Taylor: Data curation (equal); Writing- review
& editing (equal). Mark Lintermans: Data curation (equal); Writing-
review & editing (equal). Graeme R. Gillespie: Data curation (equal);
Writing- review & editing (equal). Stephen T. Garnett: Data curation
(equal); Methodology (equal); Writing- review & editing (equal). John
Woinarski: Data curation (equal); Writing- review & editing (equal).
Reid Tingley: Data curat ion (equal); Writing- review & edi ting (equal).
Rod J. Fensham: Data curation (equal). Conrad J. Hoskin: Data cu-
ration (equal); Writing- review & editing (equal). Harry B. Hines:
Validation (equal); Writing- review & editing (equal). J. Dale Roberts:
Data curation (equal); Writing- review & editing (equal). Mark J.
Kennard: Validation (equal); Writing- review & editing (equal). Mark
S. Harvey: Data curation (equal); Writing- review & editing (equal).
David G. Chapple: Data curation (equal); Writing- review & editing
(equal). April E. Reside: Formal analysis (equal); Supervision (equal);
Writing- review & editing (equal).
|
11759
WARD et Al.
OPEN RESEARCH BADGES
This article has earned an Open Data Badge for making publicly
available the digit ally- shareable data necessary to reproduce the
reported results. The data is available at https://doi.org/10.6084/
m9.figsh are.13150 943.v1
DATA AVA ILAB ILITY STATE MEN T
The taxon– threat– impact dataset is available in the Appendix S1 or
via Figshare (https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figsh are.13150 943.v1).
Data for each group of taxa (i.e., mammals, birds, reptiles, frogs, in-
vertebrates, plants, and fish) are also provided in the dat a record to
enable group- specific interrogation of information.
ORCID
Michelle Ward https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0658-855X
REFERENCES
Allek, A., Assis, A. S., Eiras, N., Amaral, T. P., Williams, B., Butt, N., Renwick,
A. R., Bennett, J. R., & Beyer, H. L. (2018). The threat s endangering
Australia’s at- risk f auna. Biological Conservation, 222, 172– 179.
Barnosky, A. D., Matzke, N., Tomiya, S., Wogan, G. O. U., Swartz, B.,
Quental, T. B., Marshall, C., McGuire, J. L., Lindsey, E. L., Maguire,
K. C., Mersey, B., & Ferrer, E. A. (2011). Has the Earth’s sixth mass
extinction already arrived? Nature, 471, 51– 57.
Birdlife International (2018). Anthochaera phrygia. h t tp s://d o i .
o r g / 1 0 . 2 3 0 5 / I U C N . U K . 2 0 1 8 - 2 . R L T S . T 2 2 7 0 4 4 1 5 A 1 3 0 9 9 2 2 7 2 . e n
Black, K., Archer, M., Hand, M ., & Godthelp, H. (2012). Earth and life. In
J. Talent (Ed.), Internationa l Year of Planet Earth (p p. 1– 110 0) . Sp ri nger.
Black- throated Finch Recovery Team (2020). National recovery plan for
the Black- throated finch southern subspecies (Poephila cincta cincta).
Black- throated Finch Recovery Team.
Brooks, S., Butler, G., Kennard, M., & Espinoza, T. (2019). Maccullochella
mariensis (The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2019:
e.T122906177A123382286).
Burbidge, A., & Woinarski, J. (2020). Setonix brachyurus (amended ver-
sion of 2019 assessment). https://doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2020- 1.
RLTS.T2016 5A166 611530.en
Cattarino, L., Hermoso, V., C arwardine, J., Adams, V. M., Kennard, M.
J., & Linke, S. (2018). Information uncertainty influences con-
servation outcomes when prioritizing multi- action management
efforts. Journal of Applied Ecology, 55, 2171– 2180. https://doi.
org /10.1111/1365- 2664.13147
Cattarino, L., Hermoso, V., Carwardine, J., Kennard, M., & Linke, S.
(2015). Multi- Action Planning for Threat Management: A Novel
Approach for the Spatial Prioritization of Conservation Actions.
PLoS One, 10(5), e0128027. https://doi.org/10.1371/journ al.pone.
0128027
Ceballos, G., Ehrlich, P. R., Barnosk y, A . D., García, A ., Pringle, R. M., &
Palmer, T. M. (2015). Accelerated modern human– induced species
losses: Entering the sixth mass extinction. Science Advances, 1(5),
e1400253. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.1400253
Ceballos, G., Ehrlich, P. R., & Raven, P. H. (2020). Vertebrates on the brink
as indic ators of biological annihilation and the sixth mass extinction.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of
America, 117, 13596– 13602.
Chapman, A. D. (2009). Numbers of Living Species in Australia and the
World (2nd edn). Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage
and the Arts.
Chapple, D., Tingley, R., Mitchell, N., Macdonald, S., Keogh, S., Shea, G.,
Bowles, P., & Cox, N. (2017). The action plan for Australian lizards and
snaks. CSIRO Publishing.
Commonwealth of Australia (2014). Tackling feral cats and their impact.
Commonwealth of Australia.
Commonwealth of Australia (2019). Australian landforms and their history.
Available at https://www.ga.gov.au/scien tific - topic s/natio nal- locat
i o n - i n f o r m a t i o n / l a n d f o r m s / a u s t r a l i a n - l a n d f o r m s - a n d - t h e i r - h i s t o r y
Commonwealth of Australia (2020). Threatened Species Scientific
Committee. Available at https://www.envir onment.gov.au/biodi versi
ty/threa tened/ tssc#:~:text=T h e T h r e a t e n e d S p e c i e s S c i e n t i f i c C o m m i
tteet heMin ister forth eEnvi ronment
Commonwealth of Australia (2021). Species profile and threats database.
Dep. Energy Environ. Available at http://www.envir onment.gov.au/
c g i - b i n / s p r a t / p u b l i c / s p r a t . p l
Commonwealth of Australia (2021). EPBC Act List of Threatened Species.
Available at http://www.envir onment.gov.au/cgi- bin/sprat/ publi c/
publi cthre atene dlist.pl?wante d=fauna
Crisp, M. D., Burrows, G . E., Cook, L . G., Thornhill, A. H., & Bowman, D.
M. J. S. (2011). Flammable biomes dominated by eucalypts originated
at the Cretaceous- Palaeogene boundary. Nature Communications, 2,
2– 9. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomm s1191
Cross, S. L., Tomlinson, S., Craig, M. D., Dixon , K . W., & Bateman, P. W.
(2019). Overlooked and undervalued: The neglected role of fauna
and a global bias in ecological restoration assessments. Pacific
Conservation Biology, 25, 331– 341.
Department of the Environment (2013) Matters of national environmental
significance: Significant impact Guildelines EPBC Act 1999. Department
of the Environment.
Department of the Environment (2015). Threat abatement plan for pre-
dation by feral cats. Commonw. Aust. Available at http://www.envir
o n m e n t . g o v . a u / b i o d i v e r s i t y / t h r e a t e n e d / t a p - a p p r o v e d . h t m l
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act (1999).
Australian Government Department of Sustainability Environment
Water Population and Communities.
Evans, M. C. (2016). Deforestation in Australia: Drivers, trends and pol-
icy responses. Pacific Conservation Biology, 22, 130– 150. https://doi.
org /10.1071/PC15 052
Garnet t, S. T., & Baker, G. B. (2021).Action Plan for Australian Birds 2020.
CSIRO Publishing.
Garnet t, S. T., Butchart, S. H. M., Baker, G. B., Bayraktarov, E., Buchanan,
K. L., Burbidge, A. A., Chauvenet, A. L. M., Christidis, L., Ehmke, G.,
Grace, M., Hoccom, D. G., Legge, S. M., Leiper, I., Lindenmayer, D. B.,
Loyn, R. H., Maron, M., McDonald, P., Menkhorst, P., Possingham, H.
P., … Geyle, H. M. (2019). Metrics of progress in the understanding
and management of threats to Australian birds. Conservation Biology,
33, 456– 468.
Geyle, H. M., Braby, M. F., Andren, M., Beaver, E. P., Bell, P., Byrne,
C., Castles, M., Douglas, F., Glatz, R. V., Hay wood, B., Hendr y, P.,
Kitching, R. L., Lambkin, T. A., Meyer, C. E., Moore, M. D., Moss, J. T.,
Nally, S., New, T. R., Palmer, C. M., … Garnett, S. T. (2021). Butter flies
on the brink: Identif ying the Australian but terflies (Lepidoptera)
most at risk of extinction. Australian Entomology, 60, 98– 110.
Geyle, H. M., Tingley, R., Amey, A . P., Cogger, H., Couper, P. J., Cowan,
M., Craig, M. D., Doughty, P., Driscoll, D. A ., Ellis, R. J., Emer y, J.- P.,
Fenner, A., Gardner, M. G., Garnett, S. T., Gillespie, G. R., Greenlees,
M. J., Hoskin, C. J., Keogh , J. S., Lloyd, R., … Chapple, D. G . (2021).
Reptiles on the brink: Identifying the Australian terrestrial snake an d
lizard species mos t at risk of extinction. Pacific Conservation Biology,
27, 3– 12.
Geyle, H. M., Woinarski, J. C. Z., Baker, G. B., Dickman, C. R., Dutson,
G., Fisher, D. O., Ford, H., Holdsworth, M., Jones, M. E., Kutt, A.,
Legge, S., Leiper, I., Loyn, R ., Murphy, B. P., Menkhorst, P., Reside,
A. E., Ritchie, E. G., Roberts, F. E., Tingley, R., & Garnett, S. T. (2018).
11760
|
WARD et A l.
Quantif ying extinction risk and forecasting the number of impending
Australian bird and mammal extinctions. Pacific Conservation Biology,
24, 157– 167.
Gillespie, G. R., Roberts, J. D., Hunter, D., Hoskin, C. J., Alford, R. A.,
Heard, G. W., Hines, H., Lemckert, F., Newell, D., & Scheele, B. C.
(2020). Status and priority conservation actions for Australian
frog species. Biological Conservation, 247, 108543. https://doi.
org /10.1016/j.b iocon. 2020.10 854 3
Hadwen, W., Capon, S., Poloczanska, E., Rochester, W., Martin, T., Bay,
L., Pr atchet t, M., Green, J., Cook, B., Berry, A., Lolonde, A., & Fahey,
S. (2011). Coastal ecosystems response s to climate change. h t t p s : //
www.nccarf.edu.au/sites/ defau lt/files/ attac hed_files_publi catio ns/
Hadwen_2012_Coast al_ecosy stems_respo nses_to_clima te_change.
pdf
Heatwole, H., & Rowley, J. (2018). Status of Conservation and Decline
of Amphibians: Australia, New Zealand and Pacific Islands. CSIRO
Publishing.
IPBES (2018). Global assessment repor t on biodiversity and ecosystem ser-
vices of the Intergovernmental Science- Policy Platform on Biodiversity
and Ecosystem Services. IPBES.
IUCN (2012). Threat impact scoring system. Available at https://nc.iucnr
edlist.org/redli st/conte nt/attac hment_files/ Dec_2012_Guida nce_
on_Threat_Impact_Scori ng_Revis ed.pdf
IUCN (2012). Stresses Classification Scheme. Available at https://www.
iucnr edlist.org/resou rces/stres ses- class ifica tion- scheme
IUCN (2015). Threats Classification Scheme (Version 3.2). Availa bl e at htt ps://
w w w . I U C N . r e d l i s t . o r g / r e s o u r c e s / t h r e a t - c l a s s i f i c a t i o n - s c h e m e
IUCN (2018). International Union for Conservation of Nature Red List.
Available at http://www.iucn.org/%0Dabo ut/work/progr ammes/
speci es/red_list/
Johnson, C. (2006). Australia’s mammal extinctions: A 50,0 00 year history.
Cambridge University Press.
Kearney, S. G., Carwardine, J., Reside, A. E., Fisher, D. O., Maron, M.,
Doher ty, T. S., Legge, S., Silcock, J., Woinarski, J. C . Z., Garnet t, S. T.,
Wintle, B. A., & Watson, J. E. M. (2019). Corrigendum: The threats to
Australia’s imperilled species and implications for a national conser-
vation response. Pacific Conservation Biology, 25, 231– 244.
Kearney, S. G., Watson, J. E. M., Reside, A. E., Fisher, D. O., Maron,
M., Doherty, T. S., Legge, S. M ., Woinarski, J. C. Z., Garnett, S. T.,
Wintle, B. A., Ritchie, E. G ., Driscoll, D. A., Lindenmayer, D., Adams,
V. M., Ward, M. S., & Carwardine, J. (2020). Novel Threat- Abatement
Framework Confirms an Urgent Need to Limit Habit at Loss and
Improve Management of Invasive Species and Inappropriate Fire
Regimes for Austr alia’s Threatened Species. Preprints. 2020100372.
Kuiper, T. R., & Parker, D. M. (2013). G rass height is the determinant of
sheep grazing effec ts on small mammals in a savanna ecosystem.
Rangel Journal, 35, 403– 4 08.
Legge, S., Smith, J. G., James, A., Tuft, K. D., Webb, T., & Woinarski, J. C. Z.
(2019). Interactions among threats affect conservation management
outcomes: Livestock grazing removes the benefits of fire manage-
ment for small mammals in Australian tropical savannas. Conservation
Science and Practice, 1. e52. https://doi.org/10.1111/csp2.52
Legge, S., Nimmo, D., Scheele, B., Lintermans, M., Mitchell, N., & Ferris, J.
(2020). Rapid analysis of impac ts of the 2019- 20 fires on animal species ,
and prioritisation of species for management response – preliminary re-
port. Commonwealth of Australia.
Lindenmayer, D. (2014). Forests, forestry and forest management. In
D. Lindenmayer, S. Morton, & S. Dover s (Eds). Ten Commitments
Revisited: Securing Australia’s Future Environment. (pp. 43– 49). CSIRO
PUBLISHING.
Lindenmayer, D., Steffen, W., Burbidge, A. A ., Hughes, L., Kitching, R.,
Musgrave, W., Smith, M. S., & Werner, P. A. (2010). Conservation
strategies in response to r apid climate change: Australia as a
case study. Biological Conservation, 14 3, 1587– 1593. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.biocon.2010.04.014
Li nte rma ns, M. (2 013 ). A re vie w of on - g rou nd re cov ery acti ons fo r thre at-
ened freshwater fish in Australia. Marine & Freshwater Re search, 64,
775– 791. https://doi.org/10 .1071/MF12306
Lintermans, M. (2013). Conservation and Management. In P. Humphries,
& K. Walker (Eds.). The ecolog y of Australian freshwater fishes.
(pp. 283– 296). CSIRO Publishing.
Lintermans, M., & Allan, H. (2019). Galaxias tantangara (The IUCN Red
List of Threatened Species 2019: e.T122903246A1233 82161).
Lintermans, M., Geyle, H., Beatty, S., Brown, C., Ebner, B., Freeman,
R., Hammer, M., Humphreys, W., Kennard, M., Kern, P., Martin,
K., Morgan, D., Raadik, T., Unmack, P., Wager, R., Woinarski, J., &
Garnet t, S. (2020). Big trouble for little fish: Identif ying Australian
freshwater fishes in imminent risk of extinction. Pacific Conservation
Biology, 26(4), 365. https://doi.org/10.1071/PC19053
Lumsden, L., & Jemison, M. (2015) National Re covery Plan for the Sou thern
Bent- wing Bat Miniopterus schreibersii bassanii. Commonwealth of
Australia.
Maxwell, S. L., Fuller, R. A., Brooks, T. M., & Watson, J. E. M. (2016).
Biodiversity: The r avages of guns, net s and bulldozers. Nature, 536,
143– 145. htt ps ://doi .org /10.1038/53 6143 a
Mittermeier, C. G., & Mittermeier, R. A. (1997). Megadiversity: Earth’s
Biologically Wealthiest Nations. CEMEX.
NSW Government (2010). Australia 50,000 years ago. Available at ht tp://
w w w . m i g r a t i o n h e r i t a g e . n s w . g o v . a u / o b j e c t s - t h r o u g h - t i m e / e s s a y
s/50000 - years - befor e- prese nt/index.html#:~:text=Thefi rstAb origi
n a l p e o p l e a r r i v e d , e x c h a n g i n g i d e a s % 2 C t e c h n o l o g y a n d c u l t u r e
Pimm, S. L., Jenkins, C. N., Abell, R., Brook s, T. M., Gittleman, J. L., Joppa,
L. N., Raven, P. H., Roberts, C. M., & Sexton, J. O. (2014). The bio-
diversity of species and their rates of extinction, distribution, and
protection. Science, 344, 1246752 .
Pullin, A., Frampton, G., Jongman, R., Kohl, C., Livoreil, B., Lux, A.,
Pataki, G., Petrokofsky, G., Podhora, A., Saarikoski, H., Santamaria,
L., Schindler, S., Sousa- Pinto, I., Vandewalle, M., & Wittmer, H.
(2016). Selecting appropriate methods of knowledge synthesis
to inform biodiversity policy. Biodiversity and Conservation, 25,
1 2 8 5 – 1 3 0 0 .
Salafsky, N ., Salzer, D., Stattersfield, A. J., Hilton- Taylor, C., Neugar ten,
R., Butchart, S. H. M., Collen, B., Cox, N., Master, L. L., O'connor, S., &
Wilkie, D. (2008). A Standard Lexicon for Biodiversity Conser vation:
Unified Classifications of Threats and Actions. Conservation Biology,
22, 897– 911. htt ps://doi. org/10 .1111/j.1523- 1739.200 8.0 0937.x
Silcock, J. L., & Fensham, R. J. (2018). Using evidence of decline and
extinction risk to identify priority regions, habit ats and threats for
plant conservation in Austr alia. Australian Journal of Botany, 66,
541– 555.
Silcock, J. L., Field, A. R., Walsh, N. G., & Fensham, R. J. (2020). To name
those lost: Assessing extinction likelihood in the Australian vascular
flora. Oryx, 54, 167– 177.
Skerrat t, L., Berger, L., Speare, R., Cashins, S., McDonald, K., Phillott,
A., Hines , H., & Kenyon, N. (20 07). Spread of Chytridiomycosis Has
Caused the Rapid Global Decline and Ex tinction of Frogs. EcoHealth,
4, 125– 134.
Taylor, G. S., Braby, M. F., Moir, M. L., Har vey, M. S., Sands, D. P. A., New,
T. R., Kitching, R. L ., McQuillan, P. B., Hogendoorn, K., Glatz, R. V.,
Andren , M., Cook, J. M., Henry, S. C., Valenzuela, I., & Weins tein,
P. (2018). Strategic national approach for improving the conser va-
tion management of insect s and allied inver tebrates in Australia.
Australian Entomology, 57, 124– 149.
Tingley, R., Macdonald, S. L., Mitchell, N. J., Woinar ski, J. C. Z., Meiri,
S., Bowles, P., Cox, N. A., Shea, G. M., Böhm, M., Chanson, J.,
Tognelli, M. F., Harris, J., Walke, C., Harrison , N., Vic tor, S., Woods,
C., Amey, A. P., Bamford, M., & Catt, G. (2019). Geogr aphic and
taxonomic patterns of extinction risk in Australian squamates.
Biological Conservation, 238, 108 203 . ht tps://doi.o rg/10.1016/j.
biocon.2019.108203
|
11761
WARD et Al.
Ward, M., Simmonds, J. S., Reside, A. E., Wat son, J. E. M., Rhodes, J. R.,
Possingham, H. P., Trezise, J., Fletcher, R., File, L., & Taylor, M. (2019).
Lots of loss with little scrutiny: The attrition of habitat critical for
threatened species in Australia. Conser vation Science and Practice, 1,
e117.
Ward, M., Tulloch, A. I. T., R adford, J. Q., Williams, B. A., Reside, A . E.,
Macdonald, S. L ., Mayf ield, H. J., Maron , M., Possingham, H. P., Vine,
S. J., O’Connor, J. L ., Massingham, E. J., G reenville, A . C ., Woinarski,
J. C. Z., Garnett, S. T., Lintermans, M., Scheele, B. C., Carwardine,
J., Nimmo, D. G., … Watson, J. E. M. (2020). Impact of 2019– 2020
mega- fires on Australian fauna habitat. Nature Ecology and Evolution,
4, 1321– 1326.
Woinarski, J., & Burbidge, A . (2020). Phascolarctos cinereus (amended ver-
sion of 2016 assessment). https://doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2020- 1.
R L T S . T 1 6 8 9 2 A 1 6 6 4 9 6 7 7 9 . e n
Woinarski, J., Burbidge, A . A., & Harr ison, P. L. (2014). The action plan for
Australian mammals 2012/John CZ Woinarski, Andrew A Burbidge and
Peter Harrison. CSIRO Publishing.
Woinarski, J. C. Z., Burbidge, A . A., & Harrison, P. L. (2015). Ongoing un-
raveling of a continental fauna: Decline and extinction of Australian
mammals since European settlement. Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 112, 4531– 4540.
Woinarski, J. C . Z., Legge, S., Fitzsimons, J. A., Traill, B. J., Burbidge, A.
A., Fisher, A., Firth, R. S. C ., Gordon, I. J., Griffiths, A. D., Johnson, C .
N., McKenzie, N. L ., Palmer, C., Radford, I., Rankmore, B., Ritchie, E.
G., Ward, S., & Ziembicki, M. (2011). The disappearing mammal fauna
of northern Australia: Context, cause, and response. Conservation
Letter s, 4, 192– 201.
Wroe, S., Field, J. H., Archer, M., Grayson, D. K., Price, G. J., Louys, J.,
Faith, J. T., Webb, G . E., Davidson, I., & Mooney, S. D. (2013). Climate
change frames debate over the extinction of megafauna in Sahul
(Pleistocene Australia- New Guinea). Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences, 110 (22), 8777– 8781. ht tps://doi.org/10.1073/
p n a s . 1 3 0 2 6 9 8 1 1 0
Yiming, L. I., & Wilcove, D. S. (2005). Threats to Vertebrate Species in
China and the United States. BioScience, 55(2), 147– 153.
SUPPORTING INFORMATION
Additional supporting information may be found online in the
Supporting Information section.
How to cite this article: Ward, M., Carwardine, J., Yong, C. J.,
Watson, J. E. M., Silcock, J., Taylor, G. S., Lintermans, M.,
Gillespie, G. R., Garnett, S. T., Woinarski, J., Tingley, R.,
Fensham, R . J., Hoskin, C. J., Hines, H. B., Rober ts, J. D.,
Kennard, M. J., Harvey, M. S., Chapple, D. G., & Reside, A. E.
(2021). A national- scale dataset for threats impacting
Australia’s imperiled flora and fauna. Ecology and Evolution,
11, 11749– 11761. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.7920
Available via license: CC BY 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
