Goodfellow’s tree kangaroo joey – SWNS / Chester Zoo
Goodfellow’s tree kangaroo with baby joey – SWNS / Chester Zoo

Goodfellow’s tree kangaroo joey – SWNS / Chester Zoo
Goodfellow’s tree kangaroo with baby joey – SWNS / Chester Zoo

Cyrus the lion in preparation for transport – credit, Turpentine Creek Wildlife Refuge


credit – Adam Kay, Twycross Zoo / SWNS

Shennongjia virgin forest – credit, Evilbish CC BY-SA 3.0
Golden snub-nosed monkeys captured via camera trap – credit, eMammal CC 2.0. via Flickr

Orangutans by Getty Images for Unsplash+
A pearl-bordered fritillary – credit, Devon Wildlife Trust
Wetland habitat creation to benefit water vole – credit, Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust
Volunteers planting marsh violet – credit, Neil Harris, National Trust images
Columbina cyanopis, or the blue-eyed dove, in the Rolinha do Planalto Natural Reserve – credit, Hector Bottai CC BY-SA 4.0.Black and white rhino populations in the Greater Kruger (Kruger National Park and surrounding reserves) in South Africa have plummeted from over 10,000 rhinos in 2010 to around 2,600 in 2023. Hundreds of rhinos are killed each year by poachers for their horns. These are sold on the illegal global market.
Nature reserve managers, rangers, international funders, and local non-profit organisations have invested millions of dollars in anti-poaching interventions. These include tracking dogs to track poachers, artificial intelligence-enabled detection cameras, helicopters to monitor reserves and, more recently, dehorning (removing rhinos’ horns reduces the incentive for poachers).
To see if these were working, the Greater Kruger Environmental Protection Foundation set up a research project involving several reserve managers, rangers, and scientists from the University of Cape Town, Nelson Mandela University, University of Stellenbosch, and the University of Oxford.
The South African National Parks, World Wildlife Fund South Africa, and the Rhino Recovery Fund were also involved.
Together, managers and scientists gathered seven years of rhino poaching data across 2.4 million hectares in the north-eastern region of South Africa and western Mozambique. During this time, we documented the poaching of 1,985 rhinos across 11 reserves in the Greater Kruger area. This number is about 6.5% of the rhino populations in these reserves annually.
This landscape is a critical global stronghold that conserves around 25% of all Africa’s rhinos.
Our study’s headline result was that dehorning rhinos to reduce incentives for poaching achieved a 78% reduction in poaching (average reduction across implementing reserves). This was based on comparison between sites with and without dehorning as well as changes in poaching before and after dehorning. Exactly 2,284 rhinos were dehorned across eight reserves over the seven years of our research – this was most of the rhino in the region.
Our findings show that significant progress can be made against rhino poaching by reducing the reward attached to poaching (removing the horn). This is a strategic shift in focus away from purely focusing on increasing risks to poachers.
But we are being careful to note that dehorning is not a complete solution. Our research found that 111 rhinos were poached even though they had been dehorned. This is because up to 15cm of horn is left on the rhino when it is dehorned by veterinarians. This is to protect the growth plate at the base of the horn.
Rhinos’ horns regrow over time. During our fieldwork, we also noticed that criminal syndicates remain willing to kill rhinos for their stumps, even if they do this at lower rates than before dehorning.
It may be best to think of dehorning as a very effective but short-term solution that buys us time to address the more ultimate drivers of poaching: horn demand, socio-economic inequality, corruption, and organised criminal networks.
Part of what made our study special was its strong focus on collaboration between managers and scientists. The project was first conceived by reserve managers at the frontline of rhino conservation and led by Sharon Haussmann, chief executive officer of the Greater Kruger Environmental Protection Foundation. They recognised the need to take a look at whether their investments into tracking dogs, artificial intelligence cameras and other anti-poaching interventions were paying off.
Faced with a poaching crisis despite millions of dollars invested in law enforcement, security and technology, Sharon and the team were bold enough to ask: “Why are we still losing so many rhinos? What could we do differently?” These managers then began working closely with scientists to tackle this problem together through our research.
Tragically, Sharon died unexpectedly on 31 May, less than a week before our research was published. We want to dedicate this research to her legacy.
The nature reserves we studied had invested US$74 million (R1 billion) in anti-poaching interventions between 2017 and 2021. Most of the investment focused on reactive law enforcement – rangers, tracking dogs, helicopters, access controls and detection cameras. This helped achieve over 700 poacher arrests. Yet we found no statistical evidence that these interventions significantly reduced poaching.
Why? These interventions are a necessary element of the anti-poaching toolkit. But they were compromised by bigger challenges. For example, stark socio-economic inequality in the region creates the ideal conditions for crime to thrive, and criminal syndicates find it easy to recruit people willing to take the large risk of poaching rhino.
Entrenched corruption among police and reserve staff allowed offenders access to inside information on the locations of dogs, cameras and rhinos. This meant that poaching was not deterred as much as it could have been.
Finally, ineffective criminal justice systems mean that arrested offenders often escape punishment, with evidence from the Greater Kruger of poachers who were multiple repeat offenders.
A range of interventions will be needed to complement dehorning, particularly as poaching for stumps would probably continue if there were no risk to poachers. There is also some evidence that dehorning rhino in one area means poachers may move to another area where rhino still have horns and poach there instead. (This has happened in South Africa’s second largest rhino stronghold in Hluhluwe-iMfolozi Park where rhino have not been dehorned.)
Our findings challenge the conventional wisdom that detecting and arresting poachers is enough on its own. Instead, we recommend these measures:
Give local people a voice and a stake. Many people affected by rhino conservation have no say and don’t share in the benefits of the industry.
Disrupt transnational criminal networks outside protected areas through intelligence-led investigations (follow the money).
Continue supporting dehorning in the short term. This will buy time to solve the biggest drivers of wildlife crime: inequality, horn demand, and corruption.
Dehorning needs to be supported by other measures to protect the rhino.
Support people first, then interventions. Rangers are key here – their welfare, wages, training and safety are not always given the attention or funding they deserve.
Keep loving rhinos and buying your kids pyjamas with them on.![]()
Timothy Kuiper, Senior Lecturer - Biodiversity and Statistics, Nelson Mandela University
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Humans are causing enormous damage to the Earth, and about one million plant and animal species are now at risk of extinction. Keeping track of what’s left is vital to conserving biodiversity.
Biodiversity monitoring helps document changes in animal and plant populations. It tells us whether interventions, such as controlling feral predators, are working. It also helps experts decide if a species is at risk of extinction.
However, long-term biodiversity monitoring can be expensive and time consuming – and it is chronically underfunded. This means monitoring is either not done at all, or only done in a small part of the range of a species.
Our new research shows these limitations can produce an inaccurate picture of how a species is faring. This is a problem for conservation efforts, and Australia’s new “nature repair market”. It’s also a problem for Australia’s unique and vulnerable biodiversity.
Biodiversity monitoring involves looking for a plant or animal species, or traces of it, and recording what was found, as well as when and where.
Depending on the species, scientists might physically count individual plants or animals, or review sound or video recordings. Or they might look for evidence of an animal’s presence, such as scats (poos).
But long-term monitoring programs can be challenging to maintain. Robust programs typically require money, and a lot of time and expertise. A lack of funding means monitoring programs are often short lived or conducted across a small geographic area.
Such limitations can mean the results do not reflect the trajectory of a species across its entire range. We decided to test how this problem might be playing out in Australia, with monitoring of birds.
Our new study focused on 18 common species of birds. We have monitored them (and hundreds of other bird species) for more than two decades across more than 570 sites in Australia’s southeast. The programs aimed to gauge how the birds responded to threats such as bushfires and logging, as well as conservation efforts such as vegetation restoration.
But we used the monitoring results for a different purpose. We wanted to know if different populations of the same species showed similar patterns of change. As a hypothetical example, did a group of crimson rosellas in one area increase in size at the same rate as a group of crimson rosellas living 150 kilometres away?
Answering this question is important. If all populations show the same pattern of change over time, then the trends from a single population would serve as a good indicator for other populations.
But if there are strong differences in patterns between populations, then a single monitoring program in the middle of a species’ range would not accurately indicate how that species is faring at the edge of its range, or overall.
The 18 bird species we examined in detail included – aside from the crimson rosella – the red wattlebird, grey shrike-thrush, superb fairy-wren and brown thornbill.
We discovered marked differences in how many individuals of a species were detected in different parts of its range. For example, some populations of the grey shrike thrush were stable, others increased, and yet another declined steeply.
We also wanted to determine if there were ways to predict which populations of a given species might be more likely to be increasing or decreasing.
For example, if the monitoring program was at the centre of a species’ distribution – where the climate and food availability was optimal – a population there might be expected to be increasing faster than populations at the edge of that species’ distribution, where conditions could be less suitable.
Surprisingly, however, we found no evidence to support this hypothesis.
We also thought particular traits of a bird species, such as diet or body size, might affect whether numbers were rising, falling, or steady.
For instance, small bush birds might be more likely to decline due to being killed by predators or losing the competition for food to larger birds. Conversely, we expected that larger birds might be more resilient and their numbers more likely to increase. But again, we found no evidence of this.
These results indicate it is difficult to predict in advance which populations of a species will be declining versus those that are increasing or stable. It means scientists can’t reliably use such predictions when determining which parts of a species’ distribution should be monitored.
Our findings suggest that to get an accurate picture of a species’ overall trend, monitoring should cover, at a minimum, several populations of that species in different parts of its overall distribution. Importantly, this information can help identify those locations where populations are declining and conservation programs are needed.
And where a species is declining everywhere it is monitored, we should be extremely concerned. It shows a need for decisive conservation action. A species should not be allowed to go extinct while it is being observed, as occurred with the Christmas Island Pipistrelle bat.
Biodiversity monitoring in Australia is, overall, extremely poor. However, some excellent biodiversity monitoring programs do exist.
They include one on native mammals in south-west Western Australia and another on waterbirds across large parts of inland Australia. These programs demonstrate what’s possible when funding and resources are adequate.
The federal government is currently setting up Australia’s new “nature repair market”. Under the scheme, those who run projects to restore and protect the environment are rewarded financially. But how will we know if these projects are successful and biodiversity is increasing? Only monitoring can answer this question.
If the nature repair market is to be credible, Australia must markedly lift its game on biodiversity monitoring. Otherwise, environmental gains under the scheme may be purely fictional.![]()
David Lindenmayer, Professor, Fenner School of Environment and Society, Australian National University; Benjamin Scheele, Research Fellow in Ecology, Australian National University; Elle Bowd, Research Fellow, Fenner School of Environment and Society, Australian National University, and Maldwyn John Evans, Senior Research Fellow, Fenner School of Environment and Society, Australian National University
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Twycross Zoo’s new red-fronted macaws – SWNS
By Frank Wouters (originally posted to Flickr as papegaai, CC-by-2)Brandon Michael Sideleau, Charles Darwin University
On January 4 this year, a three-metre saltwater crocodile heaved itself out of the water and up the beach. Nothing unusual about that – except this croc was on Legian Beach, one of Bali’s most popular spots. The emaciated reptile later died.
Only four months later, a large crocodile killed a man who was spearfishing with friends in Lombok’s Awang Bay, about 100 kilometres east of Bali. Authorities caught it and transferred it to captivity.
You might not associate crocodiles with Bali. But the saltwater crocodile once roamed most of Indonesia’s waters, and attacks are still common in some regions. I have been collecting records of crocodilian attacks since 2010, as the creator of the worldwide database CrocAttack. What’s new is that they’re beginning to return to areas where they were wiped out.
Does this mean tourists and residents should be wary? It’s unlikely these islands can host anywhere near the same population densities as the wide, fish-filled rivers of Australia’s tropical north. And in Bali, it’s unlikely we’ll see any crocodile recovery because of the importance of beaches to tourism and a high human population.
This 4.6-metre saltwater crocodile was captured in Lombok after the fatal attack in May. Bali Reptile Rescue, CC BY-NDSaltwater crocodiles (Crocodylus porosus) are also known as estuarine crocodiles, as they prefer to live in mangrove-lined rivers. They’re the largest living reptile, reaching up to seven metres in length – far larger than Indonesia’s famous Komodo dragon, which tops out at three metres.
Historically, crocodiles lived throughout the Indonesian archipelago. We have records of attacks on humans in Bali from the early 20th century and across much of Java until the 1950s. Even Indonesia’s capital, Jakarta, had crocodiles resident in many rivers running through the city.
Crocodiles in Bali and Lombok were killed off by the mid-20th century, and later across Java. But they survived in more remote parts of the island nation.
Salties are now being regularly sighted in Indonesia’s densely populated island of Java, including in seas off Jakarta. At least 70 people are killed by crocs every year across the archipelago, with the highest numbers of attacks being reported from the Bangka-Belitung islands off Sumatra and the provinces of East Kalimantan, East Nusa Tenggara, and Riau.
These incidents means numbers are increasing. But recovery may not be as significant as it seems.
On many Indonesian islands, there’s very limited mangrove habitat suitable for crocodiles, and many creeks and rivers may be naturally too small for more than a small number of them. Even a small population recovery could quickly fill up the croc capacity of estuaries and creeks. These crocodiles are the most territorial of all crocodilians. Dominant males push out smaller male crocodiles, who set out in search of new habitat.
To date, Indonesia’s crocodile surveys reveal mostly small and low-density populations. But even the arrival of a single crocodile into human territory can spark conflict – and threaten the conservation of the species.
Worldwide, saltwater crocodiles are listed as a species of least concern on the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species, thanks to their full population recovery in parts of northern Australia after hunting was banned in the early 1970s. But in Cambodia, Thailand, and Vietnam the species is extinct.
Even in sparsely populated northern Australia, there’s still conflict between humans and crocs, though this conflict is comparatively rare. In Indonesia, the problem is compounded by a massive human population which puts pressure on crocodile habitat.
You might look at a map and think crocodiles moving back into Bali are coming from Australia. But there is currently no evidence of significant crocodile movement between Australia and Indonesia. It would be a brave crocodile to swim more than 1,000 kilometres from Australia to Bali.
What we are likely witnessing is a crocodile exodus from nearby areas, though we would need to do genetic analysis to prove it. That’s because the surviving croc population centres are much closer than Australia. For Bali and Lombok, crocodiles are likely migrating from the islands to the east, such as Flores, Lembata, Sumba and Timor.
The most likely source of Java’s crocodile arrivals is southern Sumatra, which is less than 30km from Java at its nearest. This area has long been prone to crocodile attacks.
Earlier this month, a relatively large crocodile was photographed basking on a large fish trap in West Lombok, less than 50km from the tourist hotspot of the Gili Islands.
The spike in sightings and attacks suggests we’re going to have to find ways of living alongside these reptiles. The coastal waters and estuaries of Lombok and western Java are now likely home to a small resident population.
What can be done to prevent attacks? First, people have to know that crocs are back. Increasing crocodile awareness and caution is vital to save lives.
Some researchers believe attacks on us and our livestock get more likely if mangroves have been destroyed or fishing grounds fished out. Protecting crocodile habitat and prey species can both secure the future of the species and cut the risk of attacks.
Does it mean you should cancel your next Bali trip? No. While restoration efforts have brought back tracts of mangroves along some coastlines in Bali, the sheer popularity of the island means it’s unlikely any crocodile population will ever be reestablished there.
But we could well see crocodiles slowly return to less populated parts of Java and Lombok. While that may fill us with anxiety, they’re a vital part of the ecosystem. Crocodiles are meant to be there. ![]()
Brandon Michael Sideleau, PhD student studying human-saltwater crocodile conflict, Charles Darwin University
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.