ARS Conference 2026: Abstract Sneak Peeks

August 12, 2026

---

Conservation in Kruger National Park and the advantages of having an embedded research unit as a key component

Cathy Greaver – Savanna Research Unit, South African National Parks (SANParks), Cathy.Greaver@sanparks.org

Conservation in the iconic Kruger National Park has a rich and dynamic history which, over time, has facilitated and contributed to shaping of the Conservation mandate in South Africa. The Kruger National Park also reached its centenary milestone in May 2026 presenting a unique opportunity to showcase how the management decisions made in the Kruger National Park over the decades has enabled much learning and opportunities for adaptive management. 

The story of South Africa’s national parks and its embedded science stretch all the way back to the 1950s when the first biologist Dr TG Nel was appointed in Kruger National Park, tasked to establish a research section. Key highlights reflect on how Science in South African National Parks has evolved over time with Scientific Services, being <2% of the organisation, as the primary department driving research and development in South African National Parks. The focus on investing in and growing and grooming human capacity (including training young scientists, supportive mentorship, and diversifying the team and its capabilities) and the unique science culture with its relational capital within the organisation ensures the health and vibrancy of SANParks’ science. An important reflection from this journey is that conservation science is not just about collecting or analysing data. From long-term fire experiments to aerial surveys in animal population surveys, from place-based social-ecological research to international conferences, SANParks’ science is one bridge between society and nature that is locally relevant and internationally recognised. It connects people, ideas, and values to sustain parks, biodiversity, and communities in a rapidly changing world.

Managing Land for Biodiversity: 25 Years of Australian Wildlife Conservancy in the Rangelands

RL Diete¹, SF Cameron¹, P Kern^1,2, LN Joseph¹ and J Kanowski¹

¹ Australian Wildlife Conservancy, rebecca.diete@australianwildlife.org; ² Harry Butler Institute, Murdoch University

Conserving biodiversity across Australia’s rangelands requires action at vast spatial scales, often across multiple land tenures, and in landscapes where threatening processes interact in complex ways. Drawing on 25 years of conservation management across nearly 7 million hectares, we examine how Australian Wildlife Conservancy’s approach to rangeland conservation has evolved in response to these challenges. Our experience demonstrates that no single intervention is sufficient. Effective conservation requires the sustained and adaptive integration of species recovery, fire management, invasive species control and ecological monitoring, implemented at ecologically meaningful scales. Safe havens remain essential for species unable to persist with introduced predators, while emerging beyond-the-fence translocations are testing pathways to recovery for species capable of persistence under sustained predator suppression. At landscape scales, interactions among fire, introduced herbivores, habitat condition and predation highlight the need to manage threats as interconnected processes rather than in isolation. Delivering such programs across the rangelands increasingly depends on enduring partnerships with First Nations organisations, governments and pastoral enterprises. We argue that the next phase of rangeland conservation must move beyond individual projects and threats towards integrated, cross-tenure conservation systems capable of adapting to ecological change.

What have we really learned? Fifty years of rangeland management in Western Australia

IW Watson¹, AM Holm², DG Burnside³, JG Morrissey⁴, AL Payne⁵ and PWE Thomas⁶

¹ CSIRO Agriculture and Food, ian.watson@csiro.au; ²aholm@bigpond.net.au; ³don.burnside@iinet.net.au; ⁴tumamo@bigpond.com; ⁵alan.payne@optusnet.com.au

Our story begins in the 1950s when rangeland advisers, Kevin Fitzgerald, Hank Suijdendorp and David Wilcox, were posted by the WA Department of Agriculture to the Kimberley, Pilbara and Murchison to assist the pastoral industry. They faced a landscape already degraded in many areas by overuse and limited knowledge by both government and the industry of the art and science of rangeland management. Pastoral industries in these regions experienced reduced productivity and sought solutions. A truly daunting undertaking by our forebearers and the over 350 men and women who followed them. 

From the start we pursued the ideal that ‘looking after country’ would be financially rewarded. While all our work in ecological research, landscape description, landscape rehabilitation and animal production was focused on this, few pastoralists embraced, or even believed it, and for the most part there was inadequate evidence of economic rewards for conservative management.

Government (as well as industry) objectives at the time were more focused on boosting productivity than on caring for the land. Our employer, the Department of Agriculture relied on extension, rather than regulation, to change management behaviour in the pastoral lands. With some exceptions, this was generally ineffective. In latter years, we sought no formal imprimatur for our main tool of monitoring and while lease inspection was accorded high priority, no procedures were in place to ensure recommended management conditions were addressed. Consequently, we had little or no impact either on lease scale management or on the overall administration of the pastoral estate which covers 40% of the state.

A key and enduring conclusion from our research on effects of grazing in grasslands and shrublands is that pastoralism practiced at conservative stocking rates is a benign user of rangeland resources and is to be encouraged. Conversely, in areas where conservative stocking is no longer economically viable pastoralism ceases to be an acceptable land use.

Updating Plants of Western New South Wales and the emerging role of citizen science for documenting rangeland biodiversity

T. Mesaglio¹, T. Mason², G. Taseski³ and F. Hemmings³

¹ Evolution and Ecology Research Centre, School of Biological, Earth and Environmental Sciences, UNSW Sydney, Thomas.Mesaglio@csiro.au; ² Science and Insights Division, NSW Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water; and ³ Centre for Ecosystem Science, School of Biological, Earth and Environmental Sciences, UNSW Sydney

First published in 1981, Plants of Western New South Wales by Cunningham, Mulham, Milthorpe and Leigh has for decades been the seminal guide to the flora of the arid and semi-arid regions of New South Wales that make up almost half of the state. The book is used by ecologists, taxonomists, pastoralists and many others to help identify plants and check information on their ecology, uses, and stock palatability. However, the most recent edition was published in 1992; in the 35 years since, there have been considerable changes to taxonomy, many new discoveries and newly described species, and general improvements to our understanding of this flora. 

We are producing a fully revised, updated edition of Plants of Western New South Wales that will include almost 1,000 additional taxa, thousands of high quality field images and line illustrations, fully updated taxonomy, and more information on the ecology and uses for many of these species, providing an comprehensive resource for not only readers from New South Wales, but also those in adjacent arid areas of Victoria, South Australia and Queensland. 

In addition to the herbarium specimens that form the backbone of guides like Plants of Western New South Wales, the emergence of the citizen science platform iNaturalist over the last decade has also provided an invaluable additional source of field images and biodiversity occurrence data, including new discoveries and range extensions for many species in the region. Combining herbarium data with iNaturalist records provides the most comprehensive and clearest picture of the flora of western New South Wales. In particular, the increasing use of iNaturalist across the rangelands of New South Wales (and across Australia more broadly) has allowed the massive expansion of data collection from private property that has otherwise historically been undersurveyed, greatly improving the resolution of distribution data.   

Set stocking doesn’t cut it with a variable climate!!  – latest findings from Wambiana Grazing Trial

PJ O’Reagain ¹, JJ Bushell¹ and AA Anderson² 

¹ Department of Primary Industries (DPI, peter.oreagain@dpi.qld.gov.au; Charters Towers; ² DPI, Gayndah QLD 

Interannual variability in rainfall and forage supply is a major management challenge in  northern Australia. To address this issue we established a large grazing trial in 1997 to assess the relative performance of different strategies to manage for this variability. 

The trial is on Wambiana station, Charters Towers, Queensland. Strategies tested were heavy stocking (HSR: 4 – 5 ha/AE [animal equivalent: 1 AE=450 kg steer]), moderate stocking (MSR: 8 – 10 ha/AE), rotational wet season spelling (R/Spell: 8 – 10 ha/AE), flexible (Flex) stocking (4 – 20 ha/AE) and flexible stocking with wet season spelling (Flex+Spell). Strategies were replicated twice using 100 ha paddocks stocked with brahman steers. Animals were weighed and the density of 3P (palatable, perennial and productive) grasses assessed annually. 

Rainfall varied markedly over the trial period (246 to 1223 mm) with drought feeding required in the HSR in seven years out of 27 (Table 1) but only once in the other strategies. In 2022/23 the HSR, R/Spell and MSR had to be destocked due to the shortage of forage. Average individual live weight gain (LWG) was lowest in the HSR. Total LWG/ha was highest in the HSR, but gross margin lowest due to reduced product value and higher costs (Table 1). The two flexible stocking strategies were as profitable as the MSR and R/Spell but avoided the need to destock in 2022/23. Land condition, indexed by 3 P grass density, was lowest in the HSR and highest in the Flex+Spell strategy.

Table 1. Average (+/-standard error) liveweight gain (LWG) per steer, LWG per hectare (ha), gross margin (GM) per ha and the number of years drought feeding was needed over the trial period. The density of 3 P grasses after 27 years is also shown. 

Heavy stocking is a high risk, unprofitable strategy that will reduce land condition. Fixed, moderate stocking strategies are more profitable and lower risk, but stocking rates need to be adjusted to match forage availability. Climate variability should be managed using flexible stocking in a pro-active, risk averse manner coupled with regular wet season spelling.