Aboriginal rangers co-lead night parrot conservation: background, survey effort and success in Western Australia 2017–2023

Introduction

The historical relationship between Indigenous peoples and conservation science worldwide is complex, with many examples of conservation estate and projects causing significant negative impacts on Indigenous people (e.g. Colchester 2004; Domínguez and Luoma 2020). This can be counter-productive, because Indigenous controlled land is critically important to biodiversity worldwide and cultural land management can improve on, or indeed be more effective outright, in conserving biodiversity (Corrigan et al. 2018; O’Bryan et al. 2021; Estrada et al. 2022). Hence, there is increasing focus on forming and maintaining respectful partnerships between Indigenous and conservation science partners. This allows better integration and prioritisation of Indigenous people, their authority over Country, and their knowledge systems and practice to achieve mutual benefits (Tran et al. 2020; Ens et al. 2021).

There has been strong growth in these ‘cross-cultural’, ‘right-way’ or ‘two-way’ conservation relationships in Australia (Ens and Turpin 2022), aided greatly by investment in Indigenous ranger teams by Australian State and Federal governments (Pert et al. 2020). In many cases this has moved beyond mere participation (Guibrunet et al. 2021) and now includes examining how indicators of success are prioritised and monitored (Campion et al. 2023), the importance of Indigenous observers in research (Ward-Fear et al. 2019), sovereignty over data (Reyes-García et al. 2022), conservation decision-making processes and project governance (Godden and Cowell 2016) and how these relationships can be better enshrined in environmental legislation (Goolmeer et al. 2022a, 2022b).

Biodiversity conservation in Australia tends to prioritise the targeted conservation of threatened species. This contrasts with the Indigenous approach, which is more holistically focused on Country, culture and people, in line with complex traditional concepts (Duncan et al. 2018; Guernsey et al. 2021). Successful two-way threatened species projects are underpinned by understanding and supporting the commonalities and differences in priorities of these two approaches (Paltridge and Skroblin 2018). For example, ‘threatened-species’ can be a common priority where a species is both threatened and culturally significant, or have differing priorities when locally scarce and culturally significant species are not considered ‘threatened’ at a State or national level (Goolmeer et al. 2022a). Successful collaborative threatened species projects place the targeted conservation actions required within the broader context of Country, by also assisting the protection of landscapes, communities, cultural practice and knowledge.

Respectful two-way science relationships become more complex where threatened species have large ranges that overlap with several Traditional Owner groups, government departments, researchers and other land holders, requiring regional networking as well. One such species is the night parrot (Pezoporus occidentalis), where there has been increasing effort in two-way conservation by multiple ranger groups, scientists and land managers. This paper outlines our efforts and results of Western Australian ranger groups surveying for night parrots from 2017 to 2023, and the nature of the two-way science relationships that supported them.

The night parrot

The night parrot (Pezoporus occidentalis) is listed as Endangered under federal legislation (EPBC Act 1999), and as Critically Endangered by the IUCN (IUCN 2024). It is a nocturnal, cryptic and small (approximately 100 g; Murphy et al. 2017a) green and yellow parrot that was once widely distributed across arid and semi-arid central Australia (Leseberg et al. 2021). It was not officially recorded for most of the 20th century, and although some thought it may be extinct (Lendon 1968), a continuing trickle of claimed sightings suggested that it remained extant (Parker 1980). Two dead specimens were found in western Queensland in 1990 (Boles et al. 1994) and 2006 (McDougall et al. 2009), and an extant population was ‘rediscovered’ there in 2013 (Olsen 2018).

Much of our knowledge of the ecology of night parrots has stemmed from research in Queensland, where it has been studied since 2013. There, night parrots have been found to be quite sedentary, roosting in spinifex hummocks during the day, and emerging approximately half an hour after sunset, flying up to 10 km from their roost sites to forage on productive floodplains and occasionally drink from surface water (Murphy et al. 2017a). Breeding occurs throughout the year and is often stimulated by rain, but may occur in dry periods if conditions permit (Murphy et al. 2017b; N. Leseberg, unpubl. data). Few breeding attempts appear to have been successful (Murphy et al. 2017b). Research in Queensland enabled development of the main survey technique now used to detect night parrots, which involves deployment and analysis of calls from autonomous recording units (ARUs) (Leseberg et al. 2019, 2022). Information from this Queensland research assisted in the discovery of two new locations in Western Australia in 2017. First, in the Murchison bioregion (Jackett et al. 2017), and then by the Paruku Rangers in the Great Sandy Desert. The Paruku discovery was guided by the rangers’ knowledge of Country and a reported sighting in the area from 45 years prior; it was detected by a motion-detection camera (Fig. 1) and later confirmed by recorded calls.

Fig. 1.

The original Night Parrot image captured by Paruku Rangers (top), and Lachlan Johns and Abraham Calyon from Paruku Rangers set an autonomous recording unit (bottom) (Image: Paruku Rangers and Kimberley Land Council).

These discoveries inspired conversations between desert ranger groups and our communities about night parrots (language names include Ngartijirri in Martu language; and Kulkurru in Kukatja language, although this needs confirmation (Ngurarrpa Rangers et al. 2024). Once well known to Indigenous people, night parrots were recorded as being hunted for food along the Finke River by Arrente custodians (Whitlock 1924) and some mothers used it as a warning for their children not to stray from the campfire at night because of the threat of ‘featherfoot’ men (Paruku Rangers, pers. comm.). The bird’s cryptic nature means that it was probably rarely encountered, reflected in a dreaming story about the ancestral beings searching for them, using hailstones and fire, but still the bird would not show itself (recorded from Geoffrey Stewart in 2014, cited in Olsen 2018).

Although direct experience with night parrots is rare among living individuals, Aboriginal communities have been pivotal for finding and conserving night parrots. Aboriginal rangers and our wider communities manage most of the potential night parrot habitat, including the reduction of threats such as wildfire and feral cats through formal ranger activities and continuing cultural practice such as hunting (Bird et al. 2013). These communities possess extensive biocultural knowledge about the parrot’s habitats and water sources. Its food plants, such as samphire, spinifex and other grass species (Murphy et al. 2017a), are also important traditional food sources for our communities. This knowledge is crucial for identifying suitable survey sites and understanding resource dynamics, placing Aboriginal rangers and our communities in the best position to lead survey and conservation efforts on Country.

Regional networking and surveys

In the Kimberley region, a concerted effort has been made to ensure that night parrot research is Aboriginal co-led through the Kimberley Night Parrot Working Group. Established in 2018, the group was facilitated by Environs Kimberley in collaboration with the Kimberley Land Council, WWF-Australia, and the Department of Biodiversity, Conservation, and Attractions (DBCA). This group met regularly to learn from the Paruku Rangers and scientific experts, coordinate survey efforts and ensure Aboriginal leadership, including the running of a night parrot workshop hosted by the Paruku Rangers in 2018.

At a national level, the Indigenous Desert Alliance (IDA) has been the pivotal organisation fostering Aboriginal-led night parrot conservation, through dedicated night parrot workshop sessions at their annual IDA conferences which enabled knowledge exchange between expert rangers and scientists. In 2019, with funding from the Australian Government, IDA organised the Species of the Desert Festival focusing on the night parrot and other desert species, which generated excitement and motivation among many ranger groups to initiate their own search efforts. Lastly, a night parrot workshop was held in Wiluna in 2021, inspiring the most recent groups to search on their Country. These workshops allowed rangers to get inspired and learn from scientist and expert rangers, gave them critical information on night parrot habitat and survey methods, allowed coordination and sharing of ARU equipment, and built relationships between rangers and scientific partners.

Acoustic surveys

Informed and inspired by the workshops, rangers talked to our communities about local stories, sightings and other biocultural information to identify potential night parrot sites. Potential night parrot habitat was mapped by Environs Kimberley, Adaptive NRM, University of Queensland and Desert Support Services ecologists using paleo-drainage layers, fire history, geology mapping and satellite imagery to look for long-unburnt spinifex. This combination of biocultural knowledge of country, modern insights from GPS tracking in Queensland and remote-sensed spatial products proved incredibly successful in selecting survey sites for night parrots.

Thirteen ranger groups from Western Australia conducted acoustic surveys (Fig. 2) by using established ARU survey methods (Leseberg et al. 2019, 2022). Four types of ARU were deployed, including Audiomoths (Open Acoustic Devices, www.openaccousticdevices.info) and Songmeter SM2, SM3 and SM4s (Wildlife Acoustics Inc., Concord, Massachusetts, USA). These were deployed in suitable parrot habitat and set to record from sunset to sunrise. The duration of deployment and spacing of ARUs varied depending on ranger groups and locations, with some sites easily accessible and others requiring remote deployment via multi-day drives or helicopters. Funding for field surveys primarily came from existing ranger programs (e.g. Indigenous Protected Area, Indigenous Ranger Program) or support organisations, supplemented by dedicated on-ground funding from Western Australian or Australian Government sources.

Fig. 2.

Native Title boundaries of the Western Australian Aboriginal Ranger Groups who have surveyed for night parrots 2017–2023.

Survey effort and detections

The 13 ranger groups managed 296 ARU deployments over 6 years, collecting 8613 nights of data (Table 1). Of these ARU deployments, 17% (49) detected night parrots, some of which are repeat detections because of revisits to a known population, or nearby ARUs detecting the same bird. The survey effort and detections were collated into sites, defined post hoc as a 10 km² cell in line with movement observations in Queensland (Murphy et al. 2017a; N. Leseberg, unpubl. data); however, if adjacent 10 km² sites had confirmed night parrots, it was considered one site. Using this site definition, more than 75 sites across Western Australia have been surveyed, with night parrots being detected at 22 (29%) across Ngurra Kayanta, Ngururrpa, Martu, Birriliburu and Kiwirrkurra Countries.

Four or more nights of ARU deployment are required to confidently record night parrots in an area where they are highly active (Leseberg et al. 2022). Of the 296 ARU deployments, 69% (205) were at least four nights in length. However, non-detection at 53 sites does not necessarily mean night parrots are currently absent. Longer deployments are needed at less active sites (e.g. transit sites). For example, at one site night parrot calls were recorded on just one night towards the end of a 3-month deployment. Additionally, emerging research suggests that night parrots may use multiple sites interchangeably seasonally or interannually, depending on conditions, which is common behaviour for desert animals.

Where night parrots were detected, inferences are possible on the type of activity at the site from the timing and frequency of the calls (Jackett et al. 2017; Leseberg et al. 2019). A site is defined as a ‘roosting site’ if it supports long-unburnt spinifex, and multiple night parrot calls are detected in the dusk/dawn calling periods, over multiple nights (Murphy et al. 2017b; Leseberg et al. 2019). A ‘non-roosting’ active site has multiple calls occurring outside of the dusk/dawn calling periods, over multiple nights, and is likely to represent feeding or drinking sites with roosting nearby. Last, a ‘transiting site’ is defined as a site where a single call event occurs outside of the dusk/dawn calling period, and only on one night.

Of the 22 sites where calls were detected, seven were roosting sites, seven were non-roosting active areas, and eight were transiting sites. This definition of the type of site has allowed the respective ranger groups to tailor the next phases of their conservation work, conducting targeted cat and fire management to protect roost sites, and wider surveys around transit and active sites to identify roost sites. In active areas where feeding or drinking are indicated, habitat surveys can start to establish likely diet (Ngururrpa Rangers et al. 2024).

Contribution to national night parrot conservation

This summary of our Aboriginal ranger-led survey effort in Western Australia can be placed in the context of national night parrot conservation. Two of this paper’s authors (Nick Leseberg and Nigel Jackett) have either conducted the initial sound analysis or independently confirmed all known detections since the initial Queensland discovery in 2013. Night parrot calls have been confirmed at 42 sites (10 km²) in Australia in the past 10 years, representing all confirmed sites existing in Australia today. Our Aboriginal led-surveys have discovered the majority of these (54%). Outside of Queensland, our Aboriginal-led surveys have discovered 75% of all night parrot sites.

As so little is known about the night parrot, our efforts have vastly increased our knowledge of this cryptic threatened species. The calls recorded during the surveys have expanded our knowledge of night parrot vocalisations, because some are distinct from the calls recorded from Queensland and other places in Western Australia (Leseberg et al. 2019). Habitat surveys at active and roosting sites have improved our understanding of roosting and foraging habitat (Ngururrpa Rangers et al. 2024), further enhanced by the biocultural knowledge of these habitats. Observed levels of threats at sites, paired with satellite fire-scar mapping, have allowed a greater understanding of tolerable threat levels and management priorities. Last, the increased habitat information and site locations will allow more accurate habitat-suitability modelling, better guiding future surveys and impact assessments.

Two-way principles for threatened species conservation

It is important to reflect on our two-way relationships that led to Aboriginal rangers becoming a leading force in night parrot conservation. These relationships

This aligns with other successful two-way science projects in Australia, which have been summarised as having cross-cultural awareness, respectful relationships throughout all project phases, adequate time and resourcing, respect for intellectual property rights, informed consent, and equitable renumeration and acknowledgement (Ens et al. 2015). This paper and others have highlighted the scientific benefits when Indigenous people are recognised as experts essential to threatened species conservation, justifying the time and effort necessary to form two-way scientific relationships. This expertise and its value to expert elicitation processes or recovery teams should be assumed in the future where a threatened species’ distribution overlaps significantly with Indigenous managed land.

Our two-way night parrot relationships contained principles of direct relationships between Aboriginal groups and scientists (see Points 1–5 above), but also regional enablers or principles that support networking and collaboration across the larger regional scale and with multiple Indigenous communities and partners (Points 6 and 7). The importance of regional two-way science processes are not commonly discussed, yet are critically important for success in collaborative threatened species conservation especially because they better match the regional, state and national scales of threatened species management by governments and recovery teams. For example, the Australian Government is increasingly prioritising Indigenous engagement and leadership, as seen in its recent Threatened Species Action Plan (DCCEEW 2022). Achieving this, while carrying out First Nation Targets 15 and 16 across the diverse Indigenous communities of Australia, will require regional two-way processes and enablers. It is therefore important to further discuss the regional components.

First, our regional night parrot surveys relied on having a network of active, resourced and supported ranger groups to be able to attend working groups and workshops, and then survey their own country. The majority of funding for this network of rangers was sourced through core funding from state (i.e. Aboriginal Ranger Program) and federal programs (i.e. Indigenous Protected Area and Indigenous Ranger Program funding programs). Having ranger groups embedded within and guided by their own cultural values, priorities and homeland communities meant that we could utilise connections to Country and invaluable biocultural knowledge, often in-kind. Rangers were established and supported by land councils, prescribed body corporates and other Aboriginal support organisations, support that is essential yet often overlooked. This further emphasises the success and importance of ranger funding, but also the often overlooked and under-resourced organisations and communities that are essential in supporting their establishment, development and ongoing cultural connection.

Second, our paper has shown the importance of workshops and working groups in informing, inspiring and mobilising multiple ranger groups across a region. Threatened species workshops for rangers are being better recognised for their importance, with Australian government funding contributing directly to the night parrot workshops, as well as previously to the seminal Ninu (greater bilby) Festival in 2016. Funding for working groups is more challenging, partly because it needs to be ongoing and as it is not as appealing as on-ground conservation action. Yet, our paper has shown the importance of working groups or networks in mobilising large in-kind resources and significant on-ground activities.

We believe that Indigenous-led regional networks, properly resourced and empowered, can be the key nexus for discussions among government departments, researchers and Indigenous communities to progress matters of the environment on country. This could be through groups that are specific to a threatened species or ecosystem, whether informal (e.g. Lindsay et al. 2022) or, ideally, as Indigenous-led or co-led recovery teams (e.g. Olkola Aboriginal Corporation 2022). Alternatively, or additionally, through Indigenous-led regional networks that can be the forum for discussing multiple threatened species, threats or other national conservation issues (e.g. Austin et al. 2019). This is best exemplified by the role that the Indigenous Desert Alliance has played in supporting night parrot workshops and ranger support, the greater bilby Ninu Festival, and the Greater Desert Skink National Recovery Plan (Indigenous Desert Alliance 2023) and regional coordinated surveys.

Last, our successful two-way night parrot relationships, both direct and regional, have required respectful scientific partners. A key component of two-way science is establishing respectful relationships over time, and the long-term relationships built by not-for-profits (e.g. since 2013 for Bush Heritage Australia and Birriliburu Rangers, since 2009 for Environs Kimberley and Karajarri Rangers), university researchers and consultants have been invaluable, especially given the often high turnover of government staff and projects. These relationships support rangers’ work on multiple threatened species and are often instrumental in co-leading or supporting the regional networks and working groups discussed above. Although the night parrot ranger effort was supported by scientists from government departments, we feel that the project’s success was sometimes due more to the individual’s two-way science approach and good relationships with local ranger groups rather than a wider policy. This two-way approach should be and is becoming a standard process that is formalised through agreements, promoted and continually improved within environment departments, recovery teams, museums, universities, and other established scientific organisations.

Conclusions

Thirteen Western Australian Aboriginal ranger groups completed extensive night parrot surveys detecting the majority of confirmed sites in Australia and greatly extending knowledge of the species’ ecology and distribution. Our work demonstrates the significant conservation gains and effort that come from a two-way science approach to threatened species management, which places culture at the heart of conservation and prioritises Indigenous aspirations, values and knowledge in recovery efforts. Through this, rangers are treated as experts, lead efforts, have their cultural knowledge prioritised alongside scientific knowledge, are supported by respectful partners and given important forums to learn and be inspired from other rangers and scientists. We believe that investment in this two-way model of Indigenous-led threatened species management, supported by working groups and regional networks, will not only produce major conservation benefits at a minimal cost, but also empower and give rightful respect to the rich Indigenous ecological knowledge, land management and culture that has suffered so profoundly since European colonisation.