{"id":"F2026L00428","name":"Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (National Recovery Plan for the Sandhill dunnart (Sminthopsis psammophila)) Instrument 2026","slug":"environment-protection-and-biodiversity-conservation-national-recovery-plan-for-the-sandhill-dunnart","collection":"legislative_instrument","jurisdiction":"commonwealth","status":"in_force","isInForce":true,"actNumber":null,"makingDate":null,"administeringDepartment":null,"currentVersion":{"id":354351,"registerId":"commonwealth-F2026L00428-current","compilationNumber":null,"startDate":"2026-04-09","status":"InForce","reasons":null,"registeredAt":null},"sections":[{"sectionNumber":"Executive summary","sectionType":"part","heading":"Executive summary","content":"# Executive summary\n\n| Scientific name: | Sminthopsis psammophila |\n| ------------------------------ | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n| Common name: | Sandhill dunnart |\n| National status (EPBC Act): | Endangered |\n| WA status (BC Act): | Endangered (IUCN criteria: B2ab(ii,iii,iv,v)) |\n| SA status (NPW Act): | Vulnerable |\n| NT status (TPWC Act): | Data Deficient |\n| International | Vulnerable (B2ab(ii,iii,v); D2) on the IUCN Red List of Threatened SpeciesSpecies protected under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of wild fauna and flora (CITES) |\n| Distribution: | Three widely separated areas: the Great Victoria Desert (SA and WA) and Eyre Peninsula, SA. Historically found in NT |\n| Extent of occurrence: | 151,635 km² (stable) a |\n| Area of occupancy: | 500–1900 km² (decreasing), the calculated area of occupancy is <500 km2 however, because of the large remote area between known localities and low survey effort in this region a larger AOO is assumed (but less than 2000 km²) a |\n| No. of mature individuals: | 5000 – 10,000 (decreasing) a |\n| No. of sub-populations: | 5 (largest sub-population approx. 2500 individuals) b |\n| Habitat requirement: | Sandy substrates in arid and semi–arid regions, with hummock grassland understorey (10–70% cover), >8 years post fire c |\n| Threats: | Inappropriate fire regimes;Habitat loss and fragmentation;Predation by cats and foxes;Introduced flora;Introduced herbivores;Climate change; andNative herbivores. |\n| Long term recovery objectives: | Threats to Sandhill dunnart are appropriately managed reducing their impact to Sandhill dunnart sub-populations and habitat;Sandhill dunnart habitat is rehabilitated, connected and protected;Collective understanding of Sandhill dunnart populations, habitat, ecology and threats has improved; andConservation of Sandhill dunnart and their habitat is led and championed by Traditional Custodians, community, experts and governments. |\n| Critical knowledge gaps: | Influence of fire;Undetected populations;Habitat critical to survival; andKnowledge of threats (including any interrelationships between threats, such as fire, predation and introduced herbivores). |\n\n> Note: a IUCN Red List Assessment (Woinarski and Burbidge 2016). Estimates only. b Action Plan for Australian Mammals 2012 (Woinarski et al. 2014). Estimates only. c Alinytiara Wilurara Fire Management Strategy (DEWNR 2014c)","sortOrder":0},{"sectionNumber":"Acronyms","sectionType":"part","heading":"Acronyms","content":"# Acronyms\n\nTable 1: List of acronyms used within the National Recovery Plan for the Sandhill dunnart\n\n| Acronym | Description |\n| --------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n| AOO | Area of occupancy |\n| APY Lands | Anangu Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara Lands |\n| BC Act | Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 (WA) |\n| CITES | Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species |\n| CWR | Critical weight range |\n| DBCA | Department of Biodiversity, Conservation and Attractions (WA) |\n| DEW | Department for Environment and Water (SA) |\n| DEWNR | Department of Environment, Water and Natural Resources (former SA Department) |\n| EIA | Environmental Impact Assessment |\n| EOO | Extent of occurrence |\n| EPBC Act | Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth) |\n| GEMG | Goldfields Environmental Management Group |\n| GIS | Geographic information systems |\n| GPS | Global positioning systems |\n| GVD | Great Victoria Desert |\n| GVDBT | Great Victoria Desert Biodiversity Trust |\n| IPA | Indigenous Protected Area |\n| IUCN | International Union for Conservation of Nature |\n| NLP | National Landcare Program |\n| NPW Act | National Parks and Wildlife Act 1972 (SA) |\n| AWLB | Alinytjara Wilurara Landscape Board |\n| NRM | Natural Resource Management |\n| NSDRT | National Sandhill dunnart recovery team |\n| NT | Northern Territory |\n| PIRSA | Department of Primary Industries and Regions, South Australia |\n| RAMP | Research and Adaptive Management Plan |\n| SA | South Australia |\n| SDM | Species distribution map |\n| SEB | Significant environmental benefit |\n| TPWC Act | Territory Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act 2006 (NT) |\n| WA | Western Australia |\n| YRR | Yellabinna Regional Reserve |","sortOrder":1},{"sectionNumber":"Acknowledgments","sectionType":"part","heading":"Acknowledgments","content":"# Acknowledgments\n\nThis plan was prepared by Jason van Weenen, Dr Matthew Ward, Thai Te, Erin Sautter, Dr Christina Son, Adam Pennington, Doug Bickerton, Valerie Lawley and Bea Rogers from an initial plan developed by Sue Churchill (2001a) for the former Department of Environment, Water and Natural Resources, South Australia.\n\nSpecial thanks to Sue Churchill, John Read, Katherine Moseby, Sue Carthew and Sarah Way for their invaluable work on Sandhill dunnart and for the use of their survey data from the Great Victoria Desert, Secret Rocks and in parks on Eyre Peninsula. Thanks especially to Jo Riley and Jeff Turpin for their work in WA, including locating new populations, as well as advice, comments, and access to data. Thanks also go to Rob Brandle and Amanda McLean for advice and comments, and for providing access to her research findings. Peter Copley formerly of the Conservation and Wildlife Branch (Department for Environment and Water, South Australia) provided help and support throughout the project.\n\nThe Maralinga-Tjarutja community provided permission to work on their land in the Great Victoria Desert and allowed access to fuel and supplies at the Oak Valley Community. The Area Administrator of the Defence Support Centre allowed access to the Woomera Prohibited Area. Peter Reed of the Department of Defence provided permission to work in Maralinga (Section 400). Far West Coast Indigenous Corporation have been heavily involved in surveys in AWLB since 2019 and have participated in trapping most years.\n\nWestern Australia’s Department of Biodiversity, Conservation and Attractions provided permits, help and support while surveying in parts of the Great Victoria Desert in Western Australia. Thanks to David Pearson, Manda Page, Ian Kealley, Jennifer Jackson, Julie Futter, Georgina Anderson and consultant Glen Gaikhorst for their help and comments on various drafts of this plan. Thanks also to Brydie Hill and Alistair Stewart (Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Northern Territory) for comments on an early draft.\n\nOther people helped in various ways. Thanks to Julia Boulton, Jeff Foulkes, Lynette Queale, Greg Johnston, Clare Bradley, and Cath Kemper.","sortOrder":2},{"sectionNumber":"1","sectionType":"part","heading":"Background","content":"# 1 Background\n\nThis is the National Recovery Plan for the Sandhill dunnart (Sminthopsis psammophila), made in accordance with Part 13 of the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act). This plan guides conservation of the species across its range and identifies the research and management actions necessary to halt decline and support its recovery, so that its chances of long-term survival in nature are maximised.","sortOrder":3},{"sectionNumber":"1.1","sectionType":"part","heading":"Conservation status","content":"## 1.1 Conservation status\n\nThe Sandhill dunnart is listed as 'Endangered' under the EPBC Act.\n\nThe Action Plan for Australian Mammals (Woinarski et al. 2014) assessed the national status of the species as 'Vulnerable’, a conclusion which was supported by the most recent assessment for the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List of Threatened Species (Woinarski and Burbidge 2016). Both assessments used the following IUCN criteria (2001 ver. 3.1):\n\n (B2) area of occupancy < 2,000 km2;\n (a) number of locations ≤ 10;\n (b) continuing decline in:\n\n (ii) area of occupancy,\n (iii) area, extent and/or quality of habitat,\n (iv) number of locations or subpopulations, and (Woinarski et al. 2014 only)\n (v) number of mature individuals);\n (D2) restricted area of occupancy, where number of locations ≤ 5.\n\nIn South Australia (SA), the Sandhill dunnart is listed as ‘Vulnerable’ under Schedule 7, National Parks and Wildlife Act 1972 (NPW Act). In Western Australia (WA), the species is listed as ‘Endangered’ under the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 (BC Act), based on IUCN criteria B2ab(ii,iii,iv,v) (2012 ver. 3.1 2nd ed.). In the Northern Territory (NT), the species is listed as ‘Data Deficient’ under the Territory Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act 2006 (TPWC Act).\n\nInternationally, the Sandhill dunnart is listed on Appendix 1 of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), which prohibits international trade in specimens of the species except when the purpose of the import is not commercial (such as scientific research).","sortOrder":4},{"sectionNumber":"1.2","sectionType":"part","heading":"Conservation action","content":"# 1 Background\n\nThis is the National Recovery Plan for the Sandhill dunnart (Sminthopsis psammophila), made in accordance with Part 13 of the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act). This plan guides conservation of the species across its range and identifies the research and management actions necessary to halt decline and support its recovery, so that its chances of long-term survival in nature are maximised.\n\n## 1.1 Conservation status\n\nThe Sandhill dunnart is listed as 'Endangered' under the EPBC Act.\n\nThe Action Plan for Australian Mammals (Woinarski et al. 2014) assessed the national status of the species as 'Vulnerable’, a conclusion which was supported by the most recent assessment for the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List of Threatened Species (Woinarski and Burbidge 2016). Both assessments used the following IUCN criteria (2001 ver. 3.1):\n\n (B2) area of occupancy < 2,000 km2;\n (a) number of locations ≤ 10;\n (b) continuing decline in:\n\n (ii) area of occupancy,\n (iii) area, extent and/or quality of habitat,\n (iv) number of locations or subpopulations, and (Woinarski et al. 2014 only)\n (v) number of mature individuals);\n (D2) restricted area of occupancy, where number of locations ≤ 5.\n\nIn South Australia (SA), the Sandhill dunnart is listed as ‘Vulnerable’ under Schedule 7, National Parks and Wildlife Act 1972 (NPW Act). In Western Australia (WA), the species is listed as ‘Endangered’ under the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 (BC Act), based on IUCN criteria B2ab(ii,iii,iv,v) (2012 ver. 3.1 2nd ed.). In the Northern Territory (NT), the species is listed as ‘Data Deficient’ under the Territory Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act 2006 (TPWC Act).\n\nInternationally, the Sandhill dunnart is listed on Appendix 1 of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), which prohibits international trade in specimens of the species except when the purpose of the import is not commercial (such as scientific research).\n\n## 1.2 Conservation action\n\n### 1.2.1 Surveys and monitoring\n\nSeveral surveys targeting Sandhill dunnarts have been conducted and are continuing in the Great Victoria Desert (GVD) and on Eyre Peninsula since 2000. These have resulted in two new spatially independent locations 150 km north of the known range in WA (near Laverton) and several new locations recorded within the species’ known range. In addition, information has been gained on the ecology, diet, habitat, distribution, genetics, and threats to Sandhill dunnarts (McLean 2015, Riley 2020).\n\nEnvironmental Impact Assessments (EIA) associated with mining activities have increased survey efforts and added data to assist in understanding the species (Gaikhorst and Lambert 2014). Most of these surveys from north of Queen Victoria Spring to the north-west of Plumridge Lakes Nature Reserve have been associated with the EIA for the Tropicana Gold Mine (Tropicana Joint Venture 2010; EPA 2010). The Great Victoria Desert Biodiversity Trust (GVDBT) (Sandhill Dunnart Workshop 2014), setup as an offset for the Tropicana Gold Mine, are also seeking to develop standardised survey methods and long-term monitoring protocols for monitoring Sandhill dunnarts in the two western subregions (Shield and Central) of the GVD in WA (2015a; 2015b). These are intended to build upon the 'Survey guidelines for Australia’s threatened mammals’ (Australian Government 2011). Iluka Mine in Yellabinna have conducted surveys for the species over many years as well an including collecting baseline and monitoring data.\n\nThere have been irregular surveys by Ecological Horizons, other researchers and the SA Department for Environment and Water (DEW) in the Middleback ranges over recent decades. Landscape Board National Landcare Program (NLP) funded projects in the Yellabinna, Pinkawillinie and Gawler Ranges areas.\n\nSurveys have been ongoing in the Yellabinna Mallee country via the Alinytjara Wilurara Landscape Board (AWLB). Surveys in the far-west including Yellabinna were undertaken over the past ten years via the Alinytjara Wilurara NRM (now Alinytjara Wilurara Landscape Board) from 2018 to 2023, which are planned to continue if funding permits. The Middleback Alliance undertook aerial fox baiting over the past 5 years and a survey to attempt to quantify the impacts, although this was made difficult by drought (R. Brandle pers comms).\n\nTurpin and Lloyd (2014) and Turpin and Riley (2017) have conducted the Sandhill dunnart Monitoring Program for APA Group biannually since 2014 along the Eastern Goldfields Pipeline in the GVD in WA, representing the only long-term monitoring studies for the species in WA. Riley (2020) and Riley et al. (2021b) were also funded by the Goldfields Environmental Management Group (GEMG) to perform motion camera surveys for the species throughout WA.\n\nFurther surveys are required in areas which are likely to be suitable for Sandhill dunnarts in SA and WA, including in the GVD of WA and SA (Map 2 ). Potential survey areas within the GVD include:\n\n the mallee/spinifex habitat north of Yellabinna Regional Reserve (YRR),\n the spinifex and sand dune communities in the Maralinga Tjarutja Lands,\n Mamungari Conservation Park, and\n the southern Anangu Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara Lands (APY Lands).\n\nSandhill dunnart records are included in the Atlas of Living Australia (Atlas of Living Australia 2025).\n\n### 1.2.2 Sandhill dunnart Project (SA Alinytjara Wilurara Landscape Board)\n\nThe Alinytjara Wilurara NRM Board has been working with communities across the region to implement the draft Sandhill dunnart recovery plan (Churchill 2001a). This has included undertaking Sandhill dunnart surveys in the Maralinga Tjarutja Lands and training in sand-plot tracking through the Oak Valley Land Management Engagement program (Alinytjara Wilurara Landscape Board 2015).\n\nIn addition, long-term monitoring has been undertaken with surveys occurring at the Immarna site since 2007 – a location within the YRR just to the east of the Ooldea siding. Surveys have focused on pitfall trapping and measuring Triodia densities and heights (Moseby, et al. 2016).\n\nIn 2018, Alinytjara Wilurara Landscape Board (AWLB) secured National Landcare Program 2 funds to continue these works, not only at the Immarna site, but also across much of the Yellabinna and Yumbarra reserves area, focusing on determining the key habitats for the species, as well as attempting to extend the current known areas of occupancy within this area. Surveys have been planned by examining fire-scar mapping to target areas with a post-fire age of 15 years, or more. This has resulted in the species being found at three more locations, suggesting that these dunnarts occur across Yellabinna Regional Reserve. This project was funded until 2023 and aimed to determine whether there are any “core” habitat areas or refuge areas (Pavey et al. 2017) for the Sandhill dunnart and, if so, how these might best be defined spatially and ecologically. It also includes threat abatement works focused on reducing predation pressures from foxes and feral cats, and surveillance against the establishment of the habitat transforming weed, buffel grass.\n\n### 1.2.3 Captive breeding research\n\nIn 2005, five Sandhill dunnarts (3 males and 2 females) were collected from the GVD in WA and transferred to Perth Zoo for captive breeding research (D. Jose pers. comm.). A total of six litters were produced over three seasons, with 41 animals bred. Research was published on their oestrus cycle, gestation period, and the growth and development of their young (Lambert et al. 2011), and a Husbandry Manual was also produced (Ferguson 2008). At the conclusion of the project in 2007, the remaining animals were relocated to Cleland Wildlife Park, Alice Springs Desert Park, or left on display at Perth Zoo. None were released back into the wild. Moonlit Sanctuary kept a single male from 2010 to 2011. The last recording of a Sandhill dunnart in captivity is a single male from Alice Springs Desert Park in 2012.\n\n### 1.2.4 The Great Victoria Desert Biodiversity Trust\n\nThe Great Victoria Desert Biodiversity Trust (GVDBT) was established in 2014 as an independent not-for-profit entity as part of the approval process for the Tropicana Gold Mine. The GVDBT aims to establish a bioregional plan (for two GVD sub-regions in WA), undertake priority research and management (including research on the Sandhill dunnart), and facilitate the involvement of Traditional Custodians.\n\nWorkshops on Sandhill dunnarts were held in 2014 and 2019 to determine and prioritise research and management activities to help conserve viable populations of Sandhill dunnart in the WA GVD. Knowledge gaps identified during the workshops included, distribution, threats, effectiveness of mitigation strategies, monitoring, habitat requirements, diet and life history, and appropriate management. Based on the workshops, the GVDBT developed a Research and Adaptive Management Plan (RAMP) for the Sandhill dunnart (GVDBT 2016), and the recovery actions in this plan (Summary of recovery objectives, recovery actions, performance criteria, potential partners and priority ratings) are designed to complement the research priorities and conservation action priorities identified in the RAMP. In 2016 DBCA produced for the GVDBT a report on defining a baseline survey design for the Sandhill dunnart in the WA GVD and this was updated to include more guidance on the use of camera traps. These guidelines were revised in 2020 (GHD 2020).\n\n### 1.2.5 Habitat protection in declared conservation areas\n\nThe GVD covers an enormous area, approximately 420,000 km2, and is the largest dune desert in Australia. It extends from north of the Nullarbor Plain to the Gibson Desert and Central Ranges in WA and to the central Australian ranges. From west to east, it extends from Laverton in WA to Coober Pedy in SA. Approximately half of this land is managed by Traditional Custodian groups, including Mirning, Anangu Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara, Maralinga, Kokatha, Wirangu and Barngarla groups, and Spinifex people (Pila Nguru Aboriginal Corporation). A further 70,000 km2 (about one fifth) of the GVD is in conservation parks and reserves. Almost all the remaining area is land owned by the State (known as ‘Crown land’ or ‘Unallocated Crown Land’), much of which is overlain by mining tenements (including Tropicana Gold Mine and Iluka Resources) and native title claims.\n\nWhile large areas of potential habitat of the Sandhill dunnart are reserved in several conservation areas, Queen Victoria Spring Nature Reserve is the only one known to have Sandhill dunnarts in WA. All other known populations occur on Unallocated Crown Land. In the SA portion of the GVD, most Sandhill dunnarts have been found in YRR with some additional records in Yellabinna Wilderness Protection Area and Yumbarra Conservation Park, despite survey efforts further north (Moseby et al. 2016).\n\nThe majority of Eyre Peninsula (54%) has been cleared for agriculture (DEWNR 2014a) and much of the uncleared land is under grazing leases. One of the largest areas of remnant vegetation is the Central-Northwest Linkage, spanning from Hincks Conservation Park through to the Kulliparu Conservation Park, approximately 9,900 km2. This area contains 6,820 km2 (69%) of native vegetation, of which 3,170 km2 (46%) is protected either in national parks, conservation parks or Heritage agreements. The discovery of Sandhill dunnarts in Hincks Wilderness Protection Area in 2005 has prompted further survey work within this broader area.\n\nThere are several conservation areas on northern Eyre Peninsula that contain known or potentially suitable habitat for Sandhill dunnarts, including Pinkawillinie Conservation Park (1,271 km2), Ironstone Hill Conservation Park (197 km2), Hambidge Wilderness Protection Area (380 km2), Hincks Wilderness Protection Area (669 km2), Gawler Ranges National Park (1786 km2) and Pureba Conservation Park (2264 km2). While brief initial surveys of Pinkawillinie Conservation Park (Churchill 2001b) and Hambidge Wilderness Protection Area (NCSSA 1967) failed to find any Sandhill dunnarts, survey work in 2005 successfully captured two animals in Pinkawillinie Conservation Park. In 2010, another Sandhill dunnart was found in Pinkawillinie Conservation Park (July 2010), and two were found in Hambidge Wilderness Protection Area (July 2010). During 2020 one animal was captured in the north-east of the Pinkawillinie Conservation Park (Moseby and Lynch 2020) with camera detections during 2020 and 2021 at 4 nearby locations and two locations in the north-western area of the park (all within 5 km of previous known locations). During 2022 follow up work (Bell 2022) captured a sub-adult near the eastern boundary of Pureba Conservation Park. Two 14 camera arrays set during this period, one near this capture location, the other on the southwestern boundary of the Gawler Ranges National Park, detected sandhill dunnarts at one camera each (DEW datastore). Further survey work is needed to verify the presence of the species in contiguous habitat between these locations and within other reserves of the region. Gawler Ranges National Park and Yumbarra Conservation Park are co-managed by Traditional Owners.\n\nOn the northeastern Eyre Peninsula, several large conservation reserves have the potential to contain Sandhill dunnarts. Lake Gilles Conservation Park (451 km2) and Munyaroo Conservation Park (123 km2) are of particular interest given their close proximity to Sandhill dunnart capture locations in the Middleback Range area (particularly Ironstone Hill Conservation Park and Secret Rocks). While some surveys have been conducted at Lake Gilles Conservation Park (Churchill 2001b; EP Project Group 1973), Munyaroo Conservation Park has not been adequately surveyed and requires further investigation. Further survey is also warranted in Pureba Conservation Park, as sandhill dunnarts have been recently recorded near the boundary (Bell 2022).\n\nSome of the Sandhill dunnarts found in the Middleback Range area also occur on grazing leases (such as Moola and Cooyerdoo) and are subject to disturbance by pastoralism. Individuals have been trapped in areas that are adjacent to iron-ore mines, as well as sites that are located between cleared lines for high-voltage electricity cables and a railway line that services the mines. The most southern capture site in the Middleback Range area is adjacent to a major highway between Whyalla and Port Lincoln and is on the boundary of another pastoral property that has been cleared previously for wheat production. The Middleback Alliance, a partnership between DEW, Arrium Mining, Ecological Horizons and other local landholders operates in this area (Middleback Alliance 2015). The Middleback Alliance aims to sustainably manage private and public land in the region including goat, rabbit and fox control, fire management, and threatened species management, including surveying and monitoring Sandhill dunnart sites.\n\n## 1.3 Cultural significance\n\nA large proportion of the wild populations of Sandhill dunnart are found on Indigenous lands managed by First Nations people. Indigenous rangers have and continue to make significant contributions to annual surveys for Sandhill dunnart. The plan aims to continue strengthening collaboration between Traditional Custodians and other land managers, with the goal of keeping Country healthy for both the Sandhill dunnart and the people. It is expected that further engagement of Indigenous groups involved in the conservation of the Sandhill dunnart will occur on a site-by-site basis as this recovery plan is implemented.\n\nTraditional Custodians are significant partners involved in the recovery of the Sandhill dunnart and its habitat including through:\n\n• developing and implementing land management activities to support Sandhill dunnart recovery on land managed by, or associated with, Traditional Custodians, including linkages to Healthy Country plans;\n\n• developing and implementing research projects on land managed by, or associated with Traditional Custodians;\n\n• opportunities to increase land management capacity through sharing of cultural and scientific knowledge;\n\n• documenting new records of Sandhill dunnart; and\n\n• two-way science and knowledge sharing.\n\nThe potential distribution of Sandhill dunnart overlaps with several Indigenous Protected Areas (IPAs):\n\n- Maralinga Tjarutja Lands IPA South Australia\n- Watarru IPA South Australia\n- Walalkara IPA South Australia\n- Yalata IPA South Australia\n- Apara - Makiri - Punti IPA South Australia\n- Anangu Tjutaku IPA Western Australia\n- Ngaanyatjarra IPA Western Australia\n\n![Map showing the distribution of Sandhill dunnart within SA and WA. It also includes the relevant IPA boundaries that intersect with potential Sandhill dunnart habitat.](image.004.jpeg)\n\nMap 1: Indigenous Protected Areas (IPAs) overlapping with Sandhill dunnart distribution\n\n> Note: Source: Base map Geoscience Australia; species distribution data Species of National Environmental Significance database.\n\n> Note: Caveat: The information presented in this map has been provided by a range of groups and agencies. While every effort has been made to ensure accuracy and completeness, no guarantee is given, nor responsibility taken by the Commonwealth for errors or omissions, and the Commonwealth does not accept responsibility in respect of any information or advice given in relation to, or as a consequence of, anything contained herein.\n\n> Note: Species distribution mapping: The species distribution mapping categories are indicative only and aim to capture (a) the habitat or geographic feature that represents to recent observed locations of the species (known to occur) or habitat occurring in close proximity to these locations (likely to occur); and (b) the broad environmental envelope or geographic region that encompasses all areas that could provide habitat for the species (may occur). These presence categories are created using an extensive database of species observations records, national and regional-scale environmental data, environmental modelling techniques and documented scientific research.\n\n## 1.4 Key partners\n\nImplementation of this Recovery Plan will depend on a coordinated approach between a range of stakeholders, which include the following:\n\n#### Australian Government\n\n- Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water\n- Parks Australia (Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Park)\n- Department of Defence\n\n#### State Government\n\n- Country Fire Service\n- Local councils, and Local Government Authorities\n- SA – Department for Environment and Water (DEW) including Alinytjara Wilurara, Eyre Peninsula and South Australian Arid Lands Landscape Boards\n- NT – Department of Land Resource Management\n- WA – Department of Biodiversity, Conservation and Attractions (DBCA), Rangelands Natural Resource Management, Department of Fire and Emergency Services, Department of Water and Environmental Regulation, Department of Mines, Petroleum and Exploration\n\n#### Traditional Owners\n\n- SA – Mirning, Anangu Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara, Maralinga, Kokatha, Wirangu and Barngarla\n- WA – the Spinifex People (Pila Nguru Aboriginal Corporation) Upurli Upurli Nguratja, Untiri Pulka, Pilki People, Nangaanya-ku, Yilka, Desert Support Services, Central Desert Native Title Services\n- NT – Central Land Council (Katiti-Petermann Indigenous Protected Area)\n\n#### Mining/gas companies\n\n- Including, but not limited to – AngloGold Ashanti Australia Ltd (Tropicana Joint Venture Gold Mine); Iluka Resources Limited; Vimy Resources (Mulga Rock), Deep Yellow, Lost Sands Pty Ltd\n\n#### Other\n\n- Friends groups (such as the Friends of the Great Victoria Desert)\n- Great Victoria Desert Biodiversity Trust (GVDBT)\n- Middleback Alliance, SA\n- Private landholders\n- Goldfields Environmental Management Group (GEMG)\n\n# 2 Species information\n\n## 2.1 Description\n\nThe Sandhill dunnart, Sminthopsis psammophila, is the second largest of 19 species of the marsupial genus Sminthopsis (Dasyuridae) that occur predominantly in arid and semi-arid regions of Australia. All species are nocturnal, predominantly insectivorous and are similar in appearance, characterised by their long-pointed snouts, large eyes and ears, and relatively long slender hind feet.\n\nThe Sandhill dunnart differs from other members of its genus by its large size at maturity – mass 25–55 g, body length 85–114 mm, and tail length 106–133 mm (Pearson and Churchill 2008). It has comparatively large eyes and ears, and a distinctive tail that is an excellent identifier as it is clearly contrasted, pale above and dark grey below, tapering towards the tip and has a crest of stiff black hairs along the ventral surface of the distal portion (Archer 1981; Figure 1). It has distinctive bicoloured fur patterning, drab grey to buff fur on the dorsal surface and white fur on the underside with darker hair nearer the skin. It has a pale grey head and black pencilling extending from the shoulders to the wedge between the eyes and a black eye-ring.\n\n![Two photographs of the Sandhill dunnart. \nMore information on the Sandhill dunnarts description is available in Section 2.1: Description](image.005.png)\n\nFigure 1: Sandhill Dunnart, Sminthopsis psammophila\n\nPhoto credit: Amanda McLean and Joanna Riley\n\n## 2.2 Distribution and population structure\n\n### 2.2.1 Core populations\n\nThe Sandhill dunnart is known to occur in three core population areas as shown in Map 2 (near Queen Victoria Spring Nature Reserve in the southwestern corner of the GVD in WA; YRR in the southeastern GVD in SA; and Eyre Peninsula in SA). The estimated extent of occurrence (EOO) is 151,635 km² and area of occupancy (AOO) is 500–1900 km2 (Woinarski and Burbidge 2016; Map 2). Habitat clearance in the southern portion of Eyre Peninsula greatly reduces available habitat. The chenopod shrubland communities in the areas south and east of Whyalla do not support significant habitat favoured by Sandhill dunnart.\n\nThe EOO is now considered stable, but the AOO is declining due to the limited availability of suitable habitat as a result of the frequent loss of suitable habitat by wildfire and other threats (Churchill 2001, Woinarski et al. 2014, Riley 2020). While wildfire is an important ecological process, the limited availability of structurally suitable habitat means that burning of suitable habitat in the current matrix constitutes a threat to Sandhill dunnart (Section 2.5.1: Inappropriate fire regimes).\n\nTargeted efforts in the southwestern GVD in 2018 identified four additional sites within the WA GVD population where Sandhill dunnarts occur, extending the WA GVD population range approximately 70 km south and confirming previous baseline study findings (Greening Australia 2019). The surveys confirmed the presence of the species from a previously un-surveyed area situated on the eastern fringe of a local broad area of undulating yellow sandplains. The Sandhill dunnart was recorded within patches of long-unburnt vegetation situated within landscapes affected by widespread recent fire (several high-intensity burns from 2000 to 2017; US Geological Survey 2018). Sandhill dunnarts were found in areas where the local topography provided some protection from fire (occurring within swales (between tall sand dunes), sand plains, and dune slopes (Riley et al. 2021a) or adjacent to mulga shrublands) (Greening Australia 2019).\n\nRiley et al. (2021b) used predictive species distribution models with ground validation in April 2018 to confirm 18 new spatially independent Sandhill dunnart records in the WA GVD, including several in a remote region 150 km northwest of the known range. In SA, new records were obtained in Yellabinna National Park, near the southeastern Boundary of Pureba Conservation Park, and on the western boundary of Gawler Ranges National Park (R Brandle, pers. comm.) in areas that were predicted as suitable for the species using models (Riley et al. 2021b).\n\n![Modelled distribution of Sandhill dunnart across SA and WA. \nMore information is available in Section 2.2: Distribution and population structure](image.006.jpeg)\n\nMap 2: Modelled distribution of Sandhill dunnart\n\n> Note: Source: Base map Geoscience Australia; species distribution data Species of National Environmental Significance database.\n\n> Note: Caveat: The information presented in this map has been provided by a range of groups and agencies. While every effort has been made to ensure accuracy and completeness, no guarantee is given, nor responsibility taken by the Commonwealth for errors or omissions, and the Commonwealth does not accept responsibility in respect of any information or advice given in relation to, or as a consequence of, anything contained herein.\n\n> Note: Species distribution mapping: The species distribution mapping categories are indicative only and aim to capture (a) the habitat or geographic feature that represents to recent observed locations of the species (known to occur) or habitat occurring in close proximity to these locations (likely to occur); and (b) the broad environmental envelope or geographic region that encompasses all areas that could provide habitat for the species (may occur). These presence categories are created using an extensive database of species observations records, national and regional-scale environmental data, environmental modelling techniques and documented scientific research.\n\nInvestigation into the contemporary genetic structure of the Sandhill dunnart show that the three core populations are genetically differentiated and, therefore, may represent functionally separate populations (McLean 2015). However, examination of the historic genetic structure found limited genetic differentiation between core populations (Gaikhorst et al. undated; McLean 2015), suggesting the three core populations were once connected. This absence of major geographical barriers between populations suggests the genetic pattern may be a result of fragmentation, with connecting populations going locally extinct over time (McLean 2015). Alternatively, core regions may still be connected by undetected populations, particularly in the southern GVD where there may be large areas of suitable habitat (McLean 2015; McLean, et al. 2019). Further survey effort is needed to clarify the presence or absence of Sandhill dunnart populations between the three core population areas.\n\nThe distribution of the Sandhill dunnart has declined since European settlement. Its pre-European distribution extended further north and west. The species was previously found in NT where it was first captured near Lake Amadeus in 1894 (Spencer 1896), and bones in caves were recently verified from near Yalgoo and Lake Barlee in Western Australia, 400–600 km west of the known WA GVD population (Riley et al 2021b). Subsequent surveys have failed to relocate the species in the NT, but further surveys are warranted.\n\nOwl pellets containing remains of Sandhill dunnarts have come from caves at the base of Uluru, NT (Parker 1973; Archer 1981), and caves at Darke Peak on Eyre Peninsula, SA (Baynes 1987). Owl pellets containing sub-fossil Sandhill dunnart remains have been collected from Black Point Sinkhole at Venus Bay, SA. These sub-fossil deposits were radiocarbon dated at 3,030–2,160 years before present (Baynes 1987; Copley et al. 1999).\n\n### 2.2.2 Important sub-populations\n\nThe three core populations (WA GVD, YRR and Eyre Peninsula) of Sandhill Dunnarts consist of five known sub-populations. All sub-populations are considered important for the long-term recovery and survival of the species. These sub-populations are located in the following areas:\n\n1. Southwestern Great Victoria Desert, WA (WA GVD)\n2. Great Victoria Desert, SA (SA GVD) including:\n - Yellabinna Regional Reserve,\n - Yellabinna Wilderness Protected Area,\n - Yumbarra Conservation Park, and\n - East of Pureba Conservation Park.\n3. Northcentral Eyre Peninsula (EP), SA including:\n - Pinkawillinie Conservation Park (near Kyancutta), and\n - Gawler Ranges National Park.\n4. Middleback dunefields (near Whyalla), northeastern Eyre Peninsula (EP), SA\n5. Central Eyre Peninsula (EP), SA including:\n - Hincks Conservation Park, and\n - Hambridge Conservation Park.\n\n## 2.3 Habitat\n\nThe presence of dense pre-senescent, usually long unburned (greater than 20 years without fire) spinifex (Triodia spp.) hummocks in association with sand dune systems appears to be the most significant factor explaining known Sandhill dunnart habitat in SA (Churchill 2001; Ward 2009), although current distribution over fire history suggests that there are also other factors that explain distribution. In Western Australia, Riley et al. (2021a) concluded through radio tracking that the survey and conservation of the Sandhill dunnart necessitate attention to habitats that have not burned for over 32 years. These habitats include dense lower stratum swales, sand plains, and dune slopes. This was supported by MaxEnt modelling (Riley 2020). The distribution is also constrained by semi-arid climatic conditions (Riley 2020). Modelling supports the view that Sandhill dunnart distribution is constrained by both the availability of Triodia spp. habitat (that is restricted to sandy soils) in dense southern semi-arid deserts and desert influenced by higher winter rainfall than Australia’s northern and central deserts (Riley 2020).\n\nIn WA, Sandhill dunnarts are primarily found in plains and dunes (longitudinal and ring dunes) with interdune corridors and plains; occasional salt pans at a mean ± standard deviation elevation of 402 ± 22 m a.s.l. (DAFWA 2014; Riley 2020). Vegetation communities are dominated by spinifex, predominantly T. desertorum and T. basedowii, hummock grasslands with scattered eucalypts including marble gums, Eucalyptus gongylocarpa, situated over wattle scrub, Acacia spp., and mallees, Eucalyptus spp. (Beard et al. 2013). The study site soils are ‘Yellow deep sand, Soil Group 446’ except for ‘Mulga’ habitat class soils where a variable depth sandy loamy clay crust is present (Schoknecht and Pathan 2013).\n\nSandhill dunnart models (Riley 2020) responded to surface geologies of ‘Qd’ (Dunes, sandplain with dunes and swales; this category may include numerous interdune claypans and may be locally Gypsiferous), ‘Czs’ (Sand or gravel plains that may include some residual alluvium, quartz sand sheets commonly with ferruginous pisoliths or pebbles, local clay, calcrete, laterite, silcrete, silt, and colluvium); and ‘Ln’ (Middleback subgroup: comprising Jaspilite, quartzite, gneiss, quartz-mica schist; and dolomitic marble). Understanding these geological formations is important for modelling the presence of Sandhill dunnart (Raymond et al. 2007).\n\nIn SA, species associations vary but are generally low, open mallee woodland over a diverse shrub layer and relatively dense spinifex; there is also a greater diversity of Triodia species which may be present, including T. irritans, T. scariosa and T. lanata.\n\nIn the WA GVD recent radio-tracking showed that Sandhill dunnarts are most often associated with dense, long-unburned sand plain, swale and dune slope habitats (Riley et al. 2021a, Riley et al. 2022), with a strong preference for dense lower habitat stratums and mature vegetation. Sandhill dunnart speciation occurred approximately 15 million years ago (Archer 1982), while dune development in the GVD was geologically recent (up to 781 000 years ago; Madigan 1936), so it is likely that sand dunes are probably not a prerequisite habitat feature for the species to persist (Riley 2020). Riley (2020) also found that Sandhill dunnart sheltering habitats could be far away from dune crests within swales or sand plains. Nonetheless, 82% of all shelters were within 500 m of a dune crest (Riley et al 2021a), suggesting that dunes and their influence on vegetation and fire dynamics enhance habitat suitability.\n\nThere appear to be additional areas of potentially suitable habitat in the southern GVD where the species has not yet been recorded – due to low, no or inappropriate survey effort, although they are patchily distributed (extract from Riley et al. 2022). Suitable habitat on Eyre Peninsula is limited due to historical land clearance.\n\n### 2.3.1 Shelter preferences\n\nSandhill dunnarts typically use burrows as diurnal refuges to maintain thermodynamic equilibrium (Porter and Gates 1969; Riley 2020, Riley et al. 2021a), and individuals have been observed using sun basking (passive rewarming) at burrow entrances, particularly during cooler conditions (Churchill 2001a, 2001b, Riley et al. 2021a). Shelter selection appears to be non-random within warmer habitat classes, and around 50% of entrances in a WA GVD radio tracking study were observed to face north (Riley et al. 2021a). Sandhill dunnarts have been observed using other types of shelter, including spinifex hummocks (Riley 2020, Churchill 2001a; Figure 2 f-h). In the Eyre Peninsula 68% of shelters were spherical nests within ‘Stage 3’ spinifex hummocks, 9% of shelters were within logs and 23% were burrows. In YRR, 96 % of shelters located by Churchill (2001b) were burrows (Riley 2020). In addition, fluorescent tagging of Eyre Peninsula individuals by Philp (2011) demonstrated that burrows were preferred as refuges during nocturnal foraging. In the Eyre Peninsula, when sheltering in spinifex, Sandhill dunnarts appeared to prefer large hummocks which have either an intact structure or have just started to die off in the centre (Churchill 2001a; Figure 3, life stages 2–4). However, it is unclear whether there are climatic or ecological differences affecting shelter use among populations, or whether these nests are diurnal or temporary shelters. In the WA GVD, when spinifex was chosen, Sandhill dunnarts opted for softer leaved species that would likely provide lower protection from predation, but which appear to have superior thermal properties, suggesting that thermal factors could be significant for the species (Riley 2020).\n\nTogether, these findings suggest that the habitat and shelter preferences of the species are complex, and may be population specific, and that site-specific characteristics are important in targeting management and recovery actions.\n\n![Composite of 8 images, all examples of different Sandhill dunnart burrows](image.007.png)\n\nFigure 2: Examples of Sandhill dunnart burrows\n\n> Note: (a) Exposed burrow with emerging individual inset; (b) Concealed burrow under a ‘Stage 5’ Triodia desertorum; (c) ‘Stage 3’ T. desertorum hummock; (d) Lepidobolus deserti hummock with individual inset; (e) Schoenus hexandrus hummock with individual inset; (f) Log shelter; (g) Bark shelter; (h) Burned mallee stump hollow with individual inset. Extract from Riley et al. 2021a Supplementary Data SD5.\n\n### 2.3.2 Spinifex hummocks – Fire and structure\n\nThe habitats preferred by the Sandhill dunnart, including dense sand plains, swales, and dune slopes, thrive in the absence of wildfire. In some areas, it has been over 40 years since a fire occurred. This long period without fire allows for the development of a range of suitable sites that provide adequate shelter and reduces the risk of predation (Brown et al., 1999; Laundré et al., 2001, 2010).\n\nPost-fire age of spinifex may be an important habitat indicator due to its influence on the cover and structure of Triodia. Recently burnt hummocks are too small for Sandhill dunnarts and long unburnt sites generally provide limited cover due to senescence of Triodia. The post-fire age of spinifex that Sandhill dunnarts will inhabit varies between sites and regions. In WA, most captures have been in habitat that was 17–26 years post-fire, with an optimum age structure recommended of 10–30 years post-fire (Gaikhorst and Lambert 2014). Riley et al. (2021a, 2021b) confirmed with tracking and satellite imagery that the mean fire age of preferred Sandhill dunnart nesting and foraging habitat in the WA GVD is 32+ years (range: 0–40+ years). In SA, captures have been in habitat ranging from 5 to >60 years post-fire (Churchill 2001b; Moseby et al. 2016; Ward 2009; Philp 2011; McLean 2012). Sandhill dunnarts captured at some SA sites with older spinifex (for example, Ooldea in the GVD and occasionally on Eyre Peninsula), have been shown to occupy burrows rather than nesting within hummocks (Churchill 2001a).\n\nGiven the apparently non-constant post-fire growth of Triodia at SA Sandhill dunnart capture sites (being also affected by rainfall, substrate, soil nutrients, and species), structural characteristics may be more useful predictors of Sandhill dunnart presence than post-fire age (Moseby et al. 2016). McLean (2015) found no preference for post-fire age. The number of logs (≥5 cm diameter), average height of Triodia hummocks and the overall complexity of vegetation were found to be the three most important habitat variables for predicting Sandhill dunnart abundance. Using modelling, Moseby et al. (2016) also found Sandhill dunnarts were more likely to populate areas which were ≥10 years post-fire where at least 10% of the Triodia had a minimum height of 330 mm. Moseby et al. (2016) recommend that fire be used as a management tool for maintaining habitat where Triodia cover declines below 10%, rather than using ‘post-fire age’ as a sole indicator.\n\n### 2.3.3 Habitat important to persistence and recovery\n\nAlthough habitat availability does not appear to be a limiting factor to the Sandhill dunnart, at least in the southern GVD, due to the relatively high mobility of the species, large areas of suitable habitat will need to be available to protect remaining populations (McLean 2015).\n\nFurther research is required to identify and map the habitat critical to survival of the species based on known habitat characteristics rather than relying on trapping programs which fail to consistently detect the species (Moseby et al. 2016). Maximum entropy models combined with accurate fire mapping have been valuable in locating unknown Sandhill dunnart populations in WA (Riley et al. 2021b). Landsat imagery is recommended for fire scar mapping in the GVD (Ruscalleda-Alvarez et al. 2021).\n\nThe most important habitat is considered to comprise:\n\n- Unburned habitat at extant Sandhill dunnart sites (based on the current available knowledge; Map 2);\n- Marble gum, mallee and Triodia spp. between dunes in the GVD of WA;\n- All Triodia sand dunes with a mallee Eucalyptus overstorey on Eyre Peninsula;\n- All Triodia sand dunes with a mallee Eucalyptus overstorey which occur between the three core population areas (Map 2); and\n- Areas within 500 m of a Dune crest within occupied sites in the GVD.\n\n![A composite of photographs which show the life stages of some Triodia spp. ](image.008.png)\n\nFigure 3: Life stages of some Triodia spp.\n\nNote: Drawings by Vicki Reynolds, photos are from Gaikhorst and Lambert (2014). At Stage 1 (Fig. 3a) the Triodia is a small tusk of grass. It then grows into a dense hummock by Stage 2 (Fig. 3b). At Stage 3 (Fig. 3c), some species of Triodia start to die off in the middle and continues to grow outwards until it reaches a ring (Stage 4; Fig. 3d), which breaks down into fragments (Stage 5; Fig. 3e).\n\nSource: Churchill 2001b\n\n## 2.4 Ecology\n\n### 2.4.1 Diet\n\nSandhill dunnarts typically consume invertebrates including ants, beetles, spiders, grasshoppers, termites, wasps and centipedes (Pearson and Churchill 2008). Small reptile bones (possibly a gecko) have been recorded from one scat (Churchill 2001b). At least two other Squamata species have been recorded, and Gastropoda have been detected in the faecal pellets of several individuals (Riley 2020, Riley et al. 2022). Sandhill dunnarts were previously thought to be largely opportunistic feeders, eating prey types in similar proportions to their availability (Churchill 2001b). Recent research indicates that (rarely for small arid zone mammal species) Sandhill dunnarts have an ant-rich diet, consuming a diverse range of ants in greater than expected proportions (Riley et al. 2022), and demonstrates metabolic controls that can allow for an ant-rich diet (which is difficult to digest), such as the ability to manipulate their metabolic rate with sun basking, shelter choice, and selective torpor (Riley 2020). It is difficult to say whether they have developed adaptations to facilitate consumption of ants, broadening their niche to deal with the scarcity of other prey at certain times of the year, or prefer ants (Shipley et al. 2009). Nonetheless, an ant-based diet appears to be an important survival adaptation for desert fauna in the WA GVD.\n\nSandhill dunnarts in the WA GVD generally foraged continuously from dusk to dawn, except during heavy rainfall and very cold (0–5°C) temperatures (Riley et al. 2021b).\n\n### 2.4.2 Reproduction\n\nSandhill dunnart females are polyoestrous, which means females have multiple oestrus cycles with 22–23 days between cycles (Riley 2020). Both male and female Sandhill dunnarts reach sexual maturity in their first year. Wild individuals usually mate following winter rains in August and September. They have a 16–19 day gestation period (Lambert et al. 2011), and young are typically born in September or October. The young remain in the pouch for up to 45 days and weaned young have been recorded between October and March (Lambert et al. 2011). The breeding season may be delayed or reduced in response to a reduction in available food resources (McLean 2015).\n\nFemales possess eight teats (Pearson and Churchill 2008) and have been recorded with up to eight young (How and Bignall 2009), although five to six are more common in the wild (Lambert et al. 2011). They usually produce a single litter each year but could possibly produce a second litter during good seasons (Churchill 2001b).\n\nIndividuals typically survive for just one breeding year in the wild, as with other Sminthopsis species, but males probably do not experience post-mating “male die off” as recorded in the Antechinus, and Phascogale genera because of differing physiologies (Morton 1982, Dickman and Braithwaite 1992, Pearson and Churchill 2008). The maximum age recorded for males and females is 19 months and 25 months, respectively, but in favourable conditions both sexes have been observed breeding over two consecutive years (McLean 2015). In captivity they have been found to breed for up to 3 seasons (Lambert et al. 2011) and live for up to six years (Sandhill Dunnart Workshop 2014).\n\nWild juveniles typically disperse between December and January, and both sexes are highly mobile to track intermittent resource patches (Pearson and Robinson 1990, McLean et al. 2019). Resource availability mediates condition, breeding and survival. In drought, breeding is delayed, and the survival of second year females and juveniles is reduced due to increased resource competition (McLean 2015).\n\nPopulations exhibit classic boom-bust dynamics typical of arid-zone mammals across Australia and population growth and decline are linked to rainfall (Southgate and Masters 1996, Dickman et al. 2001, Letnic and Dickman 2010).\n\nMovement ecology studies (extensive male ranging; see Section 2.4.4: Movement ecology) suggest a polygynous or polyandrous social organisation (Riley 2020).\n\n### 2.4.3 Temperature and diurnal shelter microclimate\n\nThe climate over the distributional range of the Sandhill dunnart is characterised by high diurnal variation sometimes fluctuating by over 35°C. Seasonal variation is also high with summer maximum temperatures sometimes exceeding 45°C and minimum winter temperatures sometimes falling to –4.5°C (Riley et al. 2021a; Australian Bureau of Meteorology 2025). Ground surface temperatures can reach up to 61°C because of reflective heat from the sand (Riley et al. 2021a).\n\nThe presence of large spinifex hummocks is considered an important habitat feature, as hummocks may provide a moderated microclimate suitable for Sandhill dunnart nest sites and reduce predation risk (Churchill 2001b). Sandhill dunnarts commonly nest within hummocks or in burrows excavated beneath hummocks, although they are known to also use hollow logs and Mitchell’s hopping-mouse (Notomys mitchellii) burrows (Churchill 2001b). Other hummock species (Lepidobolus deserti and Schoenus hexandrus), a burned mallee tree stump and a piece of bark have also been used during diurnal sheltering in the WA GVD (Riley et al. 2021a). In SA, the interior of spinifex hummocks has been found to be significantly cooler at high ambient temperatures (12.5°C cooler on average when the ambient temperature was >40°C), and significantly warmer at low ambient temperatures (6.5°C warmer on average when the ambient temperature was <0°C) (Churchill 2001b). However, no thermal benefit of spinifex hummocks was found in the WA GVD (Riley et al. 2021a).\n\nSandhill dunnarts significantly prefer burrows as diurnal shelters in the WA GVD and Ooldea in the SA GVD. Burrows provide even greater moderation of the microclimate with temperatures in the burrow (30 cm below the surface) showing virtually no variation throughout the day and night (Churchill 2001b; Riley et al. 2021a). Burrows also maintained a near constant humidity level (Churchill 2001b).\n\n### 2.4.4 Movement ecology\n\nThe mean home range area (100% minimum convex polygon) recorded for Sandhill dunnarts in the WA GVD is 70 ha (Riley 2020; Riley et al. 2022). A previous study in SA suggested that the species has a mean home range of 7.8 ha, although ranging data from Churchill’s (2001b) unpublished study also supports a larger home range; Sandhill dunnarts had a maximum home range area of 42 ha in SA in that study (Churchill 2001b). This uncertainty warrants further investigation of home range sizes in SA.\n\nThere was a strong effect of sex and reproductive status on the ranging behaviour of Sandhill dunnarts in the WA GVD (Riley et al. 2022). Reproductively active females had comparatively small mean home ranges of approximately 16 ha (Churchill 2001b; Riley 2022), presumably to secure or maintain breeding territories or good quality nesting burrows (Churchill 2001b). Limited data from SA indicates that Sandhill dunnart remain within a given home range for at least 8 months, but the boundaries of territories may drift over time (Churchill 2001b). Non-reproductively active individuals (of both sexes) in the WA GVD had mean home range areas between 21 and 29 ha (Riley et al. 2022). The maximum home range area of reproductively active males is significantly larger (274 ha recorded; Riley et al. 2022). The home ranges of males can overlap those of other males and females, although it is unclear how common this is (Churchill 2001b; Riley 2020). Potentially, if female territories do not overlap, then individual males may copulate with up to as many as 17 females within their range (Riley 2020). If female territories do overlap, this number may be higher.\n\nSandhill dunnarts have been recorded in SA in densities of up to 30–90 individuals/km2 in SA (Ward unpublished; Ward et al. 2008), however this represents an extreme upper limit. In high quality habitat in a typical good year may be around 0.1 individuals/km2, and in a bust year density may be as low as 0.01 individuals/km2. However, densities are likely to be dependent on habitat availability, habitat quality, predation, and food resources (Gaikhorst and Lambert 2014). Making accurate population density estimates for the species is challenging. In a key SA study, the population density of Sandhill dunnart was estimated at 25 individuals/km2 of suitable habitat (Churchill 2001a). This figure was a projection of a maximum of five individuals captured at one 20 ha SA trapping site and may be an overestimate. More often, the capture rate is much more variable (likely due to droughts and deficits in resource availability) and not usually this high (McLean 2015, Turpin and Riley 2021, Riley 2020).\n\nIn SA, individuals may move 200–300 m per foraging period (two foraging periods have been recorded on warm nights), but they are able to traverse long distances in short periods of time, up to 1,960 m in two hours (Churchill 2001b). In WA, individuals were extremely mobile and had a maximum speed of 3 km/h (Riley et al. 2022). In contrast to previous dasyurid studies, Sandhill dunnart foraged continuously throughout the night until just before sunrise and then quickly returned to shelters that were up to 1 km away (Riley et al. 2022). The high mobility of the species appears to be necessary in a system with spatially and temporally variable food resources (McLean 2015).\n\n## 2.5 Threats\n\nSince European settlement there has been a major episode of mammal declines and extinctions in Australia (>10% of the 273 endemic terrestrial species) (Woinarski et al. 2015). The major drivers of this decline have been predation by introduced species (feral cats and foxes) and altered fire regimes (Woinarski et al. 2015). In some parts of the Sandhill dunnart’s range, other land use practices such as pastoralism and clearing for agriculture, have also been a major cause of decline, particularly on the Eyre Peninsula.\n\nAlong with habitat loss and fragmentation (particularly on Eyre Peninsula), predation by cats and foxes and altered fire regimes are considered severe threats to Sandhill dunnart survival (Woinarski et al. 2014). Other threats include the direct threat of predation by native carnivores, and the indirect threat of declining habitat quality caused by introduced herbivores (especially sheep, goats, rabbits, camels, and cattle) and weed species.\n\nClimate change impacts may also increase the risk of wildfire through lower rainfall and increased lightning, as well as result in larger, hotter and more frequent fires. Moreover, a potential emerging threat affecting spinifex that may be linked to climate is the recently observed die-off events.\n\nSandhill dunnarts are within the Critical Weight Range (CWR) of Australian mammals, which includes medium-sized mammals of 35–5000 g. Extinction risk has been, and is predicted to remain, high among these CWR species (Burbidge and McKenzie 1989). The CWR species at greatest risk are ground-dwelling species from low-rainfall areas, as the sparse vegetation provides limited cover from predation by cats and foxes (Johnson and Isaac 2009).\n\n### 2.5.1 Inappropriate fire regimes\n\nAll populations, except eastern GVD\n\nChange in fire patterns is considered a major threat to Sandhill dunnarts (Woinarski et al. 2014). It is typically believed that historic “firestick farming” conducted by First Nations people produced complex mosaics of different age classes of vegetation (Burrows et al. 2006); this benefited species through encouraging new vegetation growth, increasing structural diversity, providing cover in unburnt patches and typically increasing food availability in unburnt areas (Latz 1995). Latz (1995) considered that most vegetation communities throughout arid Australia have become dependent on a regime of fires lit by First Nations people; however in areas of low First Nations population density (for example, waterless regions like the eastern GVD) it is more likely that lightning strikes had a greater influence on the fire regime than First Nations people (Hateley and Hateley 2010); this is also believed to be the case for Eyre Peninsula (J. Tilley pers. comm.).\n\nFire is a major threat to biodiversity in the WA GVD, including the Sandhill dunnart (Turpin and Johnstone 2017, Turpin and Riley 2021). Destructive summer fires (from lightning strikes) remove the mature vegetation required for protection and shelter. Repeated fire events inhibit the development of habitat. The current fire regime, arising from the cessation of traditional burning practices, is ongoing and as such, large areas of the GVD are burnt each summer. Since the commencement of monitoring in the WA GVD, fires have rendered large areas of habitat unsuitable for the Sandhill dunnart and have resulted in the loss of several known populations, including at monitoring sites known to formerly support the species (Turpin and Riley 2021). Previously occupied sites affected by fire do not support the species post burn for many years (Turpin and Riley 2021).\n\nIn general, long unburned, spinifex-dominated natural refugial habitats are important to reduce predation risk of Sandhill dunnart. Conversely, Sandhill dunnart successfully forages during periods of high predation risk (during or after fire and other disturbance events), probably by using dense habitats, burrows, and evasive techniques. Wildfire management may be the most important aspect for the conservation of Sandhill dunnart and sympatric small arid zone mammals in the Australian arid zone.\n\nMitigating against the likelihood of large-scale wildfires will be critical for Sandhill dunnart survival, particularly as climate change causes an increase in the frequency and severity of wildfires (McLean 2015; Riley et al. 2021b).\n\nSummer lightning strikes are the most frequent cause of wildfire in the arid-zone, and they are likely to increase in frequency as temperatures rise – there is an approximate 6% increase in global lightning frequencies for every 1°C rise in temperature (Price and Rind 1991, 1994, Williams et al. 2001). With no active fire management when wildfires occur, large areas are likely to burn once initiated.\n\nIn some areas, the frequency of weekly wildfires has increased by 40% over the past five years, and this abruptly altered pattern is most likely related to climate change (Clarke et al. 2013; IPCC 2014; Dutta et al. 2016).\n\nIn addition to climate action, prescribed burning is recommended to reduce this threat and maintain a mosaic of suitable habitat for Sandhill dunnarts (DENR 2012; DEWNR 2014b; DEWNR 2014c; Gaikhorst and Lambert 2014; Moseby et al. 2016), but not in the eastern GVD (Armstrong 2015).\n\nThe fire management plan for Central Eyre Peninsula 2014–2024 (DEWNR 2014b) recognises that Sandhill dunnart habitats are strongly influenced by fire history. Strategies in the plan include implementing fuel management to maintain suitable age classes of hummocks for known populations, fuel management to protect against large-scale fires, and trialling ecological prescribed burns to improve Sandhill dunnart habitat. In 2010 and 2011, prescribed burns were undertaken in Sandhill dunnart habitat in the Secret Rocks area on Eyre Peninsula (northeastern Eyre Peninsula), burning a total of approximately 1300 ha. In 2014 and 2015, prescribed burns were conducted in Ironstone Hill Conservation Park to limit the spread of bushfire through Sandhill dunnart habitat and to redistribute age class of spinifex hummocks (J. Tilley pers. comm.).\n\nAlinytjara Wilurara Landscape Board and the former SA Department of Environment, Water and Natural Resources (DEWNR), now Department for Environment and Water (DEW), also developed an ecological fire management strategy for the Sandhill dunnart in SA (DEWNR 2012). The strategy focuses on fire risk management for the Sandhill dunnart. The strategy recommends undertaking prescribed burns which maintain 66% of a given area of suitable habitat, are not within the breeding and weaning season, avoid burning optimum habitat, and avoid burning areas adjacent to habitat burnt <8 years earlier. The strategy also recommends prescribed burns in habitat >8 years post-fire and <20 years post-fire. The variability in recommended times acknowledges that vegetation growth rates in habitats with highly variable rainfall are not linear. As such the physical structure of Triodia spp. favoured by Sandhill dunnarts cannot be directly correlated to time since fire but is more likely to be associated with cumulative rainfall or microhabitat variables.\n\nLand managers of the WA rangelands have developed Guiding Principles for fire management in the region, including areas containing Sandhill dunnart habitat (RFLG 2015). The principles recognise that prescribed burns which create mosaics of post-fire vegetation growth stages, including long unburnt vegetation, will benefit biodiversity and buffer against large wildfires.\n\nFire regimes that cause declines in biodiversity are a key threatening process listed under the EPBC Act. Advice on this key threatening process includes more information about the threats of inappropriate fire regimes to species (DAWE 2022).\n\n### 2.5.2 Habitat loss and fragmentation\n\nAll populations, particularly Eyre Peninsula\n\nSandhill dunnarts have been lost from parts of their former range on central and northern Eyre Peninsula through historic clearance for agriculture (Aitken 1971). Around 54% of land has been cleared and the remaining vegetation is heavily fragmented with only 42% still connected (DEWNR 2014a). This fragmentation reduces opportunities for Sandhill dunnarts to recolonise areas of potential habitat. Sandhill dunnarts occurring in isolated native vegetation are also vulnerable to local extirpations as a result of stochastic events such as drought and large wildfires. Due to the isolated nature of remnant vegetation patches on Eyre Peninsula, McLean, et al (2019) undertook genetic analyses to determine whether gene flow is occurring between isolated vegetation patches to inform management. This was to determine the need for translocations or creation of habitat corridors (McLean et al. 2019).\n\nAt a fine spatial scale, McLean, et al. (2019) found no significant genetic structure or sex-biased dispersal within a study site of 240 km2. Their findings suggest that both sexes are highly mobile, which allows individuals to locate localised resource patches when they become available. They detected evidence of a genetic bottleneck within the population, possibly caused by a recent drought highlighting the importance of maintaining connectivity across the landscape for semi-arid and arid-zone species to enable them to track resource pulses and maintain genetic diversity. They found that the level of genetic diversity within the Eyre Peninsula sites is at risk of decline given the reduced allelic richness and heterozygosity, as well as the isolated nature of remnant vegetation patches compared with the populations in the GVD. Relatively recent (Churchill 2001b; Kemper et al. 2011; Moseby et al. 2016) and historic (Aitken 1971; Baynes 1987) records suggest that Sandhill dunnart was widespread over the central and northern Eyre Peninsula before European settlement. Since European settlement, Eyre Peninsula has lost over half (57%) of its native vegetation (Churchill 2001a; Brandle 2010). Habitat clearance in the southern portion of Eyre Peninsula greatly reduces available habitat, and its effects are significant. The chenopod shrubland communities south and east of Whyalla do not provide significant habitat preferred by the Sandhill dunnart.\n\nThe extent to which Sandhill dunnart may be affected by habitat loss and fragmentation elsewhere is unknown. However, fragmentation will likely result in isolated populations where movement, needed to track resources, is hindered by unfavourable landscapes between remnant vegetation. Loss of vegetation appears to have resulted in the contraction of the once widespread Sandhill dunnart to remnant patches in central and northern Eyre Peninsula. Research is needed to determine the long-term viability of these populations and the level of connectivity (gene flow) between them. If remnant patches are isolated, populations may become locally extinct due to environmental, demographic, and other stochastic events, such as wildfires (Lande 1988; McLean et al. 2018).\n\nThere has been no land clearance for agriculture in the GVD, however, new threats are emerging that may cause irrevocable damage to Sandhill dunnart habitat. Mining and other industry operations have been proposed or undertaken within arid and semi-arid regions of SA and WA that support Sandhill dunnart habitat. These activities often involve large scale vegetation clearance and substrate disturbance in sandy spinifex and mallee environments. In YRR, exploration tracks have been created using a roller which is designed to crush the vegetation but leave the soil surface intact (Warland and Mills 2011). Subsequent observations suggest that rolled Triodia typically dies (Sandhill dunnart Workshop 2014), however, regeneration of Triodia is likely to be faster using this method compared to bulldozing or grading, given that the rootstock and seedbank are left intact after rolling. While rolling may allow some habitat recovery, expanding mining activities continue to threaten Sandhill dunnart populations.\n\nGiven the dispersed impacts of exploration activity, it is hard to assess what impacts it may have on Sandhill dunnarts. If rolled tracks are positioned in tight grids, then direct impacts on Sandhill dunnart nests may be a concern. Land clearance and the construction of tracks also have the indirect, but potentially significant, effect of facilitating the spread of weeds such as buffel grass (Cenchrus ciliaris).\n\n### 2.5.3 Predation by cats and foxes\n\nAll populations\n\nCats and foxes are known predators of some Sminthopsis species in arid Australia (Catling 1988; Paltridge et al. 1997; Read and Bowen 2001; Paltridge 2002), but the extent of their impact on the Sandhill dunnart is unknown. Currently core populations of Sandhill dunnarts are surviving in the presence of both cats and foxes (McLean 2015; Turpin and Riley 2021).\n\nAnalysis of 128 predator scats taken from known areas with Sandhill dunnarts has found a small percentage of scats (<2%) contained Sandhill dunnart remains, however, the predators were unidentified, but may have been a dog, dingo or fox (Boulton and Foulkes 2000). The Sandhill dunnart is ranked by Woolley et al. (2019) within the top Australian species at most risk of predation by the feral cat.\n\nFurther research into predation impacts of cats and foxes (and predation impacts of other species such as dingoes) on Sandhill dunnart populations is recommended. Several projects on feral cat control in Australia were funded as part of the Threatened Species Strategy (Australian Government 2015) and the Threatened Species Action Plan 2022-2032 (Australian Government 2022). This included developing and testing bait dispensing technologies and refining the use of feral cat baits. None of the funded projects directly relate to Sandhill dunnarts, however they may benefit and inform management of cats within the Sandhill dunnart’s range. Control of feral cats and foxes is desirable but will need to consider predator-prey interactions. For example, cat predation on Dasyurids is known to increase when consumption of rabbits is decreased (Doherty et al. 2015).\n\nFurthermore, in a study of feral cats in northern Australian savanna, McGregor et. al. (2015) found the hunting success of the cats (per attempt; n = 13) was only 17% in habitats with dense grass or complex rocks, compared to 70% in open areas (n = 101). This suggests that dense and complex microhabitats are likely to decrease cat predation rates.\n\nPredation by feral cats is a key threatening process listed under the EPBC Act. The threat abatement plan for predation by feral cats provides useful information on managing feral cats in a variety of landscapes and habitats (DCCEEW 2024).\n\nPredation by the European red fox (Vulpes vulpes) is a key threatening process listed under the EPBC Act. The threat abatement plan for predation by European red fox provides useful information on managing fox in a variety of landscapes and habitats (DEWHA 2008).\n\n### 2.5.4 Introduced flora (including buffel grass)\n\nAll populations\n\nThere are comparatively few serious weeds that are invading spinifex grasslands, except for buffel grass (Cenchrus ciliaris). Buffel grass is considered one of Australia’s worst environmental weeds (Humphries et al. 1991). It is a perennial tussock grass native to Africa, India and Asia and was introduced into Australia for pasture and dust control. It has spread widely across northern and central Australia (Marshall et al. 2012) including known and potential habitat of the Sandhill dunnart in WA, SA and NT (Lawson et al. 2004).\n\nBuffel grass can increase the intensity and frequency of fire events, threatening plant and animal communities that are not adapted to these modified fire regimes (Adair and Groves 1998). Buffel grass dries quickly and produces a more combustible and contiguous flammable fuel than native grasses, resulting in hotter and more intense fires (Humphries et al. 1993). It regenerates rapidly after fire suppressing the regeneration of native species (Paltridge et al. 2009) and forms dense monocultures, reducing diversity (Clarke et al. 2005) and productivity of some vegetation types (Humphries et al. 1993).\n\nBuffel grass is considered a major threat to Sandhill dunnarts due to the way that its dominance across landscapes leads to changes in availability of bare ground and the intensity and frequency of fires, resulting in the loss of nesting spinifex hummocks and potential changes to food availability (Sandhill dunnart Workshop 2014). Mitigation of this threat includes preventing the spread of buffel grass and controlling buffel grass where it establishes near known subpopulations of Sandhill dunnarts, including along incursion pathways (such as, access tracks and roads, and along adjacent watercourses). A SA Buffel Grass Strategic Plan (Biosecurity SA 2012) provides options for controlling the spread of buffel grass during the early stages of invasion; however, there is currently no feasible control method available once it is well established over an extensive area.\n\nNovel biota and their impact on biodiversity is a key threatening process listed under the EPBC Act. Advice on this key threatening process includes more information on the management of invasive flora, including buffel grass (TSSC 2013).\n\nAt the time this plan came into effect a specific threat abatement plan for buffel grass is in development by DCCEEW and will be published on the DCCEEW website when finalised.\n\n### 2.5.5 Introduced herbivores\n\nAll populations\n\nIntroduced herbivores (cattle, goats, sheep, rabbits and camels) may have an impact on the survival of Sandhill dunnarts indirectly in a variety of ways, including:\n\n- altering the structure of spinifex hummocks;\n- changing the fire regime by removing biomass;\n- reducing floristic diversity of habitats over time;\n- causing soil compaction and disturbance;\n- sustaining higher numbers of introduced predators (for example, rabbits and house mice provide an increased food source for foxes and feral cats \\[Holden and Mutze 2002\\], which may then switch to preying on native species when rabbit or mouse numbers decline during droughts or when rabbit numbers crash due to Rabbit Haemorrhagic Disease or myxomatosis outbreaks); and\n- encouraging the spread of introduced predators such as foxes and feral cats into areas that usually have only very low densities (Read and Bowen 2001, Moseby and Hill 2011).\n\nIntroduced herbivores are unlikely to have more than localised impacts on the habitats occupied by Sandhill dunnarts. The southern GVD is not suitable for introduced stock due to a lack of water sources and the low nutritional value of spinifex. On Eyre Peninsula, some sites in the Middleback dune fields are grazed by sheep, goats and rabbits; however, most of these animals appear to avoid the spinifex-dominated habitats in favour of other habitat types with more nutritious plants.\n\n### 2.5.6 Climate change\n\nAll populations\n\nPredicted anthropogenic climate change is likely to influence the distribution, habitat suitability and recovery prospects of Sandhill dunnart. Over the past century, Australia’s annual mean temperature has increased more than 1°C, while the south-west of the continent has experienced a decline in annual rainfall of up to 20% (Riley et al. 2021b).\n\nSemi-arid desert specialists such as the Sandhill dunnart are often dependent on winter rainfall and are susceptible to rainfall deficits, wildfires and extreme temperatures caused by anthropogenic climate change (Riley 2020). Future distributions of the Sandhill dunnart, considering the effects of climate change, current fire, and habitat fragmentation, have been modelled by Riley (2020) and Riley, et al. (2021b). Suitable habitat for Sandhill dunnart is predicted to contract significantly towards the more mesic southern parts of its range. As a sandy desert specialist, the distribution of the species is also geographically limited at its southern bounds due to the cessation of suitable habitats. Consequently, further extension of the range southwards is unlikely without assisted migration (Riley et al. 2021b).\n\nRiley et al. (2021b) note that the WA GVD and YRR populations are at a higher climatic risk, with the Eyre Peninsula population also predicted to contract in range as a result of climate change.\n\nThe decline in Sandhill dunnart populations appears to be occurring from north to south, tracking the effects of climate change (Riley 2020, Riley et al. 2021b). Unlike other arid zone mammal species where decline and extinction has occurred from south to north following the displacement of First Nations peoples (who were managing the land to prevent fire), the Sandhill dunnart’s contraction aligns with increasing aridity and warming (Riley et al. 2021b). The species reliance on dense, semi-arid habitats makes it highly sensitive to climate driven habitat shifts, as increasing temperature and limited rainfall are likely to degrade the refugial environments on which it depends (Riley et al. 2021b).\n\nRiley (2020) and J. Turpin (pers. comm.) have observed that extreme heat events have caused mass vegetation die-offs in the WA GVD (Figure 4). Rapidly increasing global temperatures, irregular rainfall patterns and more frequent wildfires and droughts are particularly dangerous in the Australian arid zone and threaten Sandhill dunnart habitat. Water is already scarce, vegetation is highly flammable, and the flat arid landscape offers little elevation for species to escape rising temperatures (Pittock 2009, Lindenmayer et al. 2010).\n\nNorthern and western habitats are predicted to become increasingly unsuitable for Sandhill dunnart and sympatric desert species over the next 50 years. Regions of the southern central WA (outside of the arid zone) were indicated as climatic refuges by the modelling. Translocations to constructed artificial fenced reserves with transplanted soils, seeds and vegetation from natural arid zone habitats may be required. However further research into their feasibility and value for sandhill dunnarts will be required before this may be considered an option to mitigate the projected loss of distribution due to climate change (Riley 2020).\n\n![Photographs showing habitat destruction and degradation from fire, droughts and hot winds in the Great Victoria Desert. ](image.009.png)\n\nFigure 4: GVD habitat destruction\n\n> Note: Large wildfires (left), droughts and hot winds (right) destroyed sensitive Western Australian Great Victoria Desert (WA GVD) habitat in 2019. Extract from Riley 2020.\n\nFurther, recent observations of Triodia die-off in Sandhill dunnart habitat in the WA GVD, and the APY Lands of far northern SA (including Wamitjara and Kenmore Park mail road), may be linked to climate change, although this is unclear. If climate change is the cause, then Sandhill dunnart habitat (and other semi-arid species), may be nearing a tipping point. Active investigation of the causes underlying this die-off is warranted.\n\n### 2.5.7 Native herbivores\n\nAll populations\n\nNative herbivores such as kangaroos are also a potential issue in the Middleback dune fields. Euros (Osphranter robustus) graze regenerating Triodia, sometimes preventing recruitment after fire and Western Grey Kangaroos (Macropus fuliginosus) in high density lay on Triodia hummocks, squashing them and presumably limit their value for dunnarts (J. Read pers. comm.). This is not an issue in other areas such as Yellabinna where dingoes control the usually low kangaroo numbers.\n\nEuros, Western Grey Kangaroo and Red Kangaroo (O. rufus) represent a significant threat to Triodia structure and abundance where there are permanent water sources nearby (R. Brandle pers. comm.). Native herbivores may also be partially responsible for the impacts summarised in Section: 2.5.5 Introduced herbivores in areas where Dingoes (Canis lupus dingo) are persecuted (inside the dog fence in SA). Waterpoint management and control of numbers in fenced areas are key to managing these impacts.\n\nTable 2: Risk matrix for the Sandhill dunnart\n\n| Consequence (x) // Likelihood (y) | Not significant | Minor | Moderate | Major | Catastrophic |\n| --------------------------------- | --------------- | ------------------------------ | -------------------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------------ |\n| Almost certain | | | | Very-high riskInappropriate fire regimesHabitat loss and fragmentation | |\n| Likely | | Moderate riskNative herbivores | High riskIntroduced herbivoresClimate change | Very-high riskPredation by cats and foxesIntroduced flora | |\n| Possible | | | | | |\n| Unlikely | | | | | |\n| Unknown | | | | | |\n\nRisk matrix key:\n\n| Low risk | Moderate risk | High risk | Very-high risk |\n| -------- | ------------- | --------- | -------------- |\n\nDefinition of likelihood and consequence categories\n\nConsequence is a measure of the severity of the impact of the threat on the survival of the species.\n\n- Catastrophic – affecting survival, reproduction or essential movement of individuals in >80% of the population or across >80% of the distribution within the next 3 generations or 10 years, whichever is longer.\n- Major – affecting survival, reproduction or essential movement of individuals in 50-80 % of the population or across 50-80% of the distribution within the next 3 generations or 10 years, whichever is longer.\n- Moderate – affecting survival, reproduction or essential movement of individuals in 20-50% of the population or across 20-50% of the distribution within the next 3 generations or 10 years, whichever is longer.\n- Minor – affecting survival, reproduction or essential movement of individuals in 5-30% of the population or across 5-30% of the distribution within the next 3 generations or 10 years, whichever is longer.\n- Not significant – affecting survival, reproduction or essential movement of individuals in <5% of the population or across <5% of the distribution within the next 3 generations or 10 years, whichever is longer.\n\nLikelihood is a measure of how regularly the threat impacts the species.\n\n- Almost certain – >90% chance that threat will have an impact on the species within the next 3 generations or 10 years, whichever is longer.\n- Likely – 66-90% chance that threat will have an impact on the species within the next 3 generations or 10 years, whichever is longer.\n- Possible – 33-66% chance that threat will have an impact on the species within the next 3 generations or 10 years, whichever is longer.\n- Unlikely – <33% chance that threat will have an impact on the species within the next 3 generations or 10 years, whichever is longer.\n- Unknown – probability that threat will have an impact on the species within the next 3 generations or 10 years, whichever is longer, could be 0-100%.\n\n \n\n# 3 Recovery planning\n\n## 3.1 Vision\n\nSandhill dunnart populations are healthy and stable and have expanded across their potential range. The quality and connectedness of habitat is being improved by regional communities and land managers who have adopted management practices to support the long-term sustainability of the species so that it becomes eligible for removal from the EPBC Act List of Threatened Species.\n\n## 3.2 Objectives\n\nThe Objectives in place to enact the Vision for the Sandhill dunnart are as follows:\n\n1. Threats to Sandhill dunnart are appropriately managed reducing their impact to Sandhill dunnart sub-populations and habitat;\n2. Sandhill dunnart habitat is rehabilitated, connected and protected;\n3. Collective understanding of Sandhill dunnart populations, habitat, ecology and threats has improved; and\n4. Conservation of Sandhill dunnart and their habitat is led and championed by Traditional Custodians, community, experts and governments.","sortOrder":5},{"sectionNumber":"1.2.1 Surveys and monitoring","sectionType":"division","heading":"1.2.1 Surveys and monitoring","content":"### 1.2.1 Surveys and monitoring\n\nSeveral surveys targeting Sandhill dunnarts have been conducted and are continuing in the Great Victoria Desert (GVD) and on Eyre Peninsula since 2000. These have resulted in two new spatially independent locations 150 km north of the known range in WA (near Laverton) and several new locations recorded within the species’ known range. In addition, information has been gained on the ecology, diet, habitat, distribution, genetics, and threats to Sandhill dunnarts (McLean 2015, Riley 2020).\n\nEnvironmental Impact Assessments (EIA) associated with mining activities have increased survey efforts and added data to assist in understanding the species (Gaikhorst and Lambert 2014). Most of these surveys from north of Queen Victoria Spring to the north-west of Plumridge Lakes Nature Reserve have been associated with the EIA for the Tropicana Gold Mine (Tropicana Joint Venture 2010; EPA 2010). The Great Victoria Desert Biodiversity Trust (GVDBT) (Sandhill Dunnart Workshop 2014), setup as an offset for the Tropicana Gold Mine, are also seeking to develop standardised survey methods and long-term monitoring protocols for monitoring Sandhill dunnarts in the two western subregions (Shield and Central) of the GVD in WA (2015a; 2015b). These are intended to build upon the 'Survey guidelines for Australia’s threatened mammals’ (Australian Government 2011). Iluka Mine in Yellabinna have conducted surveys for the species over many years as well an including collecting baseline and monitoring data.\n\nThere have been irregular surveys by Ecological Horizons, other researchers and the SA Department for Environment and Water (DEW) in the Middleback ranges over recent decades. Landscape Board National Landcare Program (NLP) funded projects in the Yellabinna, Pinkawillinie and Gawler Ranges areas.\n\nSurveys have been ongoing in the Yellabinna Mallee country via the Alinytjara Wilurara Landscape Board (AWLB). Surveys in the far-west including Yellabinna were undertaken over the past ten years via the Alinytjara Wilurara NRM (now Alinytjara Wilurara Landscape Board) from 2018 to 2023, which are planned to continue if funding permits. The Middleback Alliance undertook aerial fox baiting over the past 5 years and a survey to attempt to quantify the impacts, although this was made difficult by drought (R. Brandle pers comms).\n\nTurpin and Lloyd (2014) and Turpin and Riley (2017) have conducted the Sandhill dunnart Monitoring Program for APA Group biannually since 2014 along the Eastern Goldfields Pipeline in the GVD in WA, representing the only long-term monitoring studies for the species in WA. Riley (2020) and Riley et al. (2021b) were also funded by the Goldfields Environmental Management Group (GEMG) to perform motion camera surveys for the species throughout WA.\n\nFurther surveys are required in areas which are likely to be suitable for Sandhill dunnarts in SA and WA, including in the GVD of WA and SA (Map 2 ). Potential survey areas within the GVD include:\n\n the mallee/spinifex habitat north of Yellabinna Regional Reserve (YRR),\n the spinifex and sand dune communities in the Maralinga Tjarutja Lands,\n Mamungari Conservation Park, and\n the southern Anangu Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara Lands (APY Lands).\n\nSandhill dunnart records are included in the Atlas of Living Australia (Atlas of Living Australia 2025).","sortOrder":6},{"sectionNumber":"1.2.2 Sandhill dunnart Project (SA Aliny","sectionType":"division","heading":"1.2.2 Sandhill dunnart Project (SA Alinytjara Wilurara Landscape Board)","content":"### 1.2.2 Sandhill dunnart Project (SA Alinytjara Wilurara Landscape Board)\n\nThe Alinytjara Wilurara NRM Board has been working with communities across the region to implement the draft Sandhill dunnart recovery plan (Churchill 2001a). This has included undertaking Sandhill dunnart surveys in the Maralinga Tjarutja Lands and training in sand-plot tracking through the Oak Valley Land Management Engagement program (Alinytjara Wilurara Landscape Board 2015).\n\nIn addition, long-term monitoring has been undertaken with surveys occurring at the Immarna site since 2007 – a location within the YRR just to the east of the Ooldea siding. Surveys have focused on pitfall trapping and measuring Triodia densities and heights (Moseby, et al. 2016).\n\nIn 2018, Alinytjara Wilurara Landscape Board (AWLB) secured National Landcare Program 2 funds to continue these works, not only at the Immarna site, but also across much of the Yellabinna and Yumbarra reserves area, focusing on determining the key habitats for the species, as well as attempting to extend the current known areas of occupancy within this area. Surveys have been planned by examining fire-scar mapping to target areas with a post-fire age of 15 years, or more. This has resulted in the species being found at three more locations, suggesting that these dunnarts occur across Yellabinna Regional Reserve. This project was funded until 2023 and aimed to determine whether there are any “core” habitat areas or refuge areas (Pavey et al. 2017) for the Sandhill dunnart and, if so, how these might best be defined spatially and ecologically. It also includes threat abatement works focused on reducing predation pressures from foxes and feral cats, and surveillance against the establishment of the habitat transforming weed, buffel grass.","sortOrder":7},{"sectionNumber":"1.2.3 Captive breeding research","sectionType":"division","heading":"1.2.3 Captive breeding research","content":"### 1.2.3 Captive breeding research\n\nIn 2005, five Sandhill dunnarts (3 males and 2 females) were collected from the GVD in WA and transferred to Perth Zoo for captive breeding research (D. Jose pers. comm.). A total of six litters were produced over three seasons, with 41 animals bred. Research was published on their oestrus cycle, gestation period, and the growth and development of their young (Lambert et al. 2011), and a Husbandry Manual was also produced (Ferguson 2008). At the conclusion of the project in 2007, the remaining animals were relocated to Cleland Wildlife Park, Alice Springs Desert Park, or left on display at Perth Zoo. None were released back into the wild. Moonlit Sanctuary kept a single male from 2010 to 2011. The last recording of a Sandhill dunnart in captivity is a single male from Alice Springs Desert Park in 2012.","sortOrder":8},{"sectionNumber":"1.2.4 The Great Victoria Desert Biodiver","sectionType":"division","heading":"1.2.4 The Great Victoria Desert Biodiversity Trust","content":"### 1.2.4 The Great Victoria Desert Biodiversity Trust\n\nThe Great Victoria Desert Biodiversity Trust (GVDBT) was established in 2014 as an independent not-for-profit entity as part of the approval process for the Tropicana Gold Mine. The GVDBT aims to establish a bioregional plan (for two GVD sub-regions in WA), undertake priority research and management (including research on the Sandhill dunnart), and facilitate the involvement of Traditional Custodians.\n\nWorkshops on Sandhill dunnarts were held in 2014 and 2019 to determine and prioritise research and management activities to help conserve viable populations of Sandhill dunnart in the WA GVD. Knowledge gaps identified during the workshops included, distribution, threats, effectiveness of mitigation strategies, monitoring, habitat requirements, diet and life history, and appropriate management. Based on the workshops, the GVDBT developed a Research and Adaptive Management Plan (RAMP) for the Sandhill dunnart (GVDBT 2016), and the recovery actions in this plan (Summary of recovery objectives, recovery actions, performance criteria, potential partners and priority ratings) are designed to complement the research priorities and conservation action priorities identified in the RAMP. In 2016 DBCA produced for the GVDBT a report on defining a baseline survey design for the Sandhill dunnart in the WA GVD and this was updated to include more guidance on the use of camera traps. These guidelines were revised in 2020 (GHD 2020).","sortOrder":9},{"sectionNumber":"1.2.5 Habitat protection in declared con","sectionType":"division","heading":"1.2.5 Habitat protection in declared conservation areas","content":"### 1.2.5 Habitat protection in declared conservation areas\n\nThe GVD covers an enormous area, approximately 420,000 km2, and is the largest dune desert in Australia. It extends from north of the Nullarbor Plain to the Gibson Desert and Central Ranges in WA and to the central Australian ranges. From west to east, it extends from Laverton in WA to Coober Pedy in SA. Approximately half of this land is managed by Traditional Custodian groups, including Mirning, Anangu Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara, Maralinga, Kokatha, Wirangu and Barngarla groups, and Spinifex people (Pila Nguru Aboriginal Corporation). A further 70,000 km2 (about one fifth) of the GVD is in conservation parks and reserves. Almost all the remaining area is land owned by the State (known as ‘Crown land’ or ‘Unallocated Crown Land’), much of which is overlain by mining tenements (including Tropicana Gold Mine and Iluka Resources) and native title claims.\n\nWhile large areas of potential habitat of the Sandhill dunnart are reserved in several conservation areas, Queen Victoria Spring Nature Reserve is the only one known to have Sandhill dunnarts in WA. All other known populations occur on Unallocated Crown Land. In the SA portion of the GVD, most Sandhill dunnarts have been found in YRR with some additional records in Yellabinna Wilderness Protection Area and Yumbarra Conservation Park, despite survey efforts further north (Moseby et al. 2016).\n\nThe majority of Eyre Peninsula (54%) has been cleared for agriculture (DEWNR 2014a) and much of the uncleared land is under grazing leases. One of the largest areas of remnant vegetation is the Central-Northwest Linkage, spanning from Hincks Conservation Park through to the Kulliparu Conservation Park, approximately 9,900 km2. This area contains 6,820 km2 (69%) of native vegetation, of which 3,170 km2 (46%) is protected either in national parks, conservation parks or Heritage agreements. The discovery of Sandhill dunnarts in Hincks Wilderness Protection Area in 2005 has prompted further survey work within this broader area.\n\nThere are several conservation areas on northern Eyre Peninsula that contain known or potentially suitable habitat for Sandhill dunnarts, including Pinkawillinie Conservation Park (1,271 km2), Ironstone Hill Conservation Park (197 km2), Hambidge Wilderness Protection Area (380 km2), Hincks Wilderness Protection Area (669 km2), Gawler Ranges National Park (1786 km2) and Pureba Conservation Park (2264 km2). While brief initial surveys of Pinkawillinie Conservation Park (Churchill 2001b) and Hambidge Wilderness Protection Area (NCSSA 1967) failed to find any Sandhill dunnarts, survey work in 2005 successfully captured two animals in Pinkawillinie Conservation Park. In 2010, another Sandhill dunnart was found in Pinkawillinie Conservation Park (July 2010), and two were found in Hambidge Wilderness Protection Area (July 2010). During 2020 one animal was captured in the north-east of the Pinkawillinie Conservation Park (Moseby and Lynch 2020) with camera detections during 2020 and 2021 at 4 nearby locations and two locations in the north-western area of the park (all within 5 km of previous known locations). During 2022 follow up work (Bell 2022) captured a sub-adult near the eastern boundary of Pureba Conservation Park. Two 14 camera arrays set during this period, one near this capture location, the other on the southwestern boundary of the Gawler Ranges National Park, detected sandhill dunnarts at one camera each (DEW datastore). Further survey work is needed to verify the presence of the species in contiguous habitat between these locations and within other reserves of the region. Gawler Ranges National Park and Yumbarra Conservation Park are co-managed by Traditional Owners.\n\nOn the northeastern Eyre Peninsula, several large conservation reserves have the potential to contain Sandhill dunnarts. Lake Gilles Conservation Park (451 km2) and Munyaroo Conservation Park (123 km2) are of particular interest given their close proximity to Sandhill dunnart capture locations in the Middleback Range area (particularly Ironstone Hill Conservation Park and Secret Rocks). While some surveys have been conducted at Lake Gilles Conservation Park (Churchill 2001b; EP Project Group 1973), Munyaroo Conservation Park has not been adequately surveyed and requires further investigation. Further survey is also warranted in Pureba Conservation Park, as sandhill dunnarts have been recently recorded near the boundary (Bell 2022).\n\nSome of the Sandhill dunnarts found in the Middleback Range area also occur on grazing leases (such as Moola and Cooyerdoo) and are subject to disturbance by pastoralism. Individuals have been trapped in areas that are adjacent to iron-ore mines, as well as sites that are located between cleared lines for high-voltage electricity cables and a railway line that services the mines. The most southern capture site in the Middleback Range area is adjacent to a major highway between Whyalla and Port Lincoln and is on the boundary of another pastoral property that has been cleared previously for wheat production. The Middleback Alliance, a partnership between DEW, Arrium Mining, Ecological Horizons and other local landholders operates in this area (Middleback Alliance 2015). The Middleback Alliance aims to sustainably manage private and public land in the region including goat, rabbit and fox control, fire management, and threatened species management, including surveying and monitoring Sandhill dunnart sites.","sortOrder":10},{"sectionNumber":"1.3","sectionType":"part","heading":"Cultural significance","content":"## 1.3 Cultural significance\n\nA large proportion of the wild populations of Sandhill dunnart are found on Indigenous lands managed by First Nations people. Indigenous rangers have and continue to make significant contributions to annual surveys for Sandhill dunnart. The plan aims to continue strengthening collaboration between Traditional Custodians and other land managers, with the goal of keeping Country healthy for both the Sandhill dunnart and the people. It is expected that further engagement of Indigenous groups involved in the conservation of the Sandhill dunnart will occur on a site-by-site basis as this recovery plan is implemented.\n\nTraditional Custodians are significant partners involved in the recovery of the Sandhill dunnart and its habitat including through:\n\n• developing and implementing land management activities to support Sandhill dunnart recovery on land managed by, or associated with, Traditional Custodians, including linkages to Healthy Country plans;\n\n• developing and implementing research projects on land managed by, or associated with Traditional Custodians;\n\n• opportunities to increase land management capacity through sharing of cultural and scientific knowledge;\n\n• documenting new records of Sandhill dunnart; and\n\n• two-way science and knowledge sharing.\n\nThe potential distribution of Sandhill dunnart overlaps with several Indigenous Protected Areas (IPAs):\n\n- Maralinga Tjarutja Lands IPA South Australia\n- Watarru IPA South Australia\n- Walalkara IPA South Australia\n- Yalata IPA South Australia\n- Apara - Makiri - Punti IPA South Australia\n- Anangu Tjutaku IPA Western Australia\n- Ngaanyatjarra IPA Western Australia\n\n![Map showing the distribution of Sandhill dunnart within SA and WA. It also includes the relevant IPA boundaries that intersect with potential Sandhill dunnart habitat.](image.004.jpeg)\n\nMap 1: Indigenous Protected Areas (IPAs) overlapping with Sandhill dunnart distribution\n\n> Note: Source: Base map Geoscience Australia; species distribution data Species of National Environmental Significance database.\n\n> Note: Caveat: The information presented in this map has been provided by a range of groups and agencies. While every effort has been made to ensure accuracy and completeness, no guarantee is given, nor responsibility taken by the Commonwealth for errors or omissions, and the Commonwealth does not accept responsibility in respect of any information or advice given in relation to, or as a consequence of, anything contained herein.\n\n> Note: Species distribution mapping: The species distribution mapping categories are indicative only and aim to capture (a) the habitat or geographic feature that represents to recent observed locations of the species (known to occur) or habitat occurring in close proximity to these locations (likely to occur); and (b) the broad environmental envelope or geographic region that encompasses all areas that could provide habitat for the species (may occur). These presence categories are created using an extensive database of species observations records, national and regional-scale environmental data, environmental modelling techniques and documented scientific research.","sortOrder":11},{"sectionNumber":"1.4","sectionType":"part","heading":"Key partners","content":"## 1.4 Key partners\n\nImplementation of this Recovery Plan will depend on a coordinated approach between a range of stakeholders, which include the following:","sortOrder":12},{"sectionNumber":"Australian Government","sectionType":"subdivision","heading":"Australian Government","content":"#### Australian Government\n\n- Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water\n- Parks Australia (Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Park)\n- Department of Defence","sortOrder":13},{"sectionNumber":"State Government","sectionType":"subdivision","heading":"State Government","content":"#### State Government\n\n- Country Fire Service\n- Local councils, and Local Government Authorities\n- SA – Department for Environment and Water (DEW) including Alinytjara Wilurara, Eyre Peninsula and South Australian Arid Lands Landscape Boards\n- NT – Department of Land Resource Management\n- WA – Department of Biodiversity, Conservation and Attractions (DBCA), Rangelands Natural Resource Management, Department of Fire and Emergency Services, Department of Water and Environmental Regulation, Department of Mines, Petroleum and Exploration","sortOrder":14},{"sectionNumber":"Traditional Owners","sectionType":"subdivision","heading":"Traditional Owners","content":"#### Traditional Owners\n\n- SA – Mirning, Anangu Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara, Maralinga, Kokatha, Wirangu and Barngarla\n- WA – the Spinifex People (Pila Nguru Aboriginal Corporation) Upurli Upurli Nguratja, Untiri Pulka, Pilki People, Nangaanya-ku, Yilka, Desert Support Services, Central Desert Native Title Services\n- NT – Central Land Council (Katiti-Petermann Indigenous Protected Area)","sortOrder":15},{"sectionNumber":"Mining/gas companies","sectionType":"subdivision","heading":"Mining/gas companies","content":"#### Mining/gas companies\n\n- Including, but not limited to – AngloGold Ashanti Australia Ltd (Tropicana Joint Venture Gold Mine); Iluka Resources Limited; Vimy Resources (Mulga Rock), Deep Yellow, Lost Sands Pty Ltd","sortOrder":16},{"sectionNumber":"Other","sectionType":"subdivision","heading":"Other","content":"#### Other\n\n- Friends groups (such as the Friends of the Great Victoria Desert)\n- Great Victoria Desert Biodiversity Trust (GVDBT)\n- Middleback Alliance, SA\n- Private landholders\n- Goldfields Environmental Management Group (GEMG)","sortOrder":17},{"sectionNumber":"2","sectionType":"part","heading":"Species information","content":"# 1 Background\n\nThis is the National Recovery Plan for the Sandhill dunnart (Sminthopsis psammophila), made in accordance with Part 13 of the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act). This plan guides conservation of the species across its range and identifies the research and management actions necessary to halt decline and support its recovery, so that its chances of long-term survival in nature are maximised.\n\n## 1.1 Conservation status\n\nThe Sandhill dunnart is listed as 'Endangered' under the EPBC Act.\n\nThe Action Plan for Australian Mammals (Woinarski et al. 2014) assessed the national status of the species as 'Vulnerable’, a conclusion which was supported by the most recent assessment for the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List of Threatened Species (Woinarski and Burbidge 2016). Both assessments used the following IUCN criteria (2001 ver. 3.1):\n\n (B2) area of occupancy < 2,000 km2;\n (a) number of locations ≤ 10;\n (b) continuing decline in:\n\n (ii) area of occupancy,\n (iii) area, extent and/or quality of habitat,\n (iv) number of locations or subpopulations, and (Woinarski et al. 2014 only)\n (v) number of mature individuals);\n (D2) restricted area of occupancy, where number of locations ≤ 5.\n\nIn South Australia (SA), the Sandhill dunnart is listed as ‘Vulnerable’ under Schedule 7, National Parks and Wildlife Act 1972 (NPW Act). In Western Australia (WA), the species is listed as ‘Endangered’ under the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 (BC Act), based on IUCN criteria B2ab(ii,iii,iv,v) (2012 ver. 3.1 2nd ed.). In the Northern Territory (NT), the species is listed as ‘Data Deficient’ under the Territory Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act 2006 (TPWC Act).\n\nInternationally, the Sandhill dunnart is listed on Appendix 1 of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), which prohibits international trade in specimens of the species except when the purpose of the import is not commercial (such as scientific research).\n\n## 1.2 Conservation action\n\n### 1.2.1 Surveys and monitoring\n\nSeveral surveys targeting Sandhill dunnarts have been conducted and are continuing in the Great Victoria Desert (GVD) and on Eyre Peninsula since 2000. These have resulted in two new spatially independent locations 150 km north of the known range in WA (near Laverton) and several new locations recorded within the species’ known range. In addition, information has been gained on the ecology, diet, habitat, distribution, genetics, and threats to Sandhill dunnarts (McLean 2015, Riley 2020).\n\nEnvironmental Impact Assessments (EIA) associated with mining activities have increased survey efforts and added data to assist in understanding the species (Gaikhorst and Lambert 2014). Most of these surveys from north of Queen Victoria Spring to the north-west of Plumridge Lakes Nature Reserve have been associated with the EIA for the Tropicana Gold Mine (Tropicana Joint Venture 2010; EPA 2010). The Great Victoria Desert Biodiversity Trust (GVDBT) (Sandhill Dunnart Workshop 2014), setup as an offset for the Tropicana Gold Mine, are also seeking to develop standardised survey methods and long-term monitoring protocols for monitoring Sandhill dunnarts in the two western subregions (Shield and Central) of the GVD in WA (2015a; 2015b). These are intended to build upon the 'Survey guidelines for Australia’s threatened mammals’ (Australian Government 2011). Iluka Mine in Yellabinna have conducted surveys for the species over many years as well an including collecting baseline and monitoring data.\n\nThere have been irregular surveys by Ecological Horizons, other researchers and the SA Department for Environment and Water (DEW) in the Middleback ranges over recent decades. Landscape Board National Landcare Program (NLP) funded projects in the Yellabinna, Pinkawillinie and Gawler Ranges areas.\n\nSurveys have been ongoing in the Yellabinna Mallee country via the Alinytjara Wilurara Landscape Board (AWLB). Surveys in the far-west including Yellabinna were undertaken over the past ten years via the Alinytjara Wilurara NRM (now Alinytjara Wilurara Landscape Board) from 2018 to 2023, which are planned to continue if funding permits. The Middleback Alliance undertook aerial fox baiting over the past 5 years and a survey to attempt to quantify the impacts, although this was made difficult by drought (R. Brandle pers comms).\n\nTurpin and Lloyd (2014) and Turpin and Riley (2017) have conducted the Sandhill dunnart Monitoring Program for APA Group biannually since 2014 along the Eastern Goldfields Pipeline in the GVD in WA, representing the only long-term monitoring studies for the species in WA. Riley (2020) and Riley et al. (2021b) were also funded by the Goldfields Environmental Management Group (GEMG) to perform motion camera surveys for the species throughout WA.\n\nFurther surveys are required in areas which are likely to be suitable for Sandhill dunnarts in SA and WA, including in the GVD of WA and SA (Map 2 ). Potential survey areas within the GVD include:\n\n the mallee/spinifex habitat north of Yellabinna Regional Reserve (YRR),\n the spinifex and sand dune communities in the Maralinga Tjarutja Lands,\n Mamungari Conservation Park, and\n the southern Anangu Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara Lands (APY Lands).\n\nSandhill dunnart records are included in the Atlas of Living Australia (Atlas of Living Australia 2025).\n\n### 1.2.2 Sandhill dunnart Project (SA Alinytjara Wilurara Landscape Board)\n\nThe Alinytjara Wilurara NRM Board has been working with communities across the region to implement the draft Sandhill dunnart recovery plan (Churchill 2001a). This has included undertaking Sandhill dunnart surveys in the Maralinga Tjarutja Lands and training in sand-plot tracking through the Oak Valley Land Management Engagement program (Alinytjara Wilurara Landscape Board 2015).\n\nIn addition, long-term monitoring has been undertaken with surveys occurring at the Immarna site since 2007 – a location within the YRR just to the east of the Ooldea siding. Surveys have focused on pitfall trapping and measuring Triodia densities and heights (Moseby, et al. 2016).\n\nIn 2018, Alinytjara Wilurara Landscape Board (AWLB) secured National Landcare Program 2 funds to continue these works, not only at the Immarna site, but also across much of the Yellabinna and Yumbarra reserves area, focusing on determining the key habitats for the species, as well as attempting to extend the current known areas of occupancy within this area. Surveys have been planned by examining fire-scar mapping to target areas with a post-fire age of 15 years, or more. This has resulted in the species being found at three more locations, suggesting that these dunnarts occur across Yellabinna Regional Reserve. This project was funded until 2023 and aimed to determine whether there are any “core” habitat areas or refuge areas (Pavey et al. 2017) for the Sandhill dunnart and, if so, how these might best be defined spatially and ecologically. It also includes threat abatement works focused on reducing predation pressures from foxes and feral cats, and surveillance against the establishment of the habitat transforming weed, buffel grass.\n\n### 1.2.3 Captive breeding research\n\nIn 2005, five Sandhill dunnarts (3 males and 2 females) were collected from the GVD in WA and transferred to Perth Zoo for captive breeding research (D. Jose pers. comm.). A total of six litters were produced over three seasons, with 41 animals bred. Research was published on their oestrus cycle, gestation period, and the growth and development of their young (Lambert et al. 2011), and a Husbandry Manual was also produced (Ferguson 2008). At the conclusion of the project in 2007, the remaining animals were relocated to Cleland Wildlife Park, Alice Springs Desert Park, or left on display at Perth Zoo. None were released back into the wild. Moonlit Sanctuary kept a single male from 2010 to 2011. The last recording of a Sandhill dunnart in captivity is a single male from Alice Springs Desert Park in 2012.\n\n### 1.2.4 The Great Victoria Desert Biodiversity Trust\n\nThe Great Victoria Desert Biodiversity Trust (GVDBT) was established in 2014 as an independent not-for-profit entity as part of the approval process for the Tropicana Gold Mine. The GVDBT aims to establish a bioregional plan (for two GVD sub-regions in WA), undertake priority research and management (including research on the Sandhill dunnart), and facilitate the involvement of Traditional Custodians.\n\nWorkshops on Sandhill dunnarts were held in 2014 and 2019 to determine and prioritise research and management activities to help conserve viable populations of Sandhill dunnart in the WA GVD. Knowledge gaps identified during the workshops included, distribution, threats, effectiveness of mitigation strategies, monitoring, habitat requirements, diet and life history, and appropriate management. Based on the workshops, the GVDBT developed a Research and Adaptive Management Plan (RAMP) for the Sandhill dunnart (GVDBT 2016), and the recovery actions in this plan (Summary of recovery objectives, recovery actions, performance criteria, potential partners and priority ratings) are designed to complement the research priorities and conservation action priorities identified in the RAMP. In 2016 DBCA produced for the GVDBT a report on defining a baseline survey design for the Sandhill dunnart in the WA GVD and this was updated to include more guidance on the use of camera traps. These guidelines were revised in 2020 (GHD 2020).\n\n### 1.2.5 Habitat protection in declared conservation areas\n\nThe GVD covers an enormous area, approximately 420,000 km2, and is the largest dune desert in Australia. It extends from north of the Nullarbor Plain to the Gibson Desert and Central Ranges in WA and to the central Australian ranges. From west to east, it extends from Laverton in WA to Coober Pedy in SA. Approximately half of this land is managed by Traditional Custodian groups, including Mirning, Anangu Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara, Maralinga, Kokatha, Wirangu and Barngarla groups, and Spinifex people (Pila Nguru Aboriginal Corporation). A further 70,000 km2 (about one fifth) of the GVD is in conservation parks and reserves. Almost all the remaining area is land owned by the State (known as ‘Crown land’ or ‘Unallocated Crown Land’), much of which is overlain by mining tenements (including Tropicana Gold Mine and Iluka Resources) and native title claims.\n\nWhile large areas of potential habitat of the Sandhill dunnart are reserved in several conservation areas, Queen Victoria Spring Nature Reserve is the only one known to have Sandhill dunnarts in WA. All other known populations occur on Unallocated Crown Land. In the SA portion of the GVD, most Sandhill dunnarts have been found in YRR with some additional records in Yellabinna Wilderness Protection Area and Yumbarra Conservation Park, despite survey efforts further north (Moseby et al. 2016).\n\nThe majority of Eyre Peninsula (54%) has been cleared for agriculture (DEWNR 2014a) and much of the uncleared land is under grazing leases. One of the largest areas of remnant vegetation is the Central-Northwest Linkage, spanning from Hincks Conservation Park through to the Kulliparu Conservation Park, approximately 9,900 km2. This area contains 6,820 km2 (69%) of native vegetation, of which 3,170 km2 (46%) is protected either in national parks, conservation parks or Heritage agreements. The discovery of Sandhill dunnarts in Hincks Wilderness Protection Area in 2005 has prompted further survey work within this broader area.\n\nThere are several conservation areas on northern Eyre Peninsula that contain known or potentially suitable habitat for Sandhill dunnarts, including Pinkawillinie Conservation Park (1,271 km2), Ironstone Hill Conservation Park (197 km2), Hambidge Wilderness Protection Area (380 km2), Hincks Wilderness Protection Area (669 km2), Gawler Ranges National Park (1786 km2) and Pureba Conservation Park (2264 km2). While brief initial surveys of Pinkawillinie Conservation Park (Churchill 2001b) and Hambidge Wilderness Protection Area (NCSSA 1967) failed to find any Sandhill dunnarts, survey work in 2005 successfully captured two animals in Pinkawillinie Conservation Park. In 2010, another Sandhill dunnart was found in Pinkawillinie Conservation Park (July 2010), and two were found in Hambidge Wilderness Protection Area (July 2010). During 2020 one animal was captured in the north-east of the Pinkawillinie Conservation Park (Moseby and Lynch 2020) with camera detections during 2020 and 2021 at 4 nearby locations and two locations in the north-western area of the park (all within 5 km of previous known locations). During 2022 follow up work (Bell 2022) captured a sub-adult near the eastern boundary of Pureba Conservation Park. Two 14 camera arrays set during this period, one near this capture location, the other on the southwestern boundary of the Gawler Ranges National Park, detected sandhill dunnarts at one camera each (DEW datastore). Further survey work is needed to verify the presence of the species in contiguous habitat between these locations and within other reserves of the region. Gawler Ranges National Park and Yumbarra Conservation Park are co-managed by Traditional Owners.\n\nOn the northeastern Eyre Peninsula, several large conservation reserves have the potential to contain Sandhill dunnarts. Lake Gilles Conservation Park (451 km2) and Munyaroo Conservation Park (123 km2) are of particular interest given their close proximity to Sandhill dunnart capture locations in the Middleback Range area (particularly Ironstone Hill Conservation Park and Secret Rocks). While some surveys have been conducted at Lake Gilles Conservation Park (Churchill 2001b; EP Project Group 1973), Munyaroo Conservation Park has not been adequately surveyed and requires further investigation. Further survey is also warranted in Pureba Conservation Park, as sandhill dunnarts have been recently recorded near the boundary (Bell 2022).\n\nSome of the Sandhill dunnarts found in the Middleback Range area also occur on grazing leases (such as Moola and Cooyerdoo) and are subject to disturbance by pastoralism. Individuals have been trapped in areas that are adjacent to iron-ore mines, as well as sites that are located between cleared lines for high-voltage electricity cables and a railway line that services the mines. The most southern capture site in the Middleback Range area is adjacent to a major highway between Whyalla and Port Lincoln and is on the boundary of another pastoral property that has been cleared previously for wheat production. The Middleback Alliance, a partnership between DEW, Arrium Mining, Ecological Horizons and other local landholders operates in this area (Middleback Alliance 2015). The Middleback Alliance aims to sustainably manage private and public land in the region including goat, rabbit and fox control, fire management, and threatened species management, including surveying and monitoring Sandhill dunnart sites.\n\n## 1.3 Cultural significance\n\nA large proportion of the wild populations of Sandhill dunnart are found on Indigenous lands managed by First Nations people. Indigenous rangers have and continue to make significant contributions to annual surveys for Sandhill dunnart. The plan aims to continue strengthening collaboration between Traditional Custodians and other land managers, with the goal of keeping Country healthy for both the Sandhill dunnart and the people. It is expected that further engagement of Indigenous groups involved in the conservation of the Sandhill dunnart will occur on a site-by-site basis as this recovery plan is implemented.\n\nTraditional Custodians are significant partners involved in the recovery of the Sandhill dunnart and its habitat including through:\n\n• developing and implementing land management activities to support Sandhill dunnart recovery on land managed by, or associated with, Traditional Custodians, including linkages to Healthy Country plans;\n\n• developing and implementing research projects on land managed by, or associated with Traditional Custodians;\n\n• opportunities to increase land management capacity through sharing of cultural and scientific knowledge;\n\n• documenting new records of Sandhill dunnart; and\n\n• two-way science and knowledge sharing.\n\nThe potential distribution of Sandhill dunnart overlaps with several Indigenous Protected Areas (IPAs):\n\n- Maralinga Tjarutja Lands IPA South Australia\n- Watarru IPA South Australia\n- Walalkara IPA South Australia\n- Yalata IPA South Australia\n- Apara - Makiri - Punti IPA South Australia\n- Anangu Tjutaku IPA Western Australia\n- Ngaanyatjarra IPA Western Australia\n\n![Map showing the distribution of Sandhill dunnart within SA and WA. It also includes the relevant IPA boundaries that intersect with potential Sandhill dunnart habitat.](image.004.jpeg)\n\nMap 1: Indigenous Protected Areas (IPAs) overlapping with Sandhill dunnart distribution\n\n> Note: Source: Base map Geoscience Australia; species distribution data Species of National Environmental Significance database.\n\n> Note: Caveat: The information presented in this map has been provided by a range of groups and agencies. While every effort has been made to ensure accuracy and completeness, no guarantee is given, nor responsibility taken by the Commonwealth for errors or omissions, and the Commonwealth does not accept responsibility in respect of any information or advice given in relation to, or as a consequence of, anything contained herein.\n\n> Note: Species distribution mapping: The species distribution mapping categories are indicative only and aim to capture (a) the habitat or geographic feature that represents to recent observed locations of the species (known to occur) or habitat occurring in close proximity to these locations (likely to occur); and (b) the broad environmental envelope or geographic region that encompasses all areas that could provide habitat for the species (may occur). These presence categories are created using an extensive database of species observations records, national and regional-scale environmental data, environmental modelling techniques and documented scientific research.\n\n## 1.4 Key partners\n\nImplementation of this Recovery Plan will depend on a coordinated approach between a range of stakeholders, which include the following:\n\n#### Australian Government\n\n- Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water\n- Parks Australia (Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Park)\n- Department of Defence\n\n#### State Government\n\n- Country Fire Service\n- Local councils, and Local Government Authorities\n- SA – Department for Environment and Water (DEW) including Alinytjara Wilurara, Eyre Peninsula and South Australian Arid Lands Landscape Boards\n- NT – Department of Land Resource Management\n- WA – Department of Biodiversity, Conservation and Attractions (DBCA), Rangelands Natural Resource Management, Department of Fire and Emergency Services, Department of Water and Environmental Regulation, Department of Mines, Petroleum and Exploration\n\n#### Traditional Owners\n\n- SA – Mirning, Anangu Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara, Maralinga, Kokatha, Wirangu and Barngarla\n- WA – the Spinifex People (Pila Nguru Aboriginal Corporation) Upurli Upurli Nguratja, Untiri Pulka, Pilki People, Nangaanya-ku, Yilka, Desert Support Services, Central Desert Native Title Services\n- NT – Central Land Council (Katiti-Petermann Indigenous Protected Area)\n\n#### Mining/gas companies\n\n- Including, but not limited to – AngloGold Ashanti Australia Ltd (Tropicana Joint Venture Gold Mine); Iluka Resources Limited; Vimy Resources (Mulga Rock), Deep Yellow, Lost Sands Pty Ltd\n\n#### Other\n\n- Friends groups (such as the Friends of the Great Victoria Desert)\n- Great Victoria Desert Biodiversity Trust (GVDBT)\n- Middleback Alliance, SA\n- Private landholders\n- Goldfields Environmental Management Group (GEMG)\n\n# 2 Species information\n\n## 2.1 Description\n\nThe Sandhill dunnart, Sminthopsis psammophila, is the second largest of 19 species of the marsupial genus Sminthopsis (Dasyuridae) that occur predominantly in arid and semi-arid regions of Australia. All species are nocturnal, predominantly insectivorous and are similar in appearance, characterised by their long-pointed snouts, large eyes and ears, and relatively long slender hind feet.\n\nThe Sandhill dunnart differs from other members of its genus by its large size at maturity – mass 25–55 g, body length 85–114 mm, and tail length 106–133 mm (Pearson and Churchill 2008). It has comparatively large eyes and ears, and a distinctive tail that is an excellent identifier as it is clearly contrasted, pale above and dark grey below, tapering towards the tip and has a crest of stiff black hairs along the ventral surface of the distal portion (Archer 1981; Figure 1). It has distinctive bicoloured fur patterning, drab grey to buff fur on the dorsal surface and white fur on the underside with darker hair nearer the skin. It has a pale grey head and black pencilling extending from the shoulders to the wedge between the eyes and a black eye-ring.\n\n![Two photographs of the Sandhill dunnart. \nMore information on the Sandhill dunnarts description is available in Section 2.1: Description](image.005.png)\n\nFigure 1: Sandhill Dunnart, Sminthopsis psammophila\n\nPhoto credit: Amanda McLean and Joanna Riley\n\n## 2.2 Distribution and population structure\n\n### 2.2.1 Core populations\n\nThe Sandhill dunnart is known to occur in three core population areas as shown in Map 2 (near Queen Victoria Spring Nature Reserve in the southwestern corner of the GVD in WA; YRR in the southeastern GVD in SA; and Eyre Peninsula in SA). The estimated extent of occurrence (EOO) is 151,635 km² and area of occupancy (AOO) is 500–1900 km2 (Woinarski and Burbidge 2016; Map 2). Habitat clearance in the southern portion of Eyre Peninsula greatly reduces available habitat. The chenopod shrubland communities in the areas south and east of Whyalla do not support significant habitat favoured by Sandhill dunnart.\n\nThe EOO is now considered stable, but the AOO is declining due to the limited availability of suitable habitat as a result of the frequent loss of suitable habitat by wildfire and other threats (Churchill 2001, Woinarski et al. 2014, Riley 2020). While wildfire is an important ecological process, the limited availability of structurally suitable habitat means that burning of suitable habitat in the current matrix constitutes a threat to Sandhill dunnart (Section 2.5.1: Inappropriate fire regimes).\n\nTargeted efforts in the southwestern GVD in 2018 identified four additional sites within the WA GVD population where Sandhill dunnarts occur, extending the WA GVD population range approximately 70 km south and confirming previous baseline study findings (Greening Australia 2019). The surveys confirmed the presence of the species from a previously un-surveyed area situated on the eastern fringe of a local broad area of undulating yellow sandplains. The Sandhill dunnart was recorded within patches of long-unburnt vegetation situated within landscapes affected by widespread recent fire (several high-intensity burns from 2000 to 2017; US Geological Survey 2018). Sandhill dunnarts were found in areas where the local topography provided some protection from fire (occurring within swales (between tall sand dunes), sand plains, and dune slopes (Riley et al. 2021a) or adjacent to mulga shrublands) (Greening Australia 2019).\n\nRiley et al. (2021b) used predictive species distribution models with ground validation in April 2018 to confirm 18 new spatially independent Sandhill dunnart records in the WA GVD, including several in a remote region 150 km northwest of the known range. In SA, new records were obtained in Yellabinna National Park, near the southeastern Boundary of Pureba Conservation Park, and on the western boundary of Gawler Ranges National Park (R Brandle, pers. comm.) in areas that were predicted as suitable for the species using models (Riley et al. 2021b).\n\n![Modelled distribution of Sandhill dunnart across SA and WA. \nMore information is available in Section 2.2: Distribution and population structure](image.006.jpeg)\n\nMap 2: Modelled distribution of Sandhill dunnart\n\n> Note: Source: Base map Geoscience Australia; species distribution data Species of National Environmental Significance database.\n\n> Note: Caveat: The information presented in this map has been provided by a range of groups and agencies. While every effort has been made to ensure accuracy and completeness, no guarantee is given, nor responsibility taken by the Commonwealth for errors or omissions, and the Commonwealth does not accept responsibility in respect of any information or advice given in relation to, or as a consequence of, anything contained herein.\n\n> Note: Species distribution mapping: The species distribution mapping categories are indicative only and aim to capture (a) the habitat or geographic feature that represents to recent observed locations of the species (known to occur) or habitat occurring in close proximity to these locations (likely to occur); and (b) the broad environmental envelope or geographic region that encompasses all areas that could provide habitat for the species (may occur). These presence categories are created using an extensive database of species observations records, national and regional-scale environmental data, environmental modelling techniques and documented scientific research.\n\nInvestigation into the contemporary genetic structure of the Sandhill dunnart show that the three core populations are genetically differentiated and, therefore, may represent functionally separate populations (McLean 2015). However, examination of the historic genetic structure found limited genetic differentiation between core populations (Gaikhorst et al. undated; McLean 2015), suggesting the three core populations were once connected. This absence of major geographical barriers between populations suggests the genetic pattern may be a result of fragmentation, with connecting populations going locally extinct over time (McLean 2015). Alternatively, core regions may still be connected by undetected populations, particularly in the southern GVD where there may be large areas of suitable habitat (McLean 2015; McLean, et al. 2019). Further survey effort is needed to clarify the presence or absence of Sandhill dunnart populations between the three core population areas.\n\nThe distribution of the Sandhill dunnart has declined since European settlement. Its pre-European distribution extended further north and west. The species was previously found in NT where it was first captured near Lake Amadeus in 1894 (Spencer 1896), and bones in caves were recently verified from near Yalgoo and Lake Barlee in Western Australia, 400–600 km west of the known WA GVD population (Riley et al 2021b). Subsequent surveys have failed to relocate the species in the NT, but further surveys are warranted.\n\nOwl pellets containing remains of Sandhill dunnarts have come from caves at the base of Uluru, NT (Parker 1973; Archer 1981), and caves at Darke Peak on Eyre Peninsula, SA (Baynes 1987). Owl pellets containing sub-fossil Sandhill dunnart remains have been collected from Black Point Sinkhole at Venus Bay, SA. These sub-fossil deposits were radiocarbon dated at 3,030–2,160 years before present (Baynes 1987; Copley et al. 1999).\n\n### 2.2.2 Important sub-populations\n\nThe three core populations (WA GVD, YRR and Eyre Peninsula) of Sandhill Dunnarts consist of five known sub-populations. All sub-populations are considered important for the long-term recovery and survival of the species. These sub-populations are located in the following areas:\n\n1. Southwestern Great Victoria Desert, WA (WA GVD)\n2. Great Victoria Desert, SA (SA GVD) including:\n - Yellabinna Regional Reserve,\n - Yellabinna Wilderness Protected Area,\n - Yumbarra Conservation Park, and\n - East of Pureba Conservation Park.\n3. Northcentral Eyre Peninsula (EP), SA including:\n - Pinkawillinie Conservation Park (near Kyancutta), and\n - Gawler Ranges National Park.\n4. Middleback dunefields (near Whyalla), northeastern Eyre Peninsula (EP), SA\n5. Central Eyre Peninsula (EP), SA including:\n - Hincks Conservation Park, and\n - Hambridge Conservation Park.\n\n## 2.3 Habitat\n\nThe presence of dense pre-senescent, usually long unburned (greater than 20 years without fire) spinifex (Triodia spp.) hummocks in association with sand dune systems appears to be the most significant factor explaining known Sandhill dunnart habitat in SA (Churchill 2001; Ward 2009), although current distribution over fire history suggests that there are also other factors that explain distribution. In Western Australia, Riley et al. (2021a) concluded through radio tracking that the survey and conservation of the Sandhill dunnart necessitate attention to habitats that have not burned for over 32 years. These habitats include dense lower stratum swales, sand plains, and dune slopes. This was supported by MaxEnt modelling (Riley 2020). The distribution is also constrained by semi-arid climatic conditions (Riley 2020). Modelling supports the view that Sandhill dunnart distribution is constrained by both the availability of Triodia spp. habitat (that is restricted to sandy soils) in dense southern semi-arid deserts and desert influenced by higher winter rainfall than Australia’s northern and central deserts (Riley 2020).\n\nIn WA, Sandhill dunnarts are primarily found in plains and dunes (longitudinal and ring dunes) with interdune corridors and plains; occasional salt pans at a mean ± standard deviation elevation of 402 ± 22 m a.s.l. (DAFWA 2014; Riley 2020). Vegetation communities are dominated by spinifex, predominantly T. desertorum and T. basedowii, hummock grasslands with scattered eucalypts including marble gums, Eucalyptus gongylocarpa, situated over wattle scrub, Acacia spp., and mallees, Eucalyptus spp. (Beard et al. 2013). The study site soils are ‘Yellow deep sand, Soil Group 446’ except for ‘Mulga’ habitat class soils where a variable depth sandy loamy clay crust is present (Schoknecht and Pathan 2013).\n\nSandhill dunnart models (Riley 2020) responded to surface geologies of ‘Qd’ (Dunes, sandplain with dunes and swales; this category may include numerous interdune claypans and may be locally Gypsiferous), ‘Czs’ (Sand or gravel plains that may include some residual alluvium, quartz sand sheets commonly with ferruginous pisoliths or pebbles, local clay, calcrete, laterite, silcrete, silt, and colluvium); and ‘Ln’ (Middleback subgroup: comprising Jaspilite, quartzite, gneiss, quartz-mica schist; and dolomitic marble). Understanding these geological formations is important for modelling the presence of Sandhill dunnart (Raymond et al. 2007).\n\nIn SA, species associations vary but are generally low, open mallee woodland over a diverse shrub layer and relatively dense spinifex; there is also a greater diversity of Triodia species which may be present, including T. irritans, T. scariosa and T. lanata.\n\nIn the WA GVD recent radio-tracking showed that Sandhill dunnarts are most often associated with dense, long-unburned sand plain, swale and dune slope habitats (Riley et al. 2021a, Riley et al. 2022), with a strong preference for dense lower habitat stratums and mature vegetation. Sandhill dunnart speciation occurred approximately 15 million years ago (Archer 1982), while dune development in the GVD was geologically recent (up to 781 000 years ago; Madigan 1936), so it is likely that sand dunes are probably not a prerequisite habitat feature for the species to persist (Riley 2020). Riley (2020) also found that Sandhill dunnart sheltering habitats could be far away from dune crests within swales or sand plains. Nonetheless, 82% of all shelters were within 500 m of a dune crest (Riley et al 2021a), suggesting that dunes and their influence on vegetation and fire dynamics enhance habitat suitability.\n\nThere appear to be additional areas of potentially suitable habitat in the southern GVD where the species has not yet been recorded – due to low, no or inappropriate survey effort, although they are patchily distributed (extract from Riley et al. 2022). Suitable habitat on Eyre Peninsula is limited due to historical land clearance.\n\n### 2.3.1 Shelter preferences\n\nSandhill dunnarts typically use burrows as diurnal refuges to maintain thermodynamic equilibrium (Porter and Gates 1969; Riley 2020, Riley et al. 2021a), and individuals have been observed using sun basking (passive rewarming) at burrow entrances, particularly during cooler conditions (Churchill 2001a, 2001b, Riley et al. 2021a). Shelter selection appears to be non-random within warmer habitat classes, and around 50% of entrances in a WA GVD radio tracking study were observed to face north (Riley et al. 2021a). Sandhill dunnarts have been observed using other types of shelter, including spinifex hummocks (Riley 2020, Churchill 2001a; Figure 2 f-h). In the Eyre Peninsula 68% of shelters were spherical nests within ‘Stage 3’ spinifex hummocks, 9% of shelters were within logs and 23% were burrows. In YRR, 96 % of shelters located by Churchill (2001b) were burrows (Riley 2020). In addition, fluorescent tagging of Eyre Peninsula individuals by Philp (2011) demonstrated that burrows were preferred as refuges during nocturnal foraging. In the Eyre Peninsula, when sheltering in spinifex, Sandhill dunnarts appeared to prefer large hummocks which have either an intact structure or have just started to die off in the centre (Churchill 2001a; Figure 3, life stages 2–4). However, it is unclear whether there are climatic or ecological differences affecting shelter use among populations, or whether these nests are diurnal or temporary shelters. In the WA GVD, when spinifex was chosen, Sandhill dunnarts opted for softer leaved species that would likely provide lower protection from predation, but which appear to have superior thermal properties, suggesting that thermal factors could be significant for the species (Riley 2020).\n\nTogether, these findings suggest that the habitat and shelter preferences of the species are complex, and may be population specific, and that site-specific characteristics are important in targeting management and recovery actions.\n\n![Composite of 8 images, all examples of different Sandhill dunnart burrows](image.007.png)\n\nFigure 2: Examples of Sandhill dunnart burrows\n\n> Note: (a) Exposed burrow with emerging individual inset; (b) Concealed burrow under a ‘Stage 5’ Triodia desertorum; (c) ‘Stage 3’ T. desertorum hummock; (d) Lepidobolus deserti hummock with individual inset; (e) Schoenus hexandrus hummock with individual inset; (f) Log shelter; (g) Bark shelter; (h) Burned mallee stump hollow with individual inset. Extract from Riley et al. 2021a Supplementary Data SD5.\n\n### 2.3.2 Spinifex hummocks – Fire and structure\n\nThe habitats preferred by the Sandhill dunnart, including dense sand plains, swales, and dune slopes, thrive in the absence of wildfire. In some areas, it has been over 40 years since a fire occurred. This long period without fire allows for the development of a range of suitable sites that provide adequate shelter and reduces the risk of predation (Brown et al., 1999; Laundré et al., 2001, 2010).\n\nPost-fire age of spinifex may be an important habitat indicator due to its influence on the cover and structure of Triodia. Recently burnt hummocks are too small for Sandhill dunnarts and long unburnt sites generally provide limited cover due to senescence of Triodia. The post-fire age of spinifex that Sandhill dunnarts will inhabit varies between sites and regions. In WA, most captures have been in habitat that was 17–26 years post-fire, with an optimum age structure recommended of 10–30 years post-fire (Gaikhorst and Lambert 2014). Riley et al. (2021a, 2021b) confirmed with tracking and satellite imagery that the mean fire age of preferred Sandhill dunnart nesting and foraging habitat in the WA GVD is 32+ years (range: 0–40+ years). In SA, captures have been in habitat ranging from 5 to >60 years post-fire (Churchill 2001b; Moseby et al. 2016; Ward 2009; Philp 2011; McLean 2012). Sandhill dunnarts captured at some SA sites with older spinifex (for example, Ooldea in the GVD and occasionally on Eyre Peninsula), have been shown to occupy burrows rather than nesting within hummocks (Churchill 2001a).\n\nGiven the apparently non-constant post-fire growth of Triodia at SA Sandhill dunnart capture sites (being also affected by rainfall, substrate, soil nutrients, and species), structural characteristics may be more useful predictors of Sandhill dunnart presence than post-fire age (Moseby et al. 2016). McLean (2015) found no preference for post-fire age. The number of logs (≥5 cm diameter), average height of Triodia hummocks and the overall complexity of vegetation were found to be the three most important habitat variables for predicting Sandhill dunnart abundance. Using modelling, Moseby et al. (2016) also found Sandhill dunnarts were more likely to populate areas which were ≥10 years post-fire where at least 10% of the Triodia had a minimum height of 330 mm. Moseby et al. (2016) recommend that fire be used as a management tool for maintaining habitat where Triodia cover declines below 10%, rather than using ‘post-fire age’ as a sole indicator.\n\n### 2.3.3 Habitat important to persistence and recovery\n\nAlthough habitat availability does not appear to be a limiting factor to the Sandhill dunnart, at least in the southern GVD, due to the relatively high mobility of the species, large areas of suitable habitat will need to be available to protect remaining populations (McLean 2015).\n\nFurther research is required to identify and map the habitat critical to survival of the species based on known habitat characteristics rather than relying on trapping programs which fail to consistently detect the species (Moseby et al. 2016). Maximum entropy models combined with accurate fire mapping have been valuable in locating unknown Sandhill dunnart populations in WA (Riley et al. 2021b). Landsat imagery is recommended for fire scar mapping in the GVD (Ruscalleda-Alvarez et al. 2021).\n\nThe most important habitat is considered to comprise:\n\n- Unburned habitat at extant Sandhill dunnart sites (based on the current available knowledge; Map 2);\n- Marble gum, mallee and Triodia spp. between dunes in the GVD of WA;\n- All Triodia sand dunes with a mallee Eucalyptus overstorey on Eyre Peninsula;\n- All Triodia sand dunes with a mallee Eucalyptus overstorey which occur between the three core population areas (Map 2); and\n- Areas within 500 m of a Dune crest within occupied sites in the GVD.\n\n![A composite of photographs which show the life stages of some Triodia spp. ](image.008.png)\n\nFigure 3: Life stages of some Triodia spp.\n\nNote: Drawings by Vicki Reynolds, photos are from Gaikhorst and Lambert (2014). At Stage 1 (Fig. 3a) the Triodia is a small tusk of grass. It then grows into a dense hummock by Stage 2 (Fig. 3b). At Stage 3 (Fig. 3c), some species of Triodia start to die off in the middle and continues to grow outwards until it reaches a ring (Stage 4; Fig. 3d), which breaks down into fragments (Stage 5; Fig. 3e).\n\nSource: Churchill 2001b\n\n## 2.4 Ecology\n\n### 2.4.1 Diet\n\nSandhill dunnarts typically consume invertebrates including ants, beetles, spiders, grasshoppers, termites, wasps and centipedes (Pearson and Churchill 2008). Small reptile bones (possibly a gecko) have been recorded from one scat (Churchill 2001b). At least two other Squamata species have been recorded, and Gastropoda have been detected in the faecal pellets of several individuals (Riley 2020, Riley et al. 2022). Sandhill dunnarts were previously thought to be largely opportunistic feeders, eating prey types in similar proportions to their availability (Churchill 2001b). Recent research indicates that (rarely for small arid zone mammal species) Sandhill dunnarts have an ant-rich diet, consuming a diverse range of ants in greater than expected proportions (Riley et al. 2022), and demonstrates metabolic controls that can allow for an ant-rich diet (which is difficult to digest), such as the ability to manipulate their metabolic rate with sun basking, shelter choice, and selective torpor (Riley 2020). It is difficult to say whether they have developed adaptations to facilitate consumption of ants, broadening their niche to deal with the scarcity of other prey at certain times of the year, or prefer ants (Shipley et al. 2009). Nonetheless, an ant-based diet appears to be an important survival adaptation for desert fauna in the WA GVD.\n\nSandhill dunnarts in the WA GVD generally foraged continuously from dusk to dawn, except during heavy rainfall and very cold (0–5°C) temperatures (Riley et al. 2021b).\n\n### 2.4.2 Reproduction\n\nSandhill dunnart females are polyoestrous, which means females have multiple oestrus cycles with 22–23 days between cycles (Riley 2020). Both male and female Sandhill dunnarts reach sexual maturity in their first year. Wild individuals usually mate following winter rains in August and September. They have a 16–19 day gestation period (Lambert et al. 2011), and young are typically born in September or October. The young remain in the pouch for up to 45 days and weaned young have been recorded between October and March (Lambert et al. 2011). The breeding season may be delayed or reduced in response to a reduction in available food resources (McLean 2015).\n\nFemales possess eight teats (Pearson and Churchill 2008) and have been recorded with up to eight young (How and Bignall 2009), although five to six are more common in the wild (Lambert et al. 2011). They usually produce a single litter each year but could possibly produce a second litter during good seasons (Churchill 2001b).\n\nIndividuals typically survive for just one breeding year in the wild, as with other Sminthopsis species, but males probably do not experience post-mating “male die off” as recorded in the Antechinus, and Phascogale genera because of differing physiologies (Morton 1982, Dickman and Braithwaite 1992, Pearson and Churchill 2008). The maximum age recorded for males and females is 19 months and 25 months, respectively, but in favourable conditions both sexes have been observed breeding over two consecutive years (McLean 2015). In captivity they have been found to breed for up to 3 seasons (Lambert et al. 2011) and live for up to six years (Sandhill Dunnart Workshop 2014).\n\nWild juveniles typically disperse between December and January, and both sexes are highly mobile to track intermittent resource patches (Pearson and Robinson 1990, McLean et al. 2019). Resource availability mediates condition, breeding and survival. In drought, breeding is delayed, and the survival of second year females and juveniles is reduced due to increased resource competition (McLean 2015).\n\nPopulations exhibit classic boom-bust dynamics typical of arid-zone mammals across Australia and population growth and decline are linked to rainfall (Southgate and Masters 1996, Dickman et al. 2001, Letnic and Dickman 2010).\n\nMovement ecology studies (extensive male ranging; see Section 2.4.4: Movement ecology) suggest a polygynous or polyandrous social organisation (Riley 2020).\n\n### 2.4.3 Temperature and diurnal shelter microclimate\n\nThe climate over the distributional range of the Sandhill dunnart is characterised by high diurnal variation sometimes fluctuating by over 35°C. Seasonal variation is also high with summer maximum temperatures sometimes exceeding 45°C and minimum winter temperatures sometimes falling to –4.5°C (Riley et al. 2021a; Australian Bureau of Meteorology 2025). Ground surface temperatures can reach up to 61°C because of reflective heat from the sand (Riley et al. 2021a).\n\nThe presence of large spinifex hummocks is considered an important habitat feature, as hummocks may provide a moderated microclimate suitable for Sandhill dunnart nest sites and reduce predation risk (Churchill 2001b). Sandhill dunnarts commonly nest within hummocks or in burrows excavated beneath hummocks, although they are known to also use hollow logs and Mitchell’s hopping-mouse (Notomys mitchellii) burrows (Churchill 2001b). Other hummock species (Lepidobolus deserti and Schoenus hexandrus), a burned mallee tree stump and a piece of bark have also been used during diurnal sheltering in the WA GVD (Riley et al. 2021a). In SA, the interior of spinifex hummocks has been found to be significantly cooler at high ambient temperatures (12.5°C cooler on average when the ambient temperature was >40°C), and significantly warmer at low ambient temperatures (6.5°C warmer on average when the ambient temperature was <0°C) (Churchill 2001b). However, no thermal benefit of spinifex hummocks was found in the WA GVD (Riley et al. 2021a).\n\nSandhill dunnarts significantly prefer burrows as diurnal shelters in the WA GVD and Ooldea in the SA GVD. Burrows provide even greater moderation of the microclimate with temperatures in the burrow (30 cm below the surface) showing virtually no variation throughout the day and night (Churchill 2001b; Riley et al. 2021a). Burrows also maintained a near constant humidity level (Churchill 2001b).\n\n### 2.4.4 Movement ecology\n\nThe mean home range area (100% minimum convex polygon) recorded for Sandhill dunnarts in the WA GVD is 70 ha (Riley 2020; Riley et al. 2022). A previous study in SA suggested that the species has a mean home range of 7.8 ha, although ranging data from Churchill’s (2001b) unpublished study also supports a larger home range; Sandhill dunnarts had a maximum home range area of 42 ha in SA in that study (Churchill 2001b). This uncertainty warrants further investigation of home range sizes in SA.\n\nThere was a strong effect of sex and reproductive status on the ranging behaviour of Sandhill dunnarts in the WA GVD (Riley et al. 2022). Reproductively active females had comparatively small mean home ranges of approximately 16 ha (Churchill 2001b; Riley 2022), presumably to secure or maintain breeding territories or good quality nesting burrows (Churchill 2001b). Limited data from SA indicates that Sandhill dunnart remain within a given home range for at least 8 months, but the boundaries of territories may drift over time (Churchill 2001b). Non-reproductively active individuals (of both sexes) in the WA GVD had mean home range areas between 21 and 29 ha (Riley et al. 2022). The maximum home range area of reproductively active males is significantly larger (274 ha recorded; Riley et al. 2022). The home ranges of males can overlap those of other males and females, although it is unclear how common this is (Churchill 2001b; Riley 2020). Potentially, if female territories do not overlap, then individual males may copulate with up to as many as 17 females within their range (Riley 2020). If female territories do overlap, this number may be higher.\n\nSandhill dunnarts have been recorded in SA in densities of up to 30–90 individuals/km2 in SA (Ward unpublished; Ward et al. 2008), however this represents an extreme upper limit. In high quality habitat in a typical good year may be around 0.1 individuals/km2, and in a bust year density may be as low as 0.01 individuals/km2. However, densities are likely to be dependent on habitat availability, habitat quality, predation, and food resources (Gaikhorst and Lambert 2014). Making accurate population density estimates for the species is challenging. In a key SA study, the population density of Sandhill dunnart was estimated at 25 individuals/km2 of suitable habitat (Churchill 2001a). This figure was a projection of a maximum of five individuals captured at one 20 ha SA trapping site and may be an overestimate. More often, the capture rate is much more variable (likely due to droughts and deficits in resource availability) and not usually this high (McLean 2015, Turpin and Riley 2021, Riley 2020).\n\nIn SA, individuals may move 200–300 m per foraging period (two foraging periods have been recorded on warm nights), but they are able to traverse long distances in short periods of time, up to 1,960 m in two hours (Churchill 2001b). In WA, individuals were extremely mobile and had a maximum speed of 3 km/h (Riley et al. 2022). In contrast to previous dasyurid studies, Sandhill dunnart foraged continuously throughout the night until just before sunrise and then quickly returned to shelters that were up to 1 km away (Riley et al. 2022). The high mobility of the species appears to be necessary in a system with spatially and temporally variable food resources (McLean 2015).\n\n## 2.5 Threats\n\nSince European settlement there has been a major episode of mammal declines and extinctions in Australia (>10% of the 273 endemic terrestrial species) (Woinarski et al. 2015). The major drivers of this decline have been predation by introduced species (feral cats and foxes) and altered fire regimes (Woinarski et al. 2015). In some parts of the Sandhill dunnart’s range, other land use practices such as pastoralism and clearing for agriculture, have also been a major cause of decline, particularly on the Eyre Peninsula.\n\nAlong with habitat loss and fragmentation (particularly on Eyre Peninsula), predation by cats and foxes and altered fire regimes are considered severe threats to Sandhill dunnart survival (Woinarski et al. 2014). Other threats include the direct threat of predation by native carnivores, and the indirect threat of declining habitat quality caused by introduced herbivores (especially sheep, goats, rabbits, camels, and cattle) and weed species.\n\nClimate change impacts may also increase the risk of wildfire through lower rainfall and increased lightning, as well as result in larger, hotter and more frequent fires. Moreover, a potential emerging threat affecting spinifex that may be linked to climate is the recently observed die-off events.\n\nSandhill dunnarts are within the Critical Weight Range (CWR) of Australian mammals, which includes medium-sized mammals of 35–5000 g. Extinction risk has been, and is predicted to remain, high among these CWR species (Burbidge and McKenzie 1989). The CWR species at greatest risk are ground-dwelling species from low-rainfall areas, as the sparse vegetation provides limited cover from predation by cats and foxes (Johnson and Isaac 2009).\n\n### 2.5.1 Inappropriate fire regimes\n\nAll populations, except eastern GVD\n\nChange in fire patterns is considered a major threat to Sandhill dunnarts (Woinarski et al. 2014). It is typically believed that historic “firestick farming” conducted by First Nations people produced complex mosaics of different age classes of vegetation (Burrows et al. 2006); this benefited species through encouraging new vegetation growth, increasing structural diversity, providing cover in unburnt patches and typically increasing food availability in unburnt areas (Latz 1995). Latz (1995) considered that most vegetation communities throughout arid Australia have become dependent on a regime of fires lit by First Nations people; however in areas of low First Nations population density (for example, waterless regions like the eastern GVD) it is more likely that lightning strikes had a greater influence on the fire regime than First Nations people (Hateley and Hateley 2010); this is also believed to be the case for Eyre Peninsula (J. Tilley pers. comm.).\n\nFire is a major threat to biodiversity in the WA GVD, including the Sandhill dunnart (Turpin and Johnstone 2017, Turpin and Riley 2021). Destructive summer fires (from lightning strikes) remove the mature vegetation required for protection and shelter. Repeated fire events inhibit the development of habitat. The current fire regime, arising from the cessation of traditional burning practices, is ongoing and as such, large areas of the GVD are burnt each summer. Since the commencement of monitoring in the WA GVD, fires have rendered large areas of habitat unsuitable for the Sandhill dunnart and have resulted in the loss of several known populations, including at monitoring sites known to formerly support the species (Turpin and Riley 2021). Previously occupied sites affected by fire do not support the species post burn for many years (Turpin and Riley 2021).\n\nIn general, long unburned, spinifex-dominated natural refugial habitats are important to reduce predation risk of Sandhill dunnart. Conversely, Sandhill dunnart successfully forages during periods of high predation risk (during or after fire and other disturbance events), probably by using dense habitats, burrows, and evasive techniques. Wildfire management may be the most important aspect for the conservation of Sandhill dunnart and sympatric small arid zone mammals in the Australian arid zone.\n\nMitigating against the likelihood of large-scale wildfires will be critical for Sandhill dunnart survival, particularly as climate change causes an increase in the frequency and severity of wildfires (McLean 2015; Riley et al. 2021b).\n\nSummer lightning strikes are the most frequent cause of wildfire in the arid-zone, and they are likely to increase in frequency as temperatures rise – there is an approximate 6% increase in global lightning frequencies for every 1°C rise in temperature (Price and Rind 1991, 1994, Williams et al. 2001). With no active fire management when wildfires occur, large areas are likely to burn once initiated.\n\nIn some areas, the frequency of weekly wildfires has increased by 40% over the past five years, and this abruptly altered pattern is most likely related to climate change (Clarke et al. 2013; IPCC 2014; Dutta et al. 2016).\n\nIn addition to climate action, prescribed burning is recommended to reduce this threat and maintain a mosaic of suitable habitat for Sandhill dunnarts (DENR 2012; DEWNR 2014b; DEWNR 2014c; Gaikhorst and Lambert 2014; Moseby et al. 2016), but not in the eastern GVD (Armstrong 2015).\n\nThe fire management plan for Central Eyre Peninsula 2014–2024 (DEWNR 2014b) recognises that Sandhill dunnart habitats are strongly influenced by fire history. Strategies in the plan include implementing fuel management to maintain suitable age classes of hummocks for known populations, fuel management to protect against large-scale fires, and trialling ecological prescribed burns to improve Sandhill dunnart habitat. In 2010 and 2011, prescribed burns were undertaken in Sandhill dunnart habitat in the Secret Rocks area on Eyre Peninsula (northeastern Eyre Peninsula), burning a total of approximately 1300 ha. In 2014 and 2015, prescribed burns were conducted in Ironstone Hill Conservation Park to limit the spread of bushfire through Sandhill dunnart habitat and to redistribute age class of spinifex hummocks (J. Tilley pers. comm.).\n\nAlinytjara Wilurara Landscape Board and the former SA Department of Environment, Water and Natural Resources (DEWNR), now Department for Environment and Water (DEW), also developed an ecological fire management strategy for the Sandhill dunnart in SA (DEWNR 2012). The strategy focuses on fire risk management for the Sandhill dunnart. The strategy recommends undertaking prescribed burns which maintain 66% of a given area of suitable habitat, are not within the breeding and weaning season, avoid burning optimum habitat, and avoid burning areas adjacent to habitat burnt <8 years earlier. The strategy also recommends prescribed burns in habitat >8 years post-fire and <20 years post-fire. The variability in recommended times acknowledges that vegetation growth rates in habitats with highly variable rainfall are not linear. As such the physical structure of Triodia spp. favoured by Sandhill dunnarts cannot be directly correlated to time since fire but is more likely to be associated with cumulative rainfall or microhabitat variables.\n\nLand managers of the WA rangelands have developed Guiding Principles for fire management in the region, including areas containing Sandhill dunnart habitat (RFLG 2015). The principles recognise that prescribed burns which create mosaics of post-fire vegetation growth stages, including long unburnt vegetation, will benefit biodiversity and buffer against large wildfires.\n\nFire regimes that cause declines in biodiversity are a key threatening process listed under the EPBC Act. Advice on this key threatening process includes more information about the threats of inappropriate fire regimes to species (DAWE 2022).\n\n### 2.5.2 Habitat loss and fragmentation\n\nAll populations, particularly Eyre Peninsula\n\nSandhill dunnarts have been lost from parts of their former range on central and northern Eyre Peninsula through historic clearance for agriculture (Aitken 1971). Around 54% of land has been cleared and the remaining vegetation is heavily fragmented with only 42% still connected (DEWNR 2014a). This fragmentation reduces opportunities for Sandhill dunnarts to recolonise areas of potential habitat. Sandhill dunnarts occurring in isolated native vegetation are also vulnerable to local extirpations as a result of stochastic events such as drought and large wildfires. Due to the isolated nature of remnant vegetation patches on Eyre Peninsula, McLean, et al (2019) undertook genetic analyses to determine whether gene flow is occurring between isolated vegetation patches to inform management. This was to determine the need for translocations or creation of habitat corridors (McLean et al. 2019).\n\nAt a fine spatial scale, McLean, et al. (2019) found no significant genetic structure or sex-biased dispersal within a study site of 240 km2. Their findings suggest that both sexes are highly mobile, which allows individuals to locate localised resource patches when they become available. They detected evidence of a genetic bottleneck within the population, possibly caused by a recent drought highlighting the importance of maintaining connectivity across the landscape for semi-arid and arid-zone species to enable them to track resource pulses and maintain genetic diversity. They found that the level of genetic diversity within the Eyre Peninsula sites is at risk of decline given the reduced allelic richness and heterozygosity, as well as the isolated nature of remnant vegetation patches compared with the populations in the GVD. Relatively recent (Churchill 2001b; Kemper et al. 2011; Moseby et al. 2016) and historic (Aitken 1971; Baynes 1987) records suggest that Sandhill dunnart was widespread over the central and northern Eyre Peninsula before European settlement. Since European settlement, Eyre Peninsula has lost over half (57%) of its native vegetation (Churchill 2001a; Brandle 2010). Habitat clearance in the southern portion of Eyre Peninsula greatly reduces available habitat, and its effects are significant. The chenopod shrubland communities south and east of Whyalla do not provide significant habitat preferred by the Sandhill dunnart.\n\nThe extent to which Sandhill dunnart may be affected by habitat loss and fragmentation elsewhere is unknown. However, fragmentation will likely result in isolated populations where movement, needed to track resources, is hindered by unfavourable landscapes between remnant vegetation. Loss of vegetation appears to have resulted in the contraction of the once widespread Sandhill dunnart to remnant patches in central and northern Eyre Peninsula. Research is needed to determine the long-term viability of these populations and the level of connectivity (gene flow) between them. If remnant patches are isolated, populations may become locally extinct due to environmental, demographic, and other stochastic events, such as wildfires (Lande 1988; McLean et al. 2018).\n\nThere has been no land clearance for agriculture in the GVD, however, new threats are emerging that may cause irrevocable damage to Sandhill dunnart habitat. Mining and other industry operations have been proposed or undertaken within arid and semi-arid regions of SA and WA that support Sandhill dunnart habitat. These activities often involve large scale vegetation clearance and substrate disturbance in sandy spinifex and mallee environments. In YRR, exploration tracks have been created using a roller which is designed to crush the vegetation but leave the soil surface intact (Warland and Mills 2011). Subsequent observations suggest that rolled Triodia typically dies (Sandhill dunnart Workshop 2014), however, regeneration of Triodia is likely to be faster using this method compared to bulldozing or grading, given that the rootstock and seedbank are left intact after rolling. While rolling may allow some habitat recovery, expanding mining activities continue to threaten Sandhill dunnart populations.\n\nGiven the dispersed impacts of exploration activity, it is hard to assess what impacts it may have on Sandhill dunnarts. If rolled tracks are positioned in tight grids, then direct impacts on Sandhill dunnart nests may be a concern. Land clearance and the construction of tracks also have the indirect, but potentially significant, effect of facilitating the spread of weeds such as buffel grass (Cenchrus ciliaris).\n\n### 2.5.3 Predation by cats and foxes\n\nAll populations\n\nCats and foxes are known predators of some Sminthopsis species in arid Australia (Catling 1988; Paltridge et al. 1997; Read and Bowen 2001; Paltridge 2002), but the extent of their impact on the Sandhill dunnart is unknown. Currently core populations of Sandhill dunnarts are surviving in the presence of both cats and foxes (McLean 2015; Turpin and Riley 2021).\n\nAnalysis of 128 predator scats taken from known areas with Sandhill dunnarts has found a small percentage of scats (<2%) contained Sandhill dunnart remains, however, the predators were unidentified, but may have been a dog, dingo or fox (Boulton and Foulkes 2000). The Sandhill dunnart is ranked by Woolley et al. (2019) within the top Australian species at most risk of predation by the feral cat.\n\nFurther research into predation impacts of cats and foxes (and predation impacts of other species such as dingoes) on Sandhill dunnart populations is recommended. Several projects on feral cat control in Australia were funded as part of the Threatened Species Strategy (Australian Government 2015) and the Threatened Species Action Plan 2022-2032 (Australian Government 2022). This included developing and testing bait dispensing technologies and refining the use of feral cat baits. None of the funded projects directly relate to Sandhill dunnarts, however they may benefit and inform management of cats within the Sandhill dunnart’s range. Control of feral cats and foxes is desirable but will need to consider predator-prey interactions. For example, cat predation on Dasyurids is known to increase when consumption of rabbits is decreased (Doherty et al. 2015).\n\nFurthermore, in a study of feral cats in northern Australian savanna, McGregor et. al. (2015) found the hunting success of the cats (per attempt; n = 13) was only 17% in habitats with dense grass or complex rocks, compared to 70% in open areas (n = 101). This suggests that dense and complex microhabitats are likely to decrease cat predation rates.\n\nPredation by feral cats is a key threatening process listed under the EPBC Act. The threat abatement plan for predation by feral cats provides useful information on managing feral cats in a variety of landscapes and habitats (DCCEEW 2024).\n\nPredation by the European red fox (Vulpes vulpes) is a key threatening process listed under the EPBC Act. The threat abatement plan for predation by European red fox provides useful information on managing fox in a variety of landscapes and habitats (DEWHA 2008).\n\n### 2.5.4 Introduced flora (including buffel grass)\n\nAll populations\n\nThere are comparatively few serious weeds that are invading spinifex grasslands, except for buffel grass (Cenchrus ciliaris). Buffel grass is considered one of Australia’s worst environmental weeds (Humphries et al. 1991). It is a perennial tussock grass native to Africa, India and Asia and was introduced into Australia for pasture and dust control. It has spread widely across northern and central Australia (Marshall et al. 2012) including known and potential habitat of the Sandhill dunnart in WA, SA and NT (Lawson et al. 2004).\n\nBuffel grass can increase the intensity and frequency of fire events, threatening plant and animal communities that are not adapted to these modified fire regimes (Adair and Groves 1998). Buffel grass dries quickly and produces a more combustible and contiguous flammable fuel than native grasses, resulting in hotter and more intense fires (Humphries et al. 1993). It regenerates rapidly after fire suppressing the regeneration of native species (Paltridge et al. 2009) and forms dense monocultures, reducing diversity (Clarke et al. 2005) and productivity of some vegetation types (Humphries et al. 1993).\n\nBuffel grass is considered a major threat to Sandhill dunnarts due to the way that its dominance across landscapes leads to changes in availability of bare ground and the intensity and frequency of fires, resulting in the loss of nesting spinifex hummocks and potential changes to food availability (Sandhill dunnart Workshop 2014). Mitigation of this threat includes preventing the spread of buffel grass and controlling buffel grass where it establishes near known subpopulations of Sandhill dunnarts, including along incursion pathways (such as, access tracks and roads, and along adjacent watercourses). A SA Buffel Grass Strategic Plan (Biosecurity SA 2012) provides options for controlling the spread of buffel grass during the early stages of invasion; however, there is currently no feasible control method available once it is well established over an extensive area.\n\nNovel biota and their impact on biodiversity is a key threatening process listed under the EPBC Act. Advice on this key threatening process includes more information on the management of invasive flora, including buffel grass (TSSC 2013).\n\nAt the time this plan came into effect a specific threat abatement plan for buffel grass is in development by DCCEEW and will be published on the DCCEEW website when finalised.\n\n### 2.5.5 Introduced herbivores\n\nAll populations\n\nIntroduced herbivores (cattle, goats, sheep, rabbits and camels) may have an impact on the survival of Sandhill dunnarts indirectly in a variety of ways, including:\n\n- altering the structure of spinifex hummocks;\n- changing the fire regime by removing biomass;\n- reducing floristic diversity of habitats over time;\n- causing soil compaction and disturbance;\n- sustaining higher numbers of introduced predators (for example, rabbits and house mice provide an increased food source for foxes and feral cats \\[Holden and Mutze 2002\\], which may then switch to preying on native species when rabbit or mouse numbers decline during droughts or when rabbit numbers crash due to Rabbit Haemorrhagic Disease or myxomatosis outbreaks); and\n- encouraging the spread of introduced predators such as foxes and feral cats into areas that usually have only very low densities (Read and Bowen 2001, Moseby and Hill 2011).\n\nIntroduced herbivores are unlikely to have more than localised impacts on the habitats occupied by Sandhill dunnarts. The southern GVD is not suitable for introduced stock due to a lack of water sources and the low nutritional value of spinifex. On Eyre Peninsula, some sites in the Middleback dune fields are grazed by sheep, goats and rabbits; however, most of these animals appear to avoid the spinifex-dominated habitats in favour of other habitat types with more nutritious plants.\n\n### 2.5.6 Climate change\n\nAll populations\n\nPredicted anthropogenic climate change is likely to influence the distribution, habitat suitability and recovery prospects of Sandhill dunnart. Over the past century, Australia’s annual mean temperature has increased more than 1°C, while the south-west of the continent has experienced a decline in annual rainfall of up to 20% (Riley et al. 2021b).\n\nSemi-arid desert specialists such as the Sandhill dunnart are often dependent on winter rainfall and are susceptible to rainfall deficits, wildfires and extreme temperatures caused by anthropogenic climate change (Riley 2020). Future distributions of the Sandhill dunnart, considering the effects of climate change, current fire, and habitat fragmentation, have been modelled by Riley (2020) and Riley, et al. (2021b). Suitable habitat for Sandhill dunnart is predicted to contract significantly towards the more mesic southern parts of its range. As a sandy desert specialist, the distribution of the species is also geographically limited at its southern bounds due to the cessation of suitable habitats. Consequently, further extension of the range southwards is unlikely without assisted migration (Riley et al. 2021b).\n\nRiley et al. (2021b) note that the WA GVD and YRR populations are at a higher climatic risk, with the Eyre Peninsula population also predicted to contract in range as a result of climate change.\n\nThe decline in Sandhill dunnart populations appears to be occurring from north to south, tracking the effects of climate change (Riley 2020, Riley et al. 2021b). Unlike other arid zone mammal species where decline and extinction has occurred from south to north following the displacement of First Nations peoples (who were managing the land to prevent fire), the Sandhill dunnart’s contraction aligns with increasing aridity and warming (Riley et al. 2021b). The species reliance on dense, semi-arid habitats makes it highly sensitive to climate driven habitat shifts, as increasing temperature and limited rainfall are likely to degrade the refugial environments on which it depends (Riley et al. 2021b).\n\nRiley (2020) and J. Turpin (pers. comm.) have observed that extreme heat events have caused mass vegetation die-offs in the WA GVD (Figure 4). Rapidly increasing global temperatures, irregular rainfall patterns and more frequent wildfires and droughts are particularly dangerous in the Australian arid zone and threaten Sandhill dunnart habitat. Water is already scarce, vegetation is highly flammable, and the flat arid landscape offers little elevation for species to escape rising temperatures (Pittock 2009, Lindenmayer et al. 2010).\n\nNorthern and western habitats are predicted to become increasingly unsuitable for Sandhill dunnart and sympatric desert species over the next 50 years. Regions of the southern central WA (outside of the arid zone) were indicated as climatic refuges by the modelling. Translocations to constructed artificial fenced reserves with transplanted soils, seeds and vegetation from natural arid zone habitats may be required. However further research into their feasibility and value for sandhill dunnarts will be required before this may be considered an option to mitigate the projected loss of distribution due to climate change (Riley 2020).\n\n![Photographs showing habitat destruction and degradation from fire, droughts and hot winds in the Great Victoria Desert. ](image.009.png)\n\nFigure 4: GVD habitat destruction\n\n> Note: Large wildfires (left), droughts and hot winds (right) destroyed sensitive Western Australian Great Victoria Desert (WA GVD) habitat in 2019. Extract from Riley 2020.\n\nFurther, recent observations of Triodia die-off in Sandhill dunnart habitat in the WA GVD, and the APY Lands of far northern SA (including Wamitjara and Kenmore Park mail road), may be linked to climate change, although this is unclear. If climate change is the cause, then Sandhill dunnart habitat (and other semi-arid species), may be nearing a tipping point. Active investigation of the causes underlying this die-off is warranted.\n\n### 2.5.7 Native herbivores\n\nAll populations\n\nNative herbivores such as kangaroos are also a potential issue in the Middleback dune fields. Euros (Osphranter robustus) graze regenerating Triodia, sometimes preventing recruitment after fire and Western Grey Kangaroos (Macropus fuliginosus) in high density lay on Triodia hummocks, squashing them and presumably limit their value for dunnarts (J. Read pers. comm.). This is not an issue in other areas such as Yellabinna where dingoes control the usually low kangaroo numbers.\n\nEuros, Western Grey Kangaroo and Red Kangaroo (O. rufus) represent a significant threat to Triodia structure and abundance where there are permanent water sources nearby (R. Brandle pers. comm.). Native herbivores may also be partially responsible for the impacts summarised in Section: 2.5.5 Introduced herbivores in areas where Dingoes (Canis lupus dingo) are persecuted (inside the dog fence in SA). Waterpoint management and control of numbers in fenced areas are key to managing these impacts.\n\nTable 2: Risk matrix for the Sandhill dunnart\n\n| Consequence (x) // Likelihood (y) | Not significant | Minor | Moderate | Major | Catastrophic |\n| --------------------------------- | --------------- | ------------------------------ | -------------------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------------ |\n| Almost certain | | | | Very-high riskInappropriate fire regimesHabitat loss and fragmentation | |\n| Likely | | Moderate riskNative herbivores | High riskIntroduced herbivoresClimate change | Very-high riskPredation by cats and foxesIntroduced flora | |\n| Possible | | | | | |\n| Unlikely | | | | | |\n| Unknown | | | | | |\n\nRisk matrix key:\n\n| Low risk | Moderate risk | High risk | Very-high risk |\n| -------- | ------------- | --------- | -------------- |\n\nDefinition of likelihood and consequence categories\n\nConsequence is a measure of the severity of the impact of the threat on the survival of the species.\n\n- Catastrophic – affecting survival, reproduction or essential movement of individuals in >80% of the population or across >80% of the distribution within the next 3 generations or 10 years, whichever is longer.\n- Major – affecting survival, reproduction or essential movement of individuals in 50-80 % of the population or across 50-80% of the distribution within the next 3 generations or 10 years, whichever is longer.\n- Moderate – affecting survival, reproduction or essential movement of individuals in 20-50% of the population or across 20-50% of the distribution within the next 3 generations or 10 years, whichever is longer.\n- Minor – affecting survival, reproduction or essential movement of individuals in 5-30% of the population or across 5-30% of the distribution within the next 3 generations or 10 years, whichever is longer.\n- Not significant – affecting survival, reproduction or essential movement of individuals in <5% of the population or across <5% of the distribution within the next 3 generations or 10 years, whichever is longer.\n\nLikelihood is a measure of how regularly the threat impacts the species.\n\n- Almost certain – >90% chance that threat will have an impact on the species within the next 3 generations or 10 years, whichever is longer.\n- Likely – 66-90% chance that threat will have an impact on the species within the next 3 generations or 10 years, whichever is longer.\n- Possible – 33-66% chance that threat will have an impact on the species within the next 3 generations or 10 years, whichever is longer.\n- Unlikely – <33% chance that threat will have an impact on the species within the next 3 generations or 10 years, whichever is longer.\n- Unknown – probability that threat will have an impact on the species within the next 3 generations or 10 years, whichever is longer, could be 0-100%.\n\n \n\n# 3 Recovery planning\n\n## 3.1 Vision\n\nSandhill dunnart populations are healthy and stable and have expanded across their potential range. The quality and connectedness of habitat is being improved by regional communities and land managers who have adopted management practices to support the long-term sustainability of the species so that it becomes eligible for removal from the EPBC Act List of Threatened Species.\n\n## 3.2 Objectives\n\nThe Objectives in place to enact the Vision for the Sandhill dunnart are as follows:\n\n1. Threats to Sandhill dunnart are appropriately managed reducing their impact to Sandhill dunnart sub-populations and habitat;\n2. Sandhill dunnart habitat is rehabilitated, connected and protected;\n3. Collective understanding of Sandhill dunnart populations, habitat, ecology and threats has improved; and\n4. Conservation of Sandhill dunnart and their habitat is led and championed by Traditional Custodians, community, experts and governments.","sortOrder":18},{"sectionNumber":"2.1","sectionType":"part","heading":"Description","content":"## 2.1 Description\n\nThe Sandhill dunnart, Sminthopsis psammophila, is the second largest of 19 species of the marsupial genus Sminthopsis (Dasyuridae) that occur predominantly in arid and semi-arid regions of Australia. All species are nocturnal, predominantly insectivorous and are similar in appearance, characterised by their long-pointed snouts, large eyes and ears, and relatively long slender hind feet.\n\nThe Sandhill dunnart differs from other members of its genus by its large size at maturity – mass 25–55 g, body length 85–114 mm, and tail length 106–133 mm (Pearson and Churchill 2008). It has comparatively large eyes and ears, and a distinctive tail that is an excellent identifier as it is clearly contrasted, pale above and dark grey below, tapering towards the tip and has a crest of stiff black hairs along the ventral surface of the distal portion (Archer 1981; Figure 1). It has distinctive bicoloured fur patterning, drab grey to buff fur on the dorsal surface and white fur on the underside with darker hair nearer the skin. It has a pale grey head and black pencilling extending from the shoulders to the wedge between the eyes and a black eye-ring.\n\n![Two photographs of the Sandhill dunnart. \nMore information on the Sandhill dunnarts description is available in Section 2.1: Description](image.005.png)\n\nFigure 1: Sandhill Dunnart, Sminthopsis psammophila\n\nPhoto credit: Amanda McLean and Joanna Riley","sortOrder":19},{"sectionNumber":"2.2","sectionType":"part","heading":"Distribution and population structure","content":"# 1 Background\n\nThis is the National Recovery Plan for the Sandhill dunnart (Sminthopsis psammophila), made in accordance with Part 13 of the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act). This plan guides conservation of the species across its range and identifies the research and management actions necessary to halt decline and support its recovery, so that its chances of long-term survival in nature are maximised.\n\n## 1.1 Conservation status\n\nThe Sandhill dunnart is listed as 'Endangered' under the EPBC Act.\n\nThe Action Plan for Australian Mammals (Woinarski et al. 2014) assessed the national status of the species as 'Vulnerable’, a conclusion which was supported by the most recent assessment for the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List of Threatened Species (Woinarski and Burbidge 2016). Both assessments used the following IUCN criteria (2001 ver. 3.1):\n\n (B2) area of occupancy < 2,000 km2;\n (a) number of locations ≤ 10;\n (b) continuing decline in:\n\n (ii) area of occupancy,\n (iii) area, extent and/or quality of habitat,\n (iv) number of locations or subpopulations, and (Woinarski et al. 2014 only)\n (v) number of mature individuals);\n (D2) restricted area of occupancy, where number of locations ≤ 5.\n\nIn South Australia (SA), the Sandhill dunnart is listed as ‘Vulnerable’ under Schedule 7, National Parks and Wildlife Act 1972 (NPW Act). In Western Australia (WA), the species is listed as ‘Endangered’ under the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 (BC Act), based on IUCN criteria B2ab(ii,iii,iv,v) (2012 ver. 3.1 2nd ed.). In the Northern Territory (NT), the species is listed as ‘Data Deficient’ under the Territory Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act 2006 (TPWC Act).\n\nInternationally, the Sandhill dunnart is listed on Appendix 1 of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), which prohibits international trade in specimens of the species except when the purpose of the import is not commercial (such as scientific research).\n\n## 1.2 Conservation action\n\n### 1.2.1 Surveys and monitoring\n\nSeveral surveys targeting Sandhill dunnarts have been conducted and are continuing in the Great Victoria Desert (GVD) and on Eyre Peninsula since 2000. These have resulted in two new spatially independent locations 150 km north of the known range in WA (near Laverton) and several new locations recorded within the species’ known range. In addition, information has been gained on the ecology, diet, habitat, distribution, genetics, and threats to Sandhill dunnarts (McLean 2015, Riley 2020).\n\nEnvironmental Impact Assessments (EIA) associated with mining activities have increased survey efforts and added data to assist in understanding the species (Gaikhorst and Lambert 2014). Most of these surveys from north of Queen Victoria Spring to the north-west of Plumridge Lakes Nature Reserve have been associated with the EIA for the Tropicana Gold Mine (Tropicana Joint Venture 2010; EPA 2010). The Great Victoria Desert Biodiversity Trust (GVDBT) (Sandhill Dunnart Workshop 2014), setup as an offset for the Tropicana Gold Mine, are also seeking to develop standardised survey methods and long-term monitoring protocols for monitoring Sandhill dunnarts in the two western subregions (Shield and Central) of the GVD in WA (2015a; 2015b). These are intended to build upon the 'Survey guidelines for Australia’s threatened mammals’ (Australian Government 2011). Iluka Mine in Yellabinna have conducted surveys for the species over many years as well an including collecting baseline and monitoring data.\n\nThere have been irregular surveys by Ecological Horizons, other researchers and the SA Department for Environment and Water (DEW) in the Middleback ranges over recent decades. Landscape Board National Landcare Program (NLP) funded projects in the Yellabinna, Pinkawillinie and Gawler Ranges areas.\n\nSurveys have been ongoing in the Yellabinna Mallee country via the Alinytjara Wilurara Landscape Board (AWLB). Surveys in the far-west including Yellabinna were undertaken over the past ten years via the Alinytjara Wilurara NRM (now Alinytjara Wilurara Landscape Board) from 2018 to 2023, which are planned to continue if funding permits. The Middleback Alliance undertook aerial fox baiting over the past 5 years and a survey to attempt to quantify the impacts, although this was made difficult by drought (R. Brandle pers comms).\n\nTurpin and Lloyd (2014) and Turpin and Riley (2017) have conducted the Sandhill dunnart Monitoring Program for APA Group biannually since 2014 along the Eastern Goldfields Pipeline in the GVD in WA, representing the only long-term monitoring studies for the species in WA. Riley (2020) and Riley et al. (2021b) were also funded by the Goldfields Environmental Management Group (GEMG) to perform motion camera surveys for the species throughout WA.\n\nFurther surveys are required in areas which are likely to be suitable for Sandhill dunnarts in SA and WA, including in the GVD of WA and SA (Map 2 ). Potential survey areas within the GVD include:\n\n the mallee/spinifex habitat north of Yellabinna Regional Reserve (YRR),\n the spinifex and sand dune communities in the Maralinga Tjarutja Lands,\n Mamungari Conservation Park, and\n the southern Anangu Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara Lands (APY Lands).\n\nSandhill dunnart records are included in the Atlas of Living Australia (Atlas of Living Australia 2025).\n\n### 1.2.2 Sandhill dunnart Project (SA Alinytjara Wilurara Landscape Board)\n\nThe Alinytjara Wilurara NRM Board has been working with communities across the region to implement the draft Sandhill dunnart recovery plan (Churchill 2001a). This has included undertaking Sandhill dunnart surveys in the Maralinga Tjarutja Lands and training in sand-plot tracking through the Oak Valley Land Management Engagement program (Alinytjara Wilurara Landscape Board 2015).\n\nIn addition, long-term monitoring has been undertaken with surveys occurring at the Immarna site since 2007 – a location within the YRR just to the east of the Ooldea siding. Surveys have focused on pitfall trapping and measuring Triodia densities and heights (Moseby, et al. 2016).\n\nIn 2018, Alinytjara Wilurara Landscape Board (AWLB) secured National Landcare Program 2 funds to continue these works, not only at the Immarna site, but also across much of the Yellabinna and Yumbarra reserves area, focusing on determining the key habitats for the species, as well as attempting to extend the current known areas of occupancy within this area. Surveys have been planned by examining fire-scar mapping to target areas with a post-fire age of 15 years, or more. This has resulted in the species being found at three more locations, suggesting that these dunnarts occur across Yellabinna Regional Reserve. This project was funded until 2023 and aimed to determine whether there are any “core” habitat areas or refuge areas (Pavey et al. 2017) for the Sandhill dunnart and, if so, how these might best be defined spatially and ecologically. It also includes threat abatement works focused on reducing predation pressures from foxes and feral cats, and surveillance against the establishment of the habitat transforming weed, buffel grass.\n\n### 1.2.3 Captive breeding research\n\nIn 2005, five Sandhill dunnarts (3 males and 2 females) were collected from the GVD in WA and transferred to Perth Zoo for captive breeding research (D. Jose pers. comm.). A total of six litters were produced over three seasons, with 41 animals bred. Research was published on their oestrus cycle, gestation period, and the growth and development of their young (Lambert et al. 2011), and a Husbandry Manual was also produced (Ferguson 2008). At the conclusion of the project in 2007, the remaining animals were relocated to Cleland Wildlife Park, Alice Springs Desert Park, or left on display at Perth Zoo. None were released back into the wild. Moonlit Sanctuary kept a single male from 2010 to 2011. The last recording of a Sandhill dunnart in captivity is a single male from Alice Springs Desert Park in 2012.\n\n### 1.2.4 The Great Victoria Desert Biodiversity Trust\n\nThe Great Victoria Desert Biodiversity Trust (GVDBT) was established in 2014 as an independent not-for-profit entity as part of the approval process for the Tropicana Gold Mine. The GVDBT aims to establish a bioregional plan (for two GVD sub-regions in WA), undertake priority research and management (including research on the Sandhill dunnart), and facilitate the involvement of Traditional Custodians.\n\nWorkshops on Sandhill dunnarts were held in 2014 and 2019 to determine and prioritise research and management activities to help conserve viable populations of Sandhill dunnart in the WA GVD. Knowledge gaps identified during the workshops included, distribution, threats, effectiveness of mitigation strategies, monitoring, habitat requirements, diet and life history, and appropriate management. Based on the workshops, the GVDBT developed a Research and Adaptive Management Plan (RAMP) for the Sandhill dunnart (GVDBT 2016), and the recovery actions in this plan (Summary of recovery objectives, recovery actions, performance criteria, potential partners and priority ratings) are designed to complement the research priorities and conservation action priorities identified in the RAMP. In 2016 DBCA produced for the GVDBT a report on defining a baseline survey design for the Sandhill dunnart in the WA GVD and this was updated to include more guidance on the use of camera traps. These guidelines were revised in 2020 (GHD 2020).\n\n### 1.2.5 Habitat protection in declared conservation areas\n\nThe GVD covers an enormous area, approximately 420,000 km2, and is the largest dune desert in Australia. It extends from north of the Nullarbor Plain to the Gibson Desert and Central Ranges in WA and to the central Australian ranges. From west to east, it extends from Laverton in WA to Coober Pedy in SA. Approximately half of this land is managed by Traditional Custodian groups, including Mirning, Anangu Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara, Maralinga, Kokatha, Wirangu and Barngarla groups, and Spinifex people (Pila Nguru Aboriginal Corporation). A further 70,000 km2 (about one fifth) of the GVD is in conservation parks and reserves. Almost all the remaining area is land owned by the State (known as ‘Crown land’ or ‘Unallocated Crown Land’), much of which is overlain by mining tenements (including Tropicana Gold Mine and Iluka Resources) and native title claims.\n\nWhile large areas of potential habitat of the Sandhill dunnart are reserved in several conservation areas, Queen Victoria Spring Nature Reserve is the only one known to have Sandhill dunnarts in WA. All other known populations occur on Unallocated Crown Land. In the SA portion of the GVD, most Sandhill dunnarts have been found in YRR with some additional records in Yellabinna Wilderness Protection Area and Yumbarra Conservation Park, despite survey efforts further north (Moseby et al. 2016).\n\nThe majority of Eyre Peninsula (54%) has been cleared for agriculture (DEWNR 2014a) and much of the uncleared land is under grazing leases. One of the largest areas of remnant vegetation is the Central-Northwest Linkage, spanning from Hincks Conservation Park through to the Kulliparu Conservation Park, approximately 9,900 km2. This area contains 6,820 km2 (69%) of native vegetation, of which 3,170 km2 (46%) is protected either in national parks, conservation parks or Heritage agreements. The discovery of Sandhill dunnarts in Hincks Wilderness Protection Area in 2005 has prompted further survey work within this broader area.\n\nThere are several conservation areas on northern Eyre Peninsula that contain known or potentially suitable habitat for Sandhill dunnarts, including Pinkawillinie Conservation Park (1,271 km2), Ironstone Hill Conservation Park (197 km2), Hambidge Wilderness Protection Area (380 km2), Hincks Wilderness Protection Area (669 km2), Gawler Ranges National Park (1786 km2) and Pureba Conservation Park (2264 km2). While brief initial surveys of Pinkawillinie Conservation Park (Churchill 2001b) and Hambidge Wilderness Protection Area (NCSSA 1967) failed to find any Sandhill dunnarts, survey work in 2005 successfully captured two animals in Pinkawillinie Conservation Park. In 2010, another Sandhill dunnart was found in Pinkawillinie Conservation Park (July 2010), and two were found in Hambidge Wilderness Protection Area (July 2010). During 2020 one animal was captured in the north-east of the Pinkawillinie Conservation Park (Moseby and Lynch 2020) with camera detections during 2020 and 2021 at 4 nearby locations and two locations in the north-western area of the park (all within 5 km of previous known locations). During 2022 follow up work (Bell 2022) captured a sub-adult near the eastern boundary of Pureba Conservation Park. Two 14 camera arrays set during this period, one near this capture location, the other on the southwestern boundary of the Gawler Ranges National Park, detected sandhill dunnarts at one camera each (DEW datastore). Further survey work is needed to verify the presence of the species in contiguous habitat between these locations and within other reserves of the region. Gawler Ranges National Park and Yumbarra Conservation Park are co-managed by Traditional Owners.\n\nOn the northeastern Eyre Peninsula, several large conservation reserves have the potential to contain Sandhill dunnarts. Lake Gilles Conservation Park (451 km2) and Munyaroo Conservation Park (123 km2) are of particular interest given their close proximity to Sandhill dunnart capture locations in the Middleback Range area (particularly Ironstone Hill Conservation Park and Secret Rocks). While some surveys have been conducted at Lake Gilles Conservation Park (Churchill 2001b; EP Project Group 1973), Munyaroo Conservation Park has not been adequately surveyed and requires further investigation. Further survey is also warranted in Pureba Conservation Park, as sandhill dunnarts have been recently recorded near the boundary (Bell 2022).\n\nSome of the Sandhill dunnarts found in the Middleback Range area also occur on grazing leases (such as Moola and Cooyerdoo) and are subject to disturbance by pastoralism. Individuals have been trapped in areas that are adjacent to iron-ore mines, as well as sites that are located between cleared lines for high-voltage electricity cables and a railway line that services the mines. The most southern capture site in the Middleback Range area is adjacent to a major highway between Whyalla and Port Lincoln and is on the boundary of another pastoral property that has been cleared previously for wheat production. The Middleback Alliance, a partnership between DEW, Arrium Mining, Ecological Horizons and other local landholders operates in this area (Middleback Alliance 2015). The Middleback Alliance aims to sustainably manage private and public land in the region including goat, rabbit and fox control, fire management, and threatened species management, including surveying and monitoring Sandhill dunnart sites.\n\n## 1.3 Cultural significance\n\nA large proportion of the wild populations of Sandhill dunnart are found on Indigenous lands managed by First Nations people. Indigenous rangers have and continue to make significant contributions to annual surveys for Sandhill dunnart. The plan aims to continue strengthening collaboration between Traditional Custodians and other land managers, with the goal of keeping Country healthy for both the Sandhill dunnart and the people. It is expected that further engagement of Indigenous groups involved in the conservation of the Sandhill dunnart will occur on a site-by-site basis as this recovery plan is implemented.\n\nTraditional Custodians are significant partners involved in the recovery of the Sandhill dunnart and its habitat including through:\n\n• developing and implementing land management activities to support Sandhill dunnart recovery on land managed by, or associated with, Traditional Custodians, including linkages to Healthy Country plans;\n\n• developing and implementing research projects on land managed by, or associated with Traditional Custodians;\n\n• opportunities to increase land management capacity through sharing of cultural and scientific knowledge;\n\n• documenting new records of Sandhill dunnart; and\n\n• two-way science and knowledge sharing.\n\nThe potential distribution of Sandhill dunnart overlaps with several Indigenous Protected Areas (IPAs):\n\n- Maralinga Tjarutja Lands IPA South Australia\n- Watarru IPA South Australia\n- Walalkara IPA South Australia\n- Yalata IPA South Australia\n- Apara - Makiri - Punti IPA South Australia\n- Anangu Tjutaku IPA Western Australia\n- Ngaanyatjarra IPA Western Australia\n\n![Map showing the distribution of Sandhill dunnart within SA and WA. It also includes the relevant IPA boundaries that intersect with potential Sandhill dunnart habitat.](image.004.jpeg)\n\nMap 1: Indigenous Protected Areas (IPAs) overlapping with Sandhill dunnart distribution\n\n> Note: Source: Base map Geoscience Australia; species distribution data Species of National Environmental Significance database.\n\n> Note: Caveat: The information presented in this map has been provided by a range of groups and agencies. While every effort has been made to ensure accuracy and completeness, no guarantee is given, nor responsibility taken by the Commonwealth for errors or omissions, and the Commonwealth does not accept responsibility in respect of any information or advice given in relation to, or as a consequence of, anything contained herein.\n\n> Note: Species distribution mapping: The species distribution mapping categories are indicative only and aim to capture (a) the habitat or geographic feature that represents to recent observed locations of the species (known to occur) or habitat occurring in close proximity to these locations (likely to occur); and (b) the broad environmental envelope or geographic region that encompasses all areas that could provide habitat for the species (may occur). These presence categories are created using an extensive database of species observations records, national and regional-scale environmental data, environmental modelling techniques and documented scientific research.\n\n## 1.4 Key partners\n\nImplementation of this Recovery Plan will depend on a coordinated approach between a range of stakeholders, which include the following:\n\n#### Australian Government\n\n- Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water\n- Parks Australia (Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Park)\n- Department of Defence\n\n#### State Government\n\n- Country Fire Service\n- Local councils, and Local Government Authorities\n- SA – Department for Environment and Water (DEW) including Alinytjara Wilurara, Eyre Peninsula and South Australian Arid Lands Landscape Boards\n- NT – Department of Land Resource Management\n- WA – Department of Biodiversity, Conservation and Attractions (DBCA), Rangelands Natural Resource Management, Department of Fire and Emergency Services, Department of Water and Environmental Regulation, Department of Mines, Petroleum and Exploration\n\n#### Traditional Owners\n\n- SA – Mirning, Anangu Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara, Maralinga, Kokatha, Wirangu and Barngarla\n- WA – the Spinifex People (Pila Nguru Aboriginal Corporation) Upurli Upurli Nguratja, Untiri Pulka, Pilki People, Nangaanya-ku, Yilka, Desert Support Services, Central Desert Native Title Services\n- NT – Central Land Council (Katiti-Petermann Indigenous Protected Area)\n\n#### Mining/gas companies\n\n- Including, but not limited to – AngloGold Ashanti Australia Ltd (Tropicana Joint Venture Gold Mine); Iluka Resources Limited; Vimy Resources (Mulga Rock), Deep Yellow, Lost Sands Pty Ltd\n\n#### Other\n\n- Friends groups (such as the Friends of the Great Victoria Desert)\n- Great Victoria Desert Biodiversity Trust (GVDBT)\n- Middleback Alliance, SA\n- Private landholders\n- Goldfields Environmental Management Group (GEMG)\n\n# 2 Species information\n\n## 2.1 Description\n\nThe Sandhill dunnart, Sminthopsis psammophila, is the second largest of 19 species of the marsupial genus Sminthopsis (Dasyuridae) that occur predominantly in arid and semi-arid regions of Australia. All species are nocturnal, predominantly insectivorous and are similar in appearance, characterised by their long-pointed snouts, large eyes and ears, and relatively long slender hind feet.\n\nThe Sandhill dunnart differs from other members of its genus by its large size at maturity – mass 25–55 g, body length 85–114 mm, and tail length 106–133 mm (Pearson and Churchill 2008). It has comparatively large eyes and ears, and a distinctive tail that is an excellent identifier as it is clearly contrasted, pale above and dark grey below, tapering towards the tip and has a crest of stiff black hairs along the ventral surface of the distal portion (Archer 1981; Figure 1). It has distinctive bicoloured fur patterning, drab grey to buff fur on the dorsal surface and white fur on the underside with darker hair nearer the skin. It has a pale grey head and black pencilling extending from the shoulders to the wedge between the eyes and a black eye-ring.\n\n![Two photographs of the Sandhill dunnart. \nMore information on the Sandhill dunnarts description is available in Section 2.1: Description](image.005.png)\n\nFigure 1: Sandhill Dunnart, Sminthopsis psammophila\n\nPhoto credit: Amanda McLean and Joanna Riley\n\n## 2.2 Distribution and population structure\n\n### 2.2.1 Core populations\n\nThe Sandhill dunnart is known to occur in three core population areas as shown in Map 2 (near Queen Victoria Spring Nature Reserve in the southwestern corner of the GVD in WA; YRR in the southeastern GVD in SA; and Eyre Peninsula in SA). The estimated extent of occurrence (EOO) is 151,635 km² and area of occupancy (AOO) is 500–1900 km2 (Woinarski and Burbidge 2016; Map 2). Habitat clearance in the southern portion of Eyre Peninsula greatly reduces available habitat. The chenopod shrubland communities in the areas south and east of Whyalla do not support significant habitat favoured by Sandhill dunnart.\n\nThe EOO is now considered stable, but the AOO is declining due to the limited availability of suitable habitat as a result of the frequent loss of suitable habitat by wildfire and other threats (Churchill 2001, Woinarski et al. 2014, Riley 2020). While wildfire is an important ecological process, the limited availability of structurally suitable habitat means that burning of suitable habitat in the current matrix constitutes a threat to Sandhill dunnart (Section 2.5.1: Inappropriate fire regimes).\n\nTargeted efforts in the southwestern GVD in 2018 identified four additional sites within the WA GVD population where Sandhill dunnarts occur, extending the WA GVD population range approximately 70 km south and confirming previous baseline study findings (Greening Australia 2019). The surveys confirmed the presence of the species from a previously un-surveyed area situated on the eastern fringe of a local broad area of undulating yellow sandplains. The Sandhill dunnart was recorded within patches of long-unburnt vegetation situated within landscapes affected by widespread recent fire (several high-intensity burns from 2000 to 2017; US Geological Survey 2018). Sandhill dunnarts were found in areas where the local topography provided some protection from fire (occurring within swales (between tall sand dunes), sand plains, and dune slopes (Riley et al. 2021a) or adjacent to mulga shrublands) (Greening Australia 2019).\n\nRiley et al. (2021b) used predictive species distribution models with ground validation in April 2018 to confirm 18 new spatially independent Sandhill dunnart records in the WA GVD, including several in a remote region 150 km northwest of the known range. In SA, new records were obtained in Yellabinna National Park, near the southeastern Boundary of Pureba Conservation Park, and on the western boundary of Gawler Ranges National Park (R Brandle, pers. comm.) in areas that were predicted as suitable for the species using models (Riley et al. 2021b).\n\n![Modelled distribution of Sandhill dunnart across SA and WA. \nMore information is available in Section 2.2: Distribution and population structure](image.006.jpeg)\n\nMap 2: Modelled distribution of Sandhill dunnart\n\n> Note: Source: Base map Geoscience Australia; species distribution data Species of National Environmental Significance database.\n\n> Note: Caveat: The information presented in this map has been provided by a range of groups and agencies. While every effort has been made to ensure accuracy and completeness, no guarantee is given, nor responsibility taken by the Commonwealth for errors or omissions, and the Commonwealth does not accept responsibility in respect of any information or advice given in relation to, or as a consequence of, anything contained herein.\n\n> Note: Species distribution mapping: The species distribution mapping categories are indicative only and aim to capture (a) the habitat or geographic feature that represents to recent observed locations of the species (known to occur) or habitat occurring in close proximity to these locations (likely to occur); and (b) the broad environmental envelope or geographic region that encompasses all areas that could provide habitat for the species (may occur). These presence categories are created using an extensive database of species observations records, national and regional-scale environmental data, environmental modelling techniques and documented scientific research.\n\nInvestigation into the contemporary genetic structure of the Sandhill dunnart show that the three core populations are genetically differentiated and, therefore, may represent functionally separate populations (McLean 2015). However, examination of the historic genetic structure found limited genetic differentiation between core populations (Gaikhorst et al. undated; McLean 2015), suggesting the three core populations were once connected. This absence of major geographical barriers between populations suggests the genetic pattern may be a result of fragmentation, with connecting populations going locally extinct over time (McLean 2015). Alternatively, core regions may still be connected by undetected populations, particularly in the southern GVD where there may be large areas of suitable habitat (McLean 2015; McLean, et al. 2019). Further survey effort is needed to clarify the presence or absence of Sandhill dunnart populations between the three core population areas.\n\nThe distribution of the Sandhill dunnart has declined since European settlement. Its pre-European distribution extended further north and west. The species was previously found in NT where it was first captured near Lake Amadeus in 1894 (Spencer 1896), and bones in caves were recently verified from near Yalgoo and Lake Barlee in Western Australia, 400–600 km west of the known WA GVD population (Riley et al 2021b). Subsequent surveys have failed to relocate the species in the NT, but further surveys are warranted.\n\nOwl pellets containing remains of Sandhill dunnarts have come from caves at the base of Uluru, NT (Parker 1973; Archer 1981), and caves at Darke Peak on Eyre Peninsula, SA (Baynes 1987). Owl pellets containing sub-fossil Sandhill dunnart remains have been collected from Black Point Sinkhole at Venus Bay, SA. These sub-fossil deposits were radiocarbon dated at 3,030–2,160 years before present (Baynes 1987; Copley et al. 1999).\n\n### 2.2.2 Important sub-populations\n\nThe three core populations (WA GVD, YRR and Eyre Peninsula) of Sandhill Dunnarts consist of five known sub-populations. All sub-populations are considered important for the long-term recovery and survival of the species. These sub-populations are located in the following areas:\n\n1. Southwestern Great Victoria Desert, WA (WA GVD)\n2. Great Victoria Desert, SA (SA GVD) including:\n - Yellabinna Regional Reserve,\n - Yellabinna Wilderness Protected Area,\n - Yumbarra Conservation Park, and\n - East of Pureba Conservation Park.\n3. Northcentral Eyre Peninsula (EP), SA including:\n - Pinkawillinie Conservation Park (near Kyancutta), and\n - Gawler Ranges National Park.\n4. Middleback dunefields (near Whyalla), northeastern Eyre Peninsula (EP), SA\n5. Central Eyre Peninsula (EP), SA including:\n - Hincks Conservation Park, and\n - Hambridge Conservation Park.\n\n## 2.3 Habitat\n\nThe presence of dense pre-senescent, usually long unburned (greater than 20 years without fire) spinifex (Triodia spp.) hummocks in association with sand dune systems appears to be the most significant factor explaining known Sandhill dunnart habitat in SA (Churchill 2001; Ward 2009), although current distribution over fire history suggests that there are also other factors that explain distribution. In Western Australia, Riley et al. (2021a) concluded through radio tracking that the survey and conservation of the Sandhill dunnart necessitate attention to habitats that have not burned for over 32 years. These habitats include dense lower stratum swales, sand plains, and dune slopes. This was supported by MaxEnt modelling (Riley 2020). The distribution is also constrained by semi-arid climatic conditions (Riley 2020). Modelling supports the view that Sandhill dunnart distribution is constrained by both the availability of Triodia spp. habitat (that is restricted to sandy soils) in dense southern semi-arid deserts and desert influenced by higher winter rainfall than Australia’s northern and central deserts (Riley 2020).\n\nIn WA, Sandhill dunnarts are primarily found in plains and dunes (longitudinal and ring dunes) with interdune corridors and plains; occasional salt pans at a mean ± standard deviation elevation of 402 ± 22 m a.s.l. (DAFWA 2014; Riley 2020). Vegetation communities are dominated by spinifex, predominantly T. desertorum and T. basedowii, hummock grasslands with scattered eucalypts including marble gums, Eucalyptus gongylocarpa, situated over wattle scrub, Acacia spp., and mallees, Eucalyptus spp. (Beard et al. 2013). The study site soils are ‘Yellow deep sand, Soil Group 446’ except for ‘Mulga’ habitat class soils where a variable depth sandy loamy clay crust is present (Schoknecht and Pathan 2013).\n\nSandhill dunnart models (Riley 2020) responded to surface geologies of ‘Qd’ (Dunes, sandplain with dunes and swales; this category may include numerous interdune claypans and may be locally Gypsiferous), ‘Czs’ (Sand or gravel plains that may include some residual alluvium, quartz sand sheets commonly with ferruginous pisoliths or pebbles, local clay, calcrete, laterite, silcrete, silt, and colluvium); and ‘Ln’ (Middleback subgroup: comprising Jaspilite, quartzite, gneiss, quartz-mica schist; and dolomitic marble). Understanding these geological formations is important for modelling the presence of Sandhill dunnart (Raymond et al. 2007).\n\nIn SA, species associations vary but are generally low, open mallee woodland over a diverse shrub layer and relatively dense spinifex; there is also a greater diversity of Triodia species which may be present, including T. irritans, T. scariosa and T. lanata.\n\nIn the WA GVD recent radio-tracking showed that Sandhill dunnarts are most often associated with dense, long-unburned sand plain, swale and dune slope habitats (Riley et al. 2021a, Riley et al. 2022), with a strong preference for dense lower habitat stratums and mature vegetation. Sandhill dunnart speciation occurred approximately 15 million years ago (Archer 1982), while dune development in the GVD was geologically recent (up to 781 000 years ago; Madigan 1936), so it is likely that sand dunes are probably not a prerequisite habitat feature for the species to persist (Riley 2020). Riley (2020) also found that Sandhill dunnart sheltering habitats could be far away from dune crests within swales or sand plains. Nonetheless, 82% of all shelters were within 500 m of a dune crest (Riley et al 2021a), suggesting that dunes and their influence on vegetation and fire dynamics enhance habitat suitability.\n\nThere appear to be additional areas of potentially suitable habitat in the southern GVD where the species has not yet been recorded – due to low, no or inappropriate survey effort, although they are patchily distributed (extract from Riley et al. 2022). Suitable habitat on Eyre Peninsula is limited due to historical land clearance.\n\n### 2.3.1 Shelter preferences\n\nSandhill dunnarts typically use burrows as diurnal refuges to maintain thermodynamic equilibrium (Porter and Gates 1969; Riley 2020, Riley et al. 2021a), and individuals have been observed using sun basking (passive rewarming) at burrow entrances, particularly during cooler conditions (Churchill 2001a, 2001b, Riley et al. 2021a). Shelter selection appears to be non-random within warmer habitat classes, and around 50% of entrances in a WA GVD radio tracking study were observed to face north (Riley et al. 2021a). Sandhill dunnarts have been observed using other types of shelter, including spinifex hummocks (Riley 2020, Churchill 2001a; Figure 2 f-h). In the Eyre Peninsula 68% of shelters were spherical nests within ‘Stage 3’ spinifex hummocks, 9% of shelters were within logs and 23% were burrows. In YRR, 96 % of shelters located by Churchill (2001b) were burrows (Riley 2020). In addition, fluorescent tagging of Eyre Peninsula individuals by Philp (2011) demonstrated that burrows were preferred as refuges during nocturnal foraging. In the Eyre Peninsula, when sheltering in spinifex, Sandhill dunnarts appeared to prefer large hummocks which have either an intact structure or have just started to die off in the centre (Churchill 2001a; Figure 3, life stages 2–4). However, it is unclear whether there are climatic or ecological differences affecting shelter use among populations, or whether these nests are diurnal or temporary shelters. In the WA GVD, when spinifex was chosen, Sandhill dunnarts opted for softer leaved species that would likely provide lower protection from predation, but which appear to have superior thermal properties, suggesting that thermal factors could be significant for the species (Riley 2020).\n\nTogether, these findings suggest that the habitat and shelter preferences of the species are complex, and may be population specific, and that site-specific characteristics are important in targeting management and recovery actions.\n\n![Composite of 8 images, all examples of different Sandhill dunnart burrows](image.007.png)\n\nFigure 2: Examples of Sandhill dunnart burrows\n\n> Note: (a) Exposed burrow with emerging individual inset; (b) Concealed burrow under a ‘Stage 5’ Triodia desertorum; (c) ‘Stage 3’ T. desertorum hummock; (d) Lepidobolus deserti hummock with individual inset; (e) Schoenus hexandrus hummock with individual inset; (f) Log shelter; (g) Bark shelter; (h) Burned mallee stump hollow with individual inset. Extract from Riley et al. 2021a Supplementary Data SD5.\n\n### 2.3.2 Spinifex hummocks – Fire and structure\n\nThe habitats preferred by the Sandhill dunnart, including dense sand plains, swales, and dune slopes, thrive in the absence of wildfire. In some areas, it has been over 40 years since a fire occurred. This long period without fire allows for the development of a range of suitable sites that provide adequate shelter and reduces the risk of predation (Brown et al., 1999; Laundré et al., 2001, 2010).\n\nPost-fire age of spinifex may be an important habitat indicator due to its influence on the cover and structure of Triodia. Recently burnt hummocks are too small for Sandhill dunnarts and long unburnt sites generally provide limited cover due to senescence of Triodia. The post-fire age of spinifex that Sandhill dunnarts will inhabit varies between sites and regions. In WA, most captures have been in habitat that was 17–26 years post-fire, with an optimum age structure recommended of 10–30 years post-fire (Gaikhorst and Lambert 2014). Riley et al. (2021a, 2021b) confirmed with tracking and satellite imagery that the mean fire age of preferred Sandhill dunnart nesting and foraging habitat in the WA GVD is 32+ years (range: 0–40+ years). In SA, captures have been in habitat ranging from 5 to >60 years post-fire (Churchill 2001b; Moseby et al. 2016; Ward 2009; Philp 2011; McLean 2012). Sandhill dunnarts captured at some SA sites with older spinifex (for example, Ooldea in the GVD and occasionally on Eyre Peninsula), have been shown to occupy burrows rather than nesting within hummocks (Churchill 2001a).\n\nGiven the apparently non-constant post-fire growth of Triodia at SA Sandhill dunnart capture sites (being also affected by rainfall, substrate, soil nutrients, and species), structural characteristics may be more useful predictors of Sandhill dunnart presence than post-fire age (Moseby et al. 2016). McLean (2015) found no preference for post-fire age. The number of logs (≥5 cm diameter), average height of Triodia hummocks and the overall complexity of vegetation were found to be the three most important habitat variables for predicting Sandhill dunnart abundance. Using modelling, Moseby et al. (2016) also found Sandhill dunnarts were more likely to populate areas which were ≥10 years post-fire where at least 10% of the Triodia had a minimum height of 330 mm. Moseby et al. (2016) recommend that fire be used as a management tool for maintaining habitat where Triodia cover declines below 10%, rather than using ‘post-fire age’ as a sole indicator.\n\n### 2.3.3 Habitat important to persistence and recovery\n\nAlthough habitat availability does not appear to be a limiting factor to the Sandhill dunnart, at least in the southern GVD, due to the relatively high mobility of the species, large areas of suitable habitat will need to be available to protect remaining populations (McLean 2015).\n\nFurther research is required to identify and map the habitat critical to survival of the species based on known habitat characteristics rather than relying on trapping programs which fail to consistently detect the species (Moseby et al. 2016). Maximum entropy models combined with accurate fire mapping have been valuable in locating unknown Sandhill dunnart populations in WA (Riley et al. 2021b). Landsat imagery is recommended for fire scar mapping in the GVD (Ruscalleda-Alvarez et al. 2021).\n\nThe most important habitat is considered to comprise:\n\n- Unburned habitat at extant Sandhill dunnart sites (based on the current available knowledge; Map 2);\n- Marble gum, mallee and Triodia spp. between dunes in the GVD of WA;\n- All Triodia sand dunes with a mallee Eucalyptus overstorey on Eyre Peninsula;\n- All Triodia sand dunes with a mallee Eucalyptus overstorey which occur between the three core population areas (Map 2); and\n- Areas within 500 m of a Dune crest within occupied sites in the GVD.\n\n![A composite of photographs which show the life stages of some Triodia spp. ](image.008.png)\n\nFigure 3: Life stages of some Triodia spp.\n\nNote: Drawings by Vicki Reynolds, photos are from Gaikhorst and Lambert (2014). At Stage 1 (Fig. 3a) the Triodia is a small tusk of grass. It then grows into a dense hummock by Stage 2 (Fig. 3b). At Stage 3 (Fig. 3c), some species of Triodia start to die off in the middle and continues to grow outwards until it reaches a ring (Stage 4; Fig. 3d), which breaks down into fragments (Stage 5; Fig. 3e).\n\nSource: Churchill 2001b\n\n## 2.4 Ecology\n\n### 2.4.1 Diet\n\nSandhill dunnarts typically consume invertebrates including ants, beetles, spiders, grasshoppers, termites, wasps and centipedes (Pearson and Churchill 2008). Small reptile bones (possibly a gecko) have been recorded from one scat (Churchill 2001b). At least two other Squamata species have been recorded, and Gastropoda have been detected in the faecal pellets of several individuals (Riley 2020, Riley et al. 2022). Sandhill dunnarts were previously thought to be largely opportunistic feeders, eating prey types in similar proportions to their availability (Churchill 2001b). Recent research indicates that (rarely for small arid zone mammal species) Sandhill dunnarts have an ant-rich diet, consuming a diverse range of ants in greater than expected proportions (Riley et al. 2022), and demonstrates metabolic controls that can allow for an ant-rich diet (which is difficult to digest), such as the ability to manipulate their metabolic rate with sun basking, shelter choice, and selective torpor (Riley 2020). It is difficult to say whether they have developed adaptations to facilitate consumption of ants, broadening their niche to deal with the scarcity of other prey at certain times of the year, or prefer ants (Shipley et al. 2009). Nonetheless, an ant-based diet appears to be an important survival adaptation for desert fauna in the WA GVD.\n\nSandhill dunnarts in the WA GVD generally foraged continuously from dusk to dawn, except during heavy rainfall and very cold (0–5°C) temperatures (Riley et al. 2021b).\n\n### 2.4.2 Reproduction\n\nSandhill dunnart females are polyoestrous, which means females have multiple oestrus cycles with 22–23 days between cycles (Riley 2020). Both male and female Sandhill dunnarts reach sexual maturity in their first year. Wild individuals usually mate following winter rains in August and September. They have a 16–19 day gestation period (Lambert et al. 2011), and young are typically born in September or October. The young remain in the pouch for up to 45 days and weaned young have been recorded between October and March (Lambert et al. 2011). The breeding season may be delayed or reduced in response to a reduction in available food resources (McLean 2015).\n\nFemales possess eight teats (Pearson and Churchill 2008) and have been recorded with up to eight young (How and Bignall 2009), although five to six are more common in the wild (Lambert et al. 2011). They usually produce a single litter each year but could possibly produce a second litter during good seasons (Churchill 2001b).\n\nIndividuals typically survive for just one breeding year in the wild, as with other Sminthopsis species, but males probably do not experience post-mating “male die off” as recorded in the Antechinus, and Phascogale genera because of differing physiologies (Morton 1982, Dickman and Braithwaite 1992, Pearson and Churchill 2008). The maximum age recorded for males and females is 19 months and 25 months, respectively, but in favourable conditions both sexes have been observed breeding over two consecutive years (McLean 2015). In captivity they have been found to breed for up to 3 seasons (Lambert et al. 2011) and live for up to six years (Sandhill Dunnart Workshop 2014).\n\nWild juveniles typically disperse between December and January, and both sexes are highly mobile to track intermittent resource patches (Pearson and Robinson 1990, McLean et al. 2019). Resource availability mediates condition, breeding and survival. In drought, breeding is delayed, and the survival of second year females and juveniles is reduced due to increased resource competition (McLean 2015).\n\nPopulations exhibit classic boom-bust dynamics typical of arid-zone mammals across Australia and population growth and decline are linked to rainfall (Southgate and Masters 1996, Dickman et al. 2001, Letnic and Dickman 2010).\n\nMovement ecology studies (extensive male ranging; see Section 2.4.4: Movement ecology) suggest a polygynous or polyandrous social organisation (Riley 2020).\n\n### 2.4.3 Temperature and diurnal shelter microclimate\n\nThe climate over the distributional range of the Sandhill dunnart is characterised by high diurnal variation sometimes fluctuating by over 35°C. Seasonal variation is also high with summer maximum temperatures sometimes exceeding 45°C and minimum winter temperatures sometimes falling to –4.5°C (Riley et al. 2021a; Australian Bureau of Meteorology 2025). Ground surface temperatures can reach up to 61°C because of reflective heat from the sand (Riley et al. 2021a).\n\nThe presence of large spinifex hummocks is considered an important habitat feature, as hummocks may provide a moderated microclimate suitable for Sandhill dunnart nest sites and reduce predation risk (Churchill 2001b). Sandhill dunnarts commonly nest within hummocks or in burrows excavated beneath hummocks, although they are known to also use hollow logs and Mitchell’s hopping-mouse (Notomys mitchellii) burrows (Churchill 2001b). Other hummock species (Lepidobolus deserti and Schoenus hexandrus), a burned mallee tree stump and a piece of bark have also been used during diurnal sheltering in the WA GVD (Riley et al. 2021a). In SA, the interior of spinifex hummocks has been found to be significantly cooler at high ambient temperatures (12.5°C cooler on average when the ambient temperature was >40°C), and significantly warmer at low ambient temperatures (6.5°C warmer on average when the ambient temperature was <0°C) (Churchill 2001b). However, no thermal benefit of spinifex hummocks was found in the WA GVD (Riley et al. 2021a).\n\nSandhill dunnarts significantly prefer burrows as diurnal shelters in the WA GVD and Ooldea in the SA GVD. Burrows provide even greater moderation of the microclimate with temperatures in the burrow (30 cm below the surface) showing virtually no variation throughout the day and night (Churchill 2001b; Riley et al. 2021a). Burrows also maintained a near constant humidity level (Churchill 2001b).\n\n### 2.4.4 Movement ecology\n\nThe mean home range area (100% minimum convex polygon) recorded for Sandhill dunnarts in the WA GVD is 70 ha (Riley 2020; Riley et al. 2022). A previous study in SA suggested that the species has a mean home range of 7.8 ha, although ranging data from Churchill’s (2001b) unpublished study also supports a larger home range; Sandhill dunnarts had a maximum home range area of 42 ha in SA in that study (Churchill 2001b). This uncertainty warrants further investigation of home range sizes in SA.\n\nThere was a strong effect of sex and reproductive status on the ranging behaviour of Sandhill dunnarts in the WA GVD (Riley et al. 2022). Reproductively active females had comparatively small mean home ranges of approximately 16 ha (Churchill 2001b; Riley 2022), presumably to secure or maintain breeding territories or good quality nesting burrows (Churchill 2001b). Limited data from SA indicates that Sandhill dunnart remain within a given home range for at least 8 months, but the boundaries of territories may drift over time (Churchill 2001b). Non-reproductively active individuals (of both sexes) in the WA GVD had mean home range areas between 21 and 29 ha (Riley et al. 2022). The maximum home range area of reproductively active males is significantly larger (274 ha recorded; Riley et al. 2022). The home ranges of males can overlap those of other males and females, although it is unclear how common this is (Churchill 2001b; Riley 2020). Potentially, if female territories do not overlap, then individual males may copulate with up to as many as 17 females within their range (Riley 2020). If female territories do overlap, this number may be higher.\n\nSandhill dunnarts have been recorded in SA in densities of up to 30–90 individuals/km2 in SA (Ward unpublished; Ward et al. 2008), however this represents an extreme upper limit. In high quality habitat in a typical good year may be around 0.1 individuals/km2, and in a bust year density may be as low as 0.01 individuals/km2. However, densities are likely to be dependent on habitat availability, habitat quality, predation, and food resources (Gaikhorst and Lambert 2014). Making accurate population density estimates for the species is challenging. In a key SA study, the population density of Sandhill dunnart was estimated at 25 individuals/km2 of suitable habitat (Churchill 2001a). This figure was a projection of a maximum of five individuals captured at one 20 ha SA trapping site and may be an overestimate. More often, the capture rate is much more variable (likely due to droughts and deficits in resource availability) and not usually this high (McLean 2015, Turpin and Riley 2021, Riley 2020).\n\nIn SA, individuals may move 200–300 m per foraging period (two foraging periods have been recorded on warm nights), but they are able to traverse long distances in short periods of time, up to 1,960 m in two hours (Churchill 2001b). In WA, individuals were extremely mobile and had a maximum speed of 3 km/h (Riley et al. 2022). In contrast to previous dasyurid studies, Sandhill dunnart foraged continuously throughout the night until just before sunrise and then quickly returned to shelters that were up to 1 km away (Riley et al. 2022). The high mobility of the species appears to be necessary in a system with spatially and temporally variable food resources (McLean 2015).\n\n## 2.5 Threats\n\nSince European settlement there has been a major episode of mammal declines and extinctions in Australia (>10% of the 273 endemic terrestrial species) (Woinarski et al. 2015). The major drivers of this decline have been predation by introduced species (feral cats and foxes) and altered fire regimes (Woinarski et al. 2015). In some parts of the Sandhill dunnart’s range, other land use practices such as pastoralism and clearing for agriculture, have also been a major cause of decline, particularly on the Eyre Peninsula.\n\nAlong with habitat loss and fragmentation (particularly on Eyre Peninsula), predation by cats and foxes and altered fire regimes are considered severe threats to Sandhill dunnart survival (Woinarski et al. 2014). Other threats include the direct threat of predation by native carnivores, and the indirect threat of declining habitat quality caused by introduced herbivores (especially sheep, goats, rabbits, camels, and cattle) and weed species.\n\nClimate change impacts may also increase the risk of wildfire through lower rainfall and increased lightning, as well as result in larger, hotter and more frequent fires. Moreover, a potential emerging threat affecting spinifex that may be linked to climate is the recently observed die-off events.\n\nSandhill dunnarts are within the Critical Weight Range (CWR) of Australian mammals, which includes medium-sized mammals of 35–5000 g. Extinction risk has been, and is predicted to remain, high among these CWR species (Burbidge and McKenzie 1989). The CWR species at greatest risk are ground-dwelling species from low-rainfall areas, as the sparse vegetation provides limited cover from predation by cats and foxes (Johnson and Isaac 2009).\n\n### 2.5.1 Inappropriate fire regimes\n\nAll populations, except eastern GVD\n\nChange in fire patterns is considered a major threat to Sandhill dunnarts (Woinarski et al. 2014). It is typically believed that historic “firestick farming” conducted by First Nations people produced complex mosaics of different age classes of vegetation (Burrows et al. 2006); this benefited species through encouraging new vegetation growth, increasing structural diversity, providing cover in unburnt patches and typically increasing food availability in unburnt areas (Latz 1995). Latz (1995) considered that most vegetation communities throughout arid Australia have become dependent on a regime of fires lit by First Nations people; however in areas of low First Nations population density (for example, waterless regions like the eastern GVD) it is more likely that lightning strikes had a greater influence on the fire regime than First Nations people (Hateley and Hateley 2010); this is also believed to be the case for Eyre Peninsula (J. Tilley pers. comm.).\n\nFire is a major threat to biodiversity in the WA GVD, including the Sandhill dunnart (Turpin and Johnstone 2017, Turpin and Riley 2021). Destructive summer fires (from lightning strikes) remove the mature vegetation required for protection and shelter. Repeated fire events inhibit the development of habitat. The current fire regime, arising from the cessation of traditional burning practices, is ongoing and as such, large areas of the GVD are burnt each summer. Since the commencement of monitoring in the WA GVD, fires have rendered large areas of habitat unsuitable for the Sandhill dunnart and have resulted in the loss of several known populations, including at monitoring sites known to formerly support the species (Turpin and Riley 2021). Previously occupied sites affected by fire do not support the species post burn for many years (Turpin and Riley 2021).\n\nIn general, long unburned, spinifex-dominated natural refugial habitats are important to reduce predation risk of Sandhill dunnart. Conversely, Sandhill dunnart successfully forages during periods of high predation risk (during or after fire and other disturbance events), probably by using dense habitats, burrows, and evasive techniques. Wildfire management may be the most important aspect for the conservation of Sandhill dunnart and sympatric small arid zone mammals in the Australian arid zone.\n\nMitigating against the likelihood of large-scale wildfires will be critical for Sandhill dunnart survival, particularly as climate change causes an increase in the frequency and severity of wildfires (McLean 2015; Riley et al. 2021b).\n\nSummer lightning strikes are the most frequent cause of wildfire in the arid-zone, and they are likely to increase in frequency as temperatures rise – there is an approximate 6% increase in global lightning frequencies for every 1°C rise in temperature (Price and Rind 1991, 1994, Williams et al. 2001). With no active fire management when wildfires occur, large areas are likely to burn once initiated.\n\nIn some areas, the frequency of weekly wildfires has increased by 40% over the past five years, and this abruptly altered pattern is most likely related to climate change (Clarke et al. 2013; IPCC 2014; Dutta et al. 2016).\n\nIn addition to climate action, prescribed burning is recommended to reduce this threat and maintain a mosaic of suitable habitat for Sandhill dunnarts (DENR 2012; DEWNR 2014b; DEWNR 2014c; Gaikhorst and Lambert 2014; Moseby et al. 2016), but not in the eastern GVD (Armstrong 2015).\n\nThe fire management plan for Central Eyre Peninsula 2014–2024 (DEWNR 2014b) recognises that Sandhill dunnart habitats are strongly influenced by fire history. Strategies in the plan include implementing fuel management to maintain suitable age classes of hummocks for known populations, fuel management to protect against large-scale fires, and trialling ecological prescribed burns to improve Sandhill dunnart habitat. In 2010 and 2011, prescribed burns were undertaken in Sandhill dunnart habitat in the Secret Rocks area on Eyre Peninsula (northeastern Eyre Peninsula), burning a total of approximately 1300 ha. In 2014 and 2015, prescribed burns were conducted in Ironstone Hill Conservation Park to limit the spread of bushfire through Sandhill dunnart habitat and to redistribute age class of spinifex hummocks (J. Tilley pers. comm.).\n\nAlinytjara Wilurara Landscape Board and the former SA Department of Environment, Water and Natural Resources (DEWNR), now Department for Environment and Water (DEW), also developed an ecological fire management strategy for the Sandhill dunnart in SA (DEWNR 2012). The strategy focuses on fire risk management for the Sandhill dunnart. The strategy recommends undertaking prescribed burns which maintain 66% of a given area of suitable habitat, are not within the breeding and weaning season, avoid burning optimum habitat, and avoid burning areas adjacent to habitat burnt <8 years earlier. The strategy also recommends prescribed burns in habitat >8 years post-fire and <20 years post-fire. The variability in recommended times acknowledges that vegetation growth rates in habitats with highly variable rainfall are not linear. As such the physical structure of Triodia spp. favoured by Sandhill dunnarts cannot be directly correlated to time since fire but is more likely to be associated with cumulative rainfall or microhabitat variables.\n\nLand managers of the WA rangelands have developed Guiding Principles for fire management in the region, including areas containing Sandhill dunnart habitat (RFLG 2015). The principles recognise that prescribed burns which create mosaics of post-fire vegetation growth stages, including long unburnt vegetation, will benefit biodiversity and buffer against large wildfires.\n\nFire regimes that cause declines in biodiversity are a key threatening process listed under the EPBC Act. Advice on this key threatening process includes more information about the threats of inappropriate fire regimes to species (DAWE 2022).\n\n### 2.5.2 Habitat loss and fragmentation\n\nAll populations, particularly Eyre Peninsula\n\nSandhill dunnarts have been lost from parts of their former range on central and northern Eyre Peninsula through historic clearance for agriculture (Aitken 1971). Around 54% of land has been cleared and the remaining vegetation is heavily fragmented with only 42% still connected (DEWNR 2014a). This fragmentation reduces opportunities for Sandhill dunnarts to recolonise areas of potential habitat. Sandhill dunnarts occurring in isolated native vegetation are also vulnerable to local extirpations as a result of stochastic events such as drought and large wildfires. Due to the isolated nature of remnant vegetation patches on Eyre Peninsula, McLean, et al (2019) undertook genetic analyses to determine whether gene flow is occurring between isolated vegetation patches to inform management. This was to determine the need for translocations or creation of habitat corridors (McLean et al. 2019).\n\nAt a fine spatial scale, McLean, et al. (2019) found no significant genetic structure or sex-biased dispersal within a study site of 240 km2. Their findings suggest that both sexes are highly mobile, which allows individuals to locate localised resource patches when they become available. They detected evidence of a genetic bottleneck within the population, possibly caused by a recent drought highlighting the importance of maintaining connectivity across the landscape for semi-arid and arid-zone species to enable them to track resource pulses and maintain genetic diversity. They found that the level of genetic diversity within the Eyre Peninsula sites is at risk of decline given the reduced allelic richness and heterozygosity, as well as the isolated nature of remnant vegetation patches compared with the populations in the GVD. Relatively recent (Churchill 2001b; Kemper et al. 2011; Moseby et al. 2016) and historic (Aitken 1971; Baynes 1987) records suggest that Sandhill dunnart was widespread over the central and northern Eyre Peninsula before European settlement. Since European settlement, Eyre Peninsula has lost over half (57%) of its native vegetation (Churchill 2001a; Brandle 2010). Habitat clearance in the southern portion of Eyre Peninsula greatly reduces available habitat, and its effects are significant. The chenopod shrubland communities south and east of Whyalla do not provide significant habitat preferred by the Sandhill dunnart.\n\nThe extent to which Sandhill dunnart may be affected by habitat loss and fragmentation elsewhere is unknown. However, fragmentation will likely result in isolated populations where movement, needed to track resources, is hindered by unfavourable landscapes between remnant vegetation. Loss of vegetation appears to have resulted in the contraction of the once widespread Sandhill dunnart to remnant patches in central and northern Eyre Peninsula. Research is needed to determine the long-term viability of these populations and the level of connectivity (gene flow) between them. If remnant patches are isolated, populations may become locally extinct due to environmental, demographic, and other stochastic events, such as wildfires (Lande 1988; McLean et al. 2018).\n\nThere has been no land clearance for agriculture in the GVD, however, new threats are emerging that may cause irrevocable damage to Sandhill dunnart habitat. Mining and other industry operations have been proposed or undertaken within arid and semi-arid regions of SA and WA that support Sandhill dunnart habitat. These activities often involve large scale vegetation clearance and substrate disturbance in sandy spinifex and mallee environments. In YRR, exploration tracks have been created using a roller which is designed to crush the vegetation but leave the soil surface intact (Warland and Mills 2011). Subsequent observations suggest that rolled Triodia typically dies (Sandhill dunnart Workshop 2014), however, regeneration of Triodia is likely to be faster using this method compared to bulldozing or grading, given that the rootstock and seedbank are left intact after rolling. While rolling may allow some habitat recovery, expanding mining activities continue to threaten Sandhill dunnart populations.\n\nGiven the dispersed impacts of exploration activity, it is hard to assess what impacts it may have on Sandhill dunnarts. If rolled tracks are positioned in tight grids, then direct impacts on Sandhill dunnart nests may be a concern. Land clearance and the construction of tracks also have the indirect, but potentially significant, effect of facilitating the spread of weeds such as buffel grass (Cenchrus ciliaris).\n\n### 2.5.3 Predation by cats and foxes\n\nAll populations\n\nCats and foxes are known predators of some Sminthopsis species in arid Australia (Catling 1988; Paltridge et al. 1997; Read and Bowen 2001; Paltridge 2002), but the extent of their impact on the Sandhill dunnart is unknown. Currently core populations of Sandhill dunnarts are surviving in the presence of both cats and foxes (McLean 2015; Turpin and Riley 2021).\n\nAnalysis of 128 predator scats taken from known areas with Sandhill dunnarts has found a small percentage of scats (<2%) contained Sandhill dunnart remains, however, the predators were unidentified, but may have been a dog, dingo or fox (Boulton and Foulkes 2000). The Sandhill dunnart is ranked by Woolley et al. (2019) within the top Australian species at most risk of predation by the feral cat.\n\nFurther research into predation impacts of cats and foxes (and predation impacts of other species such as dingoes) on Sandhill dunnart populations is recommended. Several projects on feral cat control in Australia were funded as part of the Threatened Species Strategy (Australian Government 2015) and the Threatened Species Action Plan 2022-2032 (Australian Government 2022). This included developing and testing bait dispensing technologies and refining the use of feral cat baits. None of the funded projects directly relate to Sandhill dunnarts, however they may benefit and inform management of cats within the Sandhill dunnart’s range. Control of feral cats and foxes is desirable but will need to consider predator-prey interactions. For example, cat predation on Dasyurids is known to increase when consumption of rabbits is decreased (Doherty et al. 2015).\n\nFurthermore, in a study of feral cats in northern Australian savanna, McGregor et. al. (2015) found the hunting success of the cats (per attempt; n = 13) was only 17% in habitats with dense grass or complex rocks, compared to 70% in open areas (n = 101). This suggests that dense and complex microhabitats are likely to decrease cat predation rates.\n\nPredation by feral cats is a key threatening process listed under the EPBC Act. The threat abatement plan for predation by feral cats provides useful information on managing feral cats in a variety of landscapes and habitats (DCCEEW 2024).\n\nPredation by the European red fox (Vulpes vulpes) is a key threatening process listed under the EPBC Act. The threat abatement plan for predation by European red fox provides useful information on managing fox in a variety of landscapes and habitats (DEWHA 2008).\n\n### 2.5.4 Introduced flora (including buffel grass)\n\nAll populations\n\nThere are comparatively few serious weeds that are invading spinifex grasslands, except for buffel grass (Cenchrus ciliaris). Buffel grass is considered one of Australia’s worst environmental weeds (Humphries et al. 1991). It is a perennial tussock grass native to Africa, India and Asia and was introduced into Australia for pasture and dust control. It has spread widely across northern and central Australia (Marshall et al. 2012) including known and potential habitat of the Sandhill dunnart in WA, SA and NT (Lawson et al. 2004).\n\nBuffel grass can increase the intensity and frequency of fire events, threatening plant and animal communities that are not adapted to these modified fire regimes (Adair and Groves 1998). Buffel grass dries quickly and produces a more combustible and contiguous flammable fuel than native grasses, resulting in hotter and more intense fires (Humphries et al. 1993). It regenerates rapidly after fire suppressing the regeneration of native species (Paltridge et al. 2009) and forms dense monocultures, reducing diversity (Clarke et al. 2005) and productivity of some vegetation types (Humphries et al. 1993).\n\nBuffel grass is considered a major threat to Sandhill dunnarts due to the way that its dominance across landscapes leads to changes in availability of bare ground and the intensity and frequency of fires, resulting in the loss of nesting spinifex hummocks and potential changes to food availability (Sandhill dunnart Workshop 2014). Mitigation of this threat includes preventing the spread of buffel grass and controlling buffel grass where it establishes near known subpopulations of Sandhill dunnarts, including along incursion pathways (such as, access tracks and roads, and along adjacent watercourses). A SA Buffel Grass Strategic Plan (Biosecurity SA 2012) provides options for controlling the spread of buffel grass during the early stages of invasion; however, there is currently no feasible control method available once it is well established over an extensive area.\n\nNovel biota and their impact on biodiversity is a key threatening process listed under the EPBC Act. Advice on this key threatening process includes more information on the management of invasive flora, including buffel grass (TSSC 2013).\n\nAt the time this plan came into effect a specific threat abatement plan for buffel grass is in development by DCCEEW and will be published on the DCCEEW website when finalised.\n\n### 2.5.5 Introduced herbivores\n\nAll populations\n\nIntroduced herbivores (cattle, goats, sheep, rabbits and camels) may have an impact on the survival of Sandhill dunnarts indirectly in a variety of ways, including:\n\n- altering the structure of spinifex hummocks;\n- changing the fire regime by removing biomass;\n- reducing floristic diversity of habitats over time;\n- causing soil compaction and disturbance;\n- sustaining higher numbers of introduced predators (for example, rabbits and house mice provide an increased food source for foxes and feral cats \\[Holden and Mutze 2002\\], which may then switch to preying on native species when rabbit or mouse numbers decline during droughts or when rabbit numbers crash due to Rabbit Haemorrhagic Disease or myxomatosis outbreaks); and\n- encouraging the spread of introduced predators such as foxes and feral cats into areas that usually have only very low densities (Read and Bowen 2001, Moseby and Hill 2011).\n\nIntroduced herbivores are unlikely to have more than localised impacts on the habitats occupied by Sandhill dunnarts. The southern GVD is not suitable for introduced stock due to a lack of water sources and the low nutritional value of spinifex. On Eyre Peninsula, some sites in the Middleback dune fields are grazed by sheep, goats and rabbits; however, most of these animals appear to avoid the spinifex-dominated habitats in favour of other habitat types with more nutritious plants.\n\n### 2.5.6 Climate change\n\nAll populations\n\nPredicted anthropogenic climate change is likely to influence the distribution, habitat suitability and recovery prospects of Sandhill dunnart. Over the past century, Australia’s annual mean temperature has increased more than 1°C, while the south-west of the continent has experienced a decline in annual rainfall of up to 20% (Riley et al. 2021b).\n\nSemi-arid desert specialists such as the Sandhill dunnart are often dependent on winter rainfall and are susceptible to rainfall deficits, wildfires and extreme temperatures caused by anthropogenic climate change (Riley 2020). Future distributions of the Sandhill dunnart, considering the effects of climate change, current fire, and habitat fragmentation, have been modelled by Riley (2020) and Riley, et al. (2021b). Suitable habitat for Sandhill dunnart is predicted to contract significantly towards the more mesic southern parts of its range. As a sandy desert specialist, the distribution of the species is also geographically limited at its southern bounds due to the cessation of suitable habitats. Consequently, further extension of the range southwards is unlikely without assisted migration (Riley et al. 2021b).\n\nRiley et al. (2021b) note that the WA GVD and YRR populations are at a higher climatic risk, with the Eyre Peninsula population also predicted to contract in range as a result of climate change.\n\nThe decline in Sandhill dunnart populations appears to be occurring from north to south, tracking the effects of climate change (Riley 2020, Riley et al. 2021b). Unlike other arid zone mammal species where decline and extinction has occurred from south to north following the displacement of First Nations peoples (who were managing the land to prevent fire), the Sandhill dunnart’s contraction aligns with increasing aridity and warming (Riley et al. 2021b). The species reliance on dense, semi-arid habitats makes it highly sensitive to climate driven habitat shifts, as increasing temperature and limited rainfall are likely to degrade the refugial environments on which it depends (Riley et al. 2021b).\n\nRiley (2020) and J. Turpin (pers. comm.) have observed that extreme heat events have caused mass vegetation die-offs in the WA GVD (Figure 4). Rapidly increasing global temperatures, irregular rainfall patterns and more frequent wildfires and droughts are particularly dangerous in the Australian arid zone and threaten Sandhill dunnart habitat. Water is already scarce, vegetation is highly flammable, and the flat arid landscape offers little elevation for species to escape rising temperatures (Pittock 2009, Lindenmayer et al. 2010).\n\nNorthern and western habitats are predicted to become increasingly unsuitable for Sandhill dunnart and sympatric desert species over the next 50 years. Regions of the southern central WA (outside of the arid zone) were indicated as climatic refuges by the modelling. Translocations to constructed artificial fenced reserves with transplanted soils, seeds and vegetation from natural arid zone habitats may be required. However further research into their feasibility and value for sandhill dunnarts will be required before this may be considered an option to mitigate the projected loss of distribution due to climate change (Riley 2020).\n\n![Photographs showing habitat destruction and degradation from fire, droughts and hot winds in the Great Victoria Desert. ](image.009.png)\n\nFigure 4: GVD habitat destruction\n\n> Note: Large wildfires (left), droughts and hot winds (right) destroyed sensitive Western Australian Great Victoria Desert (WA GVD) habitat in 2019. Extract from Riley 2020.\n\nFurther, recent observations of Triodia die-off in Sandhill dunnart habitat in the WA GVD, and the APY Lands of far northern SA (including Wamitjara and Kenmore Park mail road), may be linked to climate change, although this is unclear. If climate change is the cause, then Sandhill dunnart habitat (and other semi-arid species), may be nearing a tipping point. Active investigation of the causes underlying this die-off is warranted.\n\n### 2.5.7 Native herbivores\n\nAll populations\n\nNative herbivores such as kangaroos are also a potential issue in the Middleback dune fields. Euros (Osphranter robustus) graze regenerating Triodia, sometimes preventing recruitment after fire and Western Grey Kangaroos (Macropus fuliginosus) in high density lay on Triodia hummocks, squashing them and presumably limit their value for dunnarts (J. Read pers. comm.). This is not an issue in other areas such as Yellabinna where dingoes control the usually low kangaroo numbers.\n\nEuros, Western Grey Kangaroo and Red Kangaroo (O. rufus) represent a significant threat to Triodia structure and abundance where there are permanent water sources nearby (R. Brandle pers. comm.). Native herbivores may also be partially responsible for the impacts summarised in Section: 2.5.5 Introduced herbivores in areas where Dingoes (Canis lupus dingo) are persecuted (inside the dog fence in SA). Waterpoint management and control of numbers in fenced areas are key to managing these impacts.\n\nTable 2: Risk matrix for the Sandhill dunnart\n\n| Consequence (x) // Likelihood (y) | Not significant | Minor | Moderate | Major | Catastrophic |\n| --------------------------------- | --------------- | ------------------------------ | -------------------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------------ |\n| Almost certain | | | | Very-high riskInappropriate fire regimesHabitat loss and fragmentation | |\n| Likely | | Moderate riskNative herbivores | High riskIntroduced herbivoresClimate change | Very-high riskPredation by cats and foxesIntroduced flora | |\n| Possible | | | | | |\n| Unlikely | | | | | |\n| Unknown | | | | | |\n\nRisk matrix key:\n\n| Low risk | Moderate risk | High risk | Very-high risk |\n| -------- | ------------- | --------- | -------------- |\n\nDefinition of likelihood and consequence categories\n\nConsequence is a measure of the severity of the impact of the threat on the survival of the species.\n\n- Catastrophic – affecting survival, reproduction or essential movement of individuals in >80% of the population or across >80% of the distribution within the next 3 generations or 10 years, whichever is longer.\n- Major – affecting survival, reproduction or essential movement of individuals in 50-80 % of the population or across 50-80% of the distribution within the next 3 generations or 10 years, whichever is longer.\n- Moderate – affecting survival, reproduction or essential movement of individuals in 20-50% of the population or across 20-50% of the distribution within the next 3 generations or 10 years, whichever is longer.\n- Minor – affecting survival, reproduction or essential movement of individuals in 5-30% of the population or across 5-30% of the distribution within the next 3 generations or 10 years, whichever is longer.\n- Not significant – affecting survival, reproduction or essential movement of individuals in <5% of the population or across <5% of the distribution within the next 3 generations or 10 years, whichever is longer.\n\nLikelihood is a measure of how regularly the threat impacts the species.\n\n- Almost certain – >90% chance that threat will have an impact on the species within the next 3 generations or 10 years, whichever is longer.\n- Likely – 66-90% chance that threat will have an impact on the species within the next 3 generations or 10 years, whichever is longer.\n- Possible – 33-66% chance that threat will have an impact on the species within the next 3 generations or 10 years, whichever is longer.\n- Unlikely – <33% chance that threat will have an impact on the species within the next 3 generations or 10 years, whichever is longer.\n- Unknown – probability that threat will have an impact on the species within the next 3 generations or 10 years, whichever is longer, could be 0-100%.\n\n \n\n# 3 Recovery planning\n\n## 3.1 Vision\n\nSandhill dunnart populations are healthy and stable and have expanded across their potential range. The quality and connectedness of habitat is being improved by regional communities and land managers who have adopted management practices to support the long-term sustainability of the species so that it becomes eligible for removal from the EPBC Act List of Threatened Species.\n\n## 3.2 Objectives\n\nThe Objectives in place to enact the Vision for the Sandhill dunnart are as follows:\n\n1. Threats to Sandhill dunnart are appropriately managed reducing their impact to Sandhill dunnart sub-populations and habitat;\n2. Sandhill dunnart habitat is rehabilitated, connected and protected;\n3. Collective understanding of Sandhill dunnart populations, habitat, ecology and threats has improved; and\n4. Conservation of Sandhill dunnart and their habitat is led and championed by Traditional Custodians, community, experts and governments.","sortOrder":20},{"sectionNumber":"2.2.1 Core populations","sectionType":"division","heading":"2.2.1 Core populations","content":"### 2.2.1 Core populations\n\nThe Sandhill dunnart is known to occur in three core population areas as shown in Map 2 (near Queen Victoria Spring Nature Reserve in the southwestern corner of the GVD in WA; YRR in the southeastern GVD in SA; and Eyre Peninsula in SA). The estimated extent of occurrence (EOO) is 151,635 km² and area of occupancy (AOO) is 500–1900 km2 (Woinarski and Burbidge 2016; Map 2). Habitat clearance in the southern portion of Eyre Peninsula greatly reduces available habitat. The chenopod shrubland communities in the areas south and east of Whyalla do not support significant habitat favoured by Sandhill dunnart.\n\nThe EOO is now considered stable, but the AOO is declining due to the limited availability of suitable habitat as a result of the frequent loss of suitable habitat by wildfire and other threats (Churchill 2001, Woinarski et al. 2014, Riley 2020). While wildfire is an important ecological process, the limited availability of structurally suitable habitat means that burning of suitable habitat in the current matrix constitutes a threat to Sandhill dunnart (Section 2.5.1: Inappropriate fire regimes).\n\nTargeted efforts in the southwestern GVD in 2018 identified four additional sites within the WA GVD population where Sandhill dunnarts occur, extending the WA GVD population range approximately 70 km south and confirming previous baseline study findings (Greening Australia 2019). The surveys confirmed the presence of the species from a previously un-surveyed area situated on the eastern fringe of a local broad area of undulating yellow sandplains. The Sandhill dunnart was recorded within patches of long-unburnt vegetation situated within landscapes affected by widespread recent fire (several high-intensity burns from 2000 to 2017; US Geological Survey 2018). Sandhill dunnarts were found in areas where the local topography provided some protection from fire (occurring within swales (between tall sand dunes), sand plains, and dune slopes (Riley et al. 2021a) or adjacent to mulga shrublands) (Greening Australia 2019).\n\nRiley et al. (2021b) used predictive species distribution models with ground validation in April 2018 to confirm 18 new spatially independent Sandhill dunnart records in the WA GVD, including several in a remote region 150 km northwest of the known range. In SA, new records were obtained in Yellabinna National Park, near the southeastern Boundary of Pureba Conservation Park, and on the western boundary of Gawler Ranges National Park (R Brandle, pers. comm.) in areas that were predicted as suitable for the species using models (Riley et al. 2021b).\n\n![Modelled distribution of Sandhill dunnart across SA and WA. \nMore information is available in Section 2.2: Distribution and population structure](image.006.jpeg)\n\nMap 2: Modelled distribution of Sandhill dunnart\n\n> Note: Source: Base map Geoscience Australia; species distribution data Species of National Environmental Significance database.\n\n> Note: Caveat: The information presented in this map has been provided by a range of groups and agencies. While every effort has been made to ensure accuracy and completeness, no guarantee is given, nor responsibility taken by the Commonwealth for errors or omissions, and the Commonwealth does not accept responsibility in respect of any information or advice given in relation to, or as a consequence of, anything contained herein.\n\n> Note: Species distribution mapping: The species distribution mapping categories are indicative only and aim to capture (a) the habitat or geographic feature that represents to recent observed locations of the species (known to occur) or habitat occurring in close proximity to these locations (likely to occur); and (b) the broad environmental envelope or geographic region that encompasses all areas that could provide habitat for the species (may occur). These presence categories are created using an extensive database of species observations records, national and regional-scale environmental data, environmental modelling techniques and documented scientific research.\n\nInvestigation into the contemporary genetic structure of the Sandhill dunnart show that the three core populations are genetically differentiated and, therefore, may represent functionally separate populations (McLean 2015). However, examination of the historic genetic structure found limited genetic differentiation between core populations (Gaikhorst et al. undated; McLean 2015), suggesting the three core populations were once connected. This absence of major geographical barriers between populations suggests the genetic pattern may be a result of fragmentation, with connecting populations going locally extinct over time (McLean 2015). Alternatively, core regions may still be connected by undetected populations, particularly in the southern GVD where there may be large areas of suitable habitat (McLean 2015; McLean, et al. 2019). Further survey effort is needed to clarify the presence or absence of Sandhill dunnart populations between the three core population areas.\n\nThe distribution of the Sandhill dunnart has declined since European settlement. Its pre-European distribution extended further north and west. The species was previously found in NT where it was first captured near Lake Amadeus in 1894 (Spencer 1896), and bones in caves were recently verified from near Yalgoo and Lake Barlee in Western Australia, 400–600 km west of the known WA GVD population (Riley et al 2021b). Subsequent surveys have failed to relocate the species in the NT, but further surveys are warranted.\n\nOwl pellets containing remains of Sandhill dunnarts have come from caves at the base of Uluru, NT (Parker 1973; Archer 1981), and caves at Darke Peak on Eyre Peninsula, SA (Baynes 1987). Owl pellets containing sub-fossil Sandhill dunnart remains have been collected from Black Point Sinkhole at Venus Bay, SA. These sub-fossil deposits were radiocarbon dated at 3,030–2,160 years before present (Baynes 1987; Copley et al. 1999).","sortOrder":21},{"sectionNumber":"2.2.2 Important sub-populations","sectionType":"division","heading":"2.2.2 Important sub-populations","content":"### 2.2.2 Important sub-populations\n\nThe three core populations (WA GVD, YRR and Eyre Peninsula) of Sandhill Dunnarts consist of five known sub-populations. All sub-populations are considered important for the long-term recovery and survival of the species. These sub-populations are located in the following areas:\n\n1. Southwestern Great Victoria Desert, WA (WA GVD)\n2. Great Victoria Desert, SA (SA GVD) including:\n - Yellabinna Regional Reserve,\n - Yellabinna Wilderness Protected Area,\n - Yumbarra Conservation Park, and\n - East of Pureba Conservation Park.\n3. Northcentral Eyre Peninsula (EP), SA including:\n - Pinkawillinie Conservation Park (near Kyancutta), and\n - Gawler Ranges National Park.\n4. Middleback dunefields (near Whyalla), northeastern Eyre Peninsula (EP), SA\n5. Central Eyre Peninsula (EP), SA including:\n - Hincks Conservation Park, and\n - Hambridge Conservation Park.","sortOrder":22},{"sectionNumber":"2.3","sectionType":"part","heading":"Habitat","content":"## 2.3 Habitat\n\nThe presence of dense pre-senescent, usually long unburned (greater than 20 years without fire) spinifex (Triodia spp.) hummocks in association with sand dune systems appears to be the most significant factor explaining known Sandhill dunnart habitat in SA (Churchill 2001; Ward 2009), although current distribution over fire history suggests that there are also other factors that explain distribution. In Western Australia, Riley et al. (2021a) concluded through radio tracking that the survey and conservation of the Sandhill dunnart necessitate attention to habitats that have not burned for over 32 years. These habitats include dense lower stratum swales, sand plains, and dune slopes. This was supported by MaxEnt modelling (Riley 2020). The distribution is also constrained by semi-arid climatic conditions (Riley 2020). Modelling supports the view that Sandhill dunnart distribution is constrained by both the availability of Triodia spp. habitat (that is restricted to sandy soils) in dense southern semi-arid deserts and desert influenced by higher winter rainfall than Australia’s northern and central deserts (Riley 2020).\n\nIn WA, Sandhill dunnarts are primarily found in plains and dunes (longitudinal and ring dunes) with interdune corridors and plains; occasional salt pans at a mean ± standard deviation elevation of 402 ± 22 m a.s.l. (DAFWA 2014; Riley 2020). Vegetation communities are dominated by spinifex, predominantly T. desertorum and T. basedowii, hummock grasslands with scattered eucalypts including marble gums, Eucalyptus gongylocarpa, situated over wattle scrub, Acacia spp., and mallees, Eucalyptus spp. (Beard et al. 2013). The study site soils are ‘Yellow deep sand, Soil Group 446’ except for ‘Mulga’ habitat class soils where a variable depth sandy loamy clay crust is present (Schoknecht and Pathan 2013).\n\nSandhill dunnart models (Riley 2020) responded to surface geologies of ‘Qd’ (Dunes, sandplain with dunes and swales; this category may include numerous interdune claypans and may be locally Gypsiferous), ‘Czs’ (Sand or gravel plains that may include some residual alluvium, quartz sand sheets commonly with ferruginous pisoliths or pebbles, local clay, calcrete, laterite, silcrete, silt, and colluvium); and ‘Ln’ (Middleback subgroup: comprising Jaspilite, quartzite, gneiss, quartz-mica schist; and dolomitic marble). Understanding these geological formations is important for modelling the presence of Sandhill dunnart (Raymond et al. 2007).\n\nIn SA, species associations vary but are generally low, open mallee woodland over a diverse shrub layer and relatively dense spinifex; there is also a greater diversity of Triodia species which may be present, including T. irritans, T. scariosa and T. lanata.\n\nIn the WA GVD recent radio-tracking showed that Sandhill dunnarts are most often associated with dense, long-unburned sand plain, swale and dune slope habitats (Riley et al. 2021a, Riley et al. 2022), with a strong preference for dense lower habitat stratums and mature vegetation. Sandhill dunnart speciation occurred approximately 15 million years ago (Archer 1982), while dune development in the GVD was geologically recent (up to 781 000 years ago; Madigan 1936), so it is likely that sand dunes are probably not a prerequisite habitat feature for the species to persist (Riley 2020). Riley (2020) also found that Sandhill dunnart sheltering habitats could be far away from dune crests within swales or sand plains. Nonetheless, 82% of all shelters were within 500 m of a dune crest (Riley et al 2021a), suggesting that dunes and their influence on vegetation and fire dynamics enhance habitat suitability.\n\nThere appear to be additional areas of potentially suitable habitat in the southern GVD where the species has not yet been recorded – due to low, no or inappropriate survey effort, although they are patchily distributed (extract from Riley et al. 2022). Suitable habitat on Eyre Peninsula is limited due to historical land clearance.","sortOrder":23},{"sectionNumber":"2.3.1 Shelter preferences","sectionType":"division","heading":"2.3.1 Shelter preferences","content":"### 2.3.1 Shelter preferences\n\nSandhill dunnarts typically use burrows as diurnal refuges to maintain thermodynamic equilibrium (Porter and Gates 1969; Riley 2020, Riley et al. 2021a), and individuals have been observed using sun basking (passive rewarming) at burrow entrances, particularly during cooler conditions (Churchill 2001a, 2001b, Riley et al. 2021a). Shelter selection appears to be non-random within warmer habitat classes, and around 50% of entrances in a WA GVD radio tracking study were observed to face north (Riley et al. 2021a). Sandhill dunnarts have been observed using other types of shelter, including spinifex hummocks (Riley 2020, Churchill 2001a; Figure 2 f-h). In the Eyre Peninsula 68% of shelters were spherical nests within ‘Stage 3’ spinifex hummocks, 9% of shelters were within logs and 23% were burrows. In YRR, 96 % of shelters located by Churchill (2001b) were burrows (Riley 2020). In addition, fluorescent tagging of Eyre Peninsula individuals by Philp (2011) demonstrated that burrows were preferred as refuges during nocturnal foraging. In the Eyre Peninsula, when sheltering in spinifex, Sandhill dunnarts appeared to prefer large hummocks which have either an intact structure or have just started to die off in the centre (Churchill 2001a; Figure 3, life stages 2–4). However, it is unclear whether there are climatic or ecological differences affecting shelter use among populations, or whether these nests are diurnal or temporary shelters. In the WA GVD, when spinifex was chosen, Sandhill dunnarts opted for softer leaved species that would likely provide lower protection from predation, but which appear to have superior thermal properties, suggesting that thermal factors could be significant for the species (Riley 2020).\n\nTogether, these findings suggest that the habitat and shelter preferences of the species are complex, and may be population specific, and that site-specific characteristics are important in targeting management and recovery actions.\n\n![Composite of 8 images, all examples of different Sandhill dunnart burrows](image.007.png)\n\nFigure 2: Examples of Sandhill dunnart burrows\n\n> Note: (a) Exposed burrow with emerging individual inset; (b) Concealed burrow under a ‘Stage 5’ Triodia desertorum; (c) ‘Stage 3’ T. desertorum hummock; (d) Lepidobolus deserti hummock with individual inset; (e) Schoenus hexandrus hummock with individual inset; (f) Log shelter; (g) Bark shelter; (h) Burned mallee stump hollow with individual inset. Extract from Riley et al. 2021a Supplementary Data SD5.","sortOrder":24},{"sectionNumber":"2.3.2 Spinifex hummocks — Fire and struc","sectionType":"division","heading":"2.3.2 Spinifex hummocks — Fire and structure","content":"### 2.3.2 Spinifex hummocks – Fire and structure\n\nThe habitats preferred by the Sandhill dunnart, including dense sand plains, swales, and dune slopes, thrive in the absence of wildfire. In some areas, it has been over 40 years since a fire occurred. This long period without fire allows for the development of a range of suitable sites that provide adequate shelter and reduces the risk of predation (Brown et al., 1999; Laundré et al., 2001, 2010).\n\nPost-fire age of spinifex may be an important habitat indicator due to its influence on the cover and structure of Triodia. Recently burnt hummocks are too small for Sandhill dunnarts and long unburnt sites generally provide limited cover due to senescence of Triodia. The post-fire age of spinifex that Sandhill dunnarts will inhabit varies between sites and regions. In WA, most captures have been in habitat that was 17–26 years post-fire, with an optimum age structure recommended of 10–30 years post-fire (Gaikhorst and Lambert 2014). Riley et al. (2021a, 2021b) confirmed with tracking and satellite imagery that the mean fire age of preferred Sandhill dunnart nesting and foraging habitat in the WA GVD is 32+ years (range: 0–40+ years). In SA, captures have been in habitat ranging from 5 to >60 years post-fire (Churchill 2001b; Moseby et al. 2016; Ward 2009; Philp 2011; McLean 2012). Sandhill dunnarts captured at some SA sites with older spinifex (for example, Ooldea in the GVD and occasionally on Eyre Peninsula), have been shown to occupy burrows rather than nesting within hummocks (Churchill 2001a).\n\nGiven the apparently non-constant post-fire growth of Triodia at SA Sandhill dunnart capture sites (being also affected by rainfall, substrate, soil nutrients, and species), structural characteristics may be more useful predictors of Sandhill dunnart presence than post-fire age (Moseby et al. 2016). McLean (2015) found no preference for post-fire age. The number of logs (≥5 cm diameter), average height of Triodia hummocks and the overall complexity of vegetation were found to be the three most important habitat variables for predicting Sandhill dunnart abundance. Using modelling, Moseby et al. (2016) also found Sandhill dunnarts were more likely to populate areas which were ≥10 years post-fire where at least 10% of the Triodia had a minimum height of 330 mm. Moseby et al. (2016) recommend that fire be used as a management tool for maintaining habitat where Triodia cover declines below 10%, rather than using ‘post-fire age’ as a sole indicator.","sortOrder":25},{"sectionNumber":"2.3.3 Habitat important to persistence a","sectionType":"division","heading":"2.3.3 Habitat important to persistence and recovery","content":"### 2.3.3 Habitat important to persistence and recovery\n\nAlthough habitat availability does not appear to be a limiting factor to the Sandhill dunnart, at least in the southern GVD, due to the relatively high mobility of the species, large areas of suitable habitat will need to be available to protect remaining populations (McLean 2015).\n\nFurther research is required to identify and map the habitat critical to survival of the species based on known habitat characteristics rather than relying on trapping programs which fail to consistently detect the species (Moseby et al. 2016). Maximum entropy models combined with accurate fire mapping have been valuable in locating unknown Sandhill dunnart populations in WA (Riley et al. 2021b). Landsat imagery is recommended for fire scar mapping in the GVD (Ruscalleda-Alvarez et al. 2021).\n\nThe most important habitat is considered to comprise:\n\n- Unburned habitat at extant Sandhill dunnart sites (based on the current available knowledge; Map 2);\n- Marble gum, mallee and Triodia spp. between dunes in the GVD of WA;\n- All Triodia sand dunes with a mallee Eucalyptus overstorey on Eyre Peninsula;\n- All Triodia sand dunes with a mallee Eucalyptus overstorey which occur between the three core population areas (Map 2); and\n- Areas within 500 m of a Dune crest within occupied sites in the GVD.\n\n![A composite of photographs which show the life stages of some Triodia spp. ](image.008.png)\n\nFigure 3: Life stages of some Triodia spp.\n\nNote: Drawings by Vicki Reynolds, photos are from Gaikhorst and Lambert (2014). At Stage 1 (Fig. 3a) the Triodia is a small tusk of grass. It then grows into a dense hummock by Stage 2 (Fig. 3b). At Stage 3 (Fig. 3c), some species of Triodia start to die off in the middle and continues to grow outwards until it reaches a ring (Stage 4; Fig. 3d), which breaks down into fragments (Stage 5; Fig. 3e).\n\nSource: Churchill 2001b","sortOrder":26},{"sectionNumber":"2.4","sectionType":"part","heading":"Ecology","content":"# 1 Background\n\nThis is the National Recovery Plan for the Sandhill dunnart (Sminthopsis psammophila), made in accordance with Part 13 of the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act). This plan guides conservation of the species across its range and identifies the research and management actions necessary to halt decline and support its recovery, so that its chances of long-term survival in nature are maximised.\n\n## 1.1 Conservation status\n\nThe Sandhill dunnart is listed as 'Endangered' under the EPBC Act.\n\nThe Action Plan for Australian Mammals (Woinarski et al. 2014) assessed the national status of the species as 'Vulnerable’, a conclusion which was supported by the most recent assessment for the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List of Threatened Species (Woinarski and Burbidge 2016). Both assessments used the following IUCN criteria (2001 ver. 3.1):\n\n (B2) area of occupancy < 2,000 km2;\n (a) number of locations ≤ 10;\n (b) continuing decline in:\n\n (ii) area of occupancy,\n (iii) area, extent and/or quality of habitat,\n (iv) number of locations or subpopulations, and (Woinarski et al. 2014 only)\n (v) number of mature individuals);\n (D2) restricted area of occupancy, where number of locations ≤ 5.\n\nIn South Australia (SA), the Sandhill dunnart is listed as ‘Vulnerable’ under Schedule 7, National Parks and Wildlife Act 1972 (NPW Act). In Western Australia (WA), the species is listed as ‘Endangered’ under the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 (BC Act), based on IUCN criteria B2ab(ii,iii,iv,v) (2012 ver. 3.1 2nd ed.). In the Northern Territory (NT), the species is listed as ‘Data Deficient’ under the Territory Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act 2006 (TPWC Act).\n\nInternationally, the Sandhill dunnart is listed on Appendix 1 of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), which prohibits international trade in specimens of the species except when the purpose of the import is not commercial (such as scientific research).\n\n## 1.2 Conservation action\n\n### 1.2.1 Surveys and monitoring\n\nSeveral surveys targeting Sandhill dunnarts have been conducted and are continuing in the Great Victoria Desert (GVD) and on Eyre Peninsula since 2000. These have resulted in two new spatially independent locations 150 km north of the known range in WA (near Laverton) and several new locations recorded within the species’ known range. In addition, information has been gained on the ecology, diet, habitat, distribution, genetics, and threats to Sandhill dunnarts (McLean 2015, Riley 2020).\n\nEnvironmental Impact Assessments (EIA) associated with mining activities have increased survey efforts and added data to assist in understanding the species (Gaikhorst and Lambert 2014). Most of these surveys from north of Queen Victoria Spring to the north-west of Plumridge Lakes Nature Reserve have been associated with the EIA for the Tropicana Gold Mine (Tropicana Joint Venture 2010; EPA 2010). The Great Victoria Desert Biodiversity Trust (GVDBT) (Sandhill Dunnart Workshop 2014), setup as an offset for the Tropicana Gold Mine, are also seeking to develop standardised survey methods and long-term monitoring protocols for monitoring Sandhill dunnarts in the two western subregions (Shield and Central) of the GVD in WA (2015a; 2015b). These are intended to build upon the 'Survey guidelines for Australia’s threatened mammals’ (Australian Government 2011). Iluka Mine in Yellabinna have conducted surveys for the species over many years as well an including collecting baseline and monitoring data.\n\nThere have been irregular surveys by Ecological Horizons, other researchers and the SA Department for Environment and Water (DEW) in the Middleback ranges over recent decades. Landscape Board National Landcare Program (NLP) funded projects in the Yellabinna, Pinkawillinie and Gawler Ranges areas.\n\nSurveys have been ongoing in the Yellabinna Mallee country via the Alinytjara Wilurara Landscape Board (AWLB). Surveys in the far-west including Yellabinna were undertaken over the past ten years via the Alinytjara Wilurara NRM (now Alinytjara Wilurara Landscape Board) from 2018 to 2023, which are planned to continue if funding permits. The Middleback Alliance undertook aerial fox baiting over the past 5 years and a survey to attempt to quantify the impacts, although this was made difficult by drought (R. Brandle pers comms).\n\nTurpin and Lloyd (2014) and Turpin and Riley (2017) have conducted the Sandhill dunnart Monitoring Program for APA Group biannually since 2014 along the Eastern Goldfields Pipeline in the GVD in WA, representing the only long-term monitoring studies for the species in WA. Riley (2020) and Riley et al. (2021b) were also funded by the Goldfields Environmental Management Group (GEMG) to perform motion camera surveys for the species throughout WA.\n\nFurther surveys are required in areas which are likely to be suitable for Sandhill dunnarts in SA and WA, including in the GVD of WA and SA (Map 2 ). Potential survey areas within the GVD include:\n\n the mallee/spinifex habitat north of Yellabinna Regional Reserve (YRR),\n the spinifex and sand dune communities in the Maralinga Tjarutja Lands,\n Mamungari Conservation Park, and\n the southern Anangu Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara Lands (APY Lands).\n\nSandhill dunnart records are included in the Atlas of Living Australia (Atlas of Living Australia 2025).\n\n### 1.2.2 Sandhill dunnart Project (SA Alinytjara Wilurara Landscape Board)\n\nThe Alinytjara Wilurara NRM Board has been working with communities across the region to implement the draft Sandhill dunnart recovery plan (Churchill 2001a). This has included undertaking Sandhill dunnart surveys in the Maralinga Tjarutja Lands and training in sand-plot tracking through the Oak Valley Land Management Engagement program (Alinytjara Wilurara Landscape Board 2015).\n\nIn addition, long-term monitoring has been undertaken with surveys occurring at the Immarna site since 2007 – a location within the YRR just to the east of the Ooldea siding. Surveys have focused on pitfall trapping and measuring Triodia densities and heights (Moseby, et al. 2016).\n\nIn 2018, Alinytjara Wilurara Landscape Board (AWLB) secured National Landcare Program 2 funds to continue these works, not only at the Immarna site, but also across much of the Yellabinna and Yumbarra reserves area, focusing on determining the key habitats for the species, as well as attempting to extend the current known areas of occupancy within this area. Surveys have been planned by examining fire-scar mapping to target areas with a post-fire age of 15 years, or more. This has resulted in the species being found at three more locations, suggesting that these dunnarts occur across Yellabinna Regional Reserve. This project was funded until 2023 and aimed to determine whether there are any “core” habitat areas or refuge areas (Pavey et al. 2017) for the Sandhill dunnart and, if so, how these might best be defined spatially and ecologically. It also includes threat abatement works focused on reducing predation pressures from foxes and feral cats, and surveillance against the establishment of the habitat transforming weed, buffel grass.\n\n### 1.2.3 Captive breeding research\n\nIn 2005, five Sandhill dunnarts (3 males and 2 females) were collected from the GVD in WA and transferred to Perth Zoo for captive breeding research (D. Jose pers. comm.). A total of six litters were produced over three seasons, with 41 animals bred. Research was published on their oestrus cycle, gestation period, and the growth and development of their young (Lambert et al. 2011), and a Husbandry Manual was also produced (Ferguson 2008). At the conclusion of the project in 2007, the remaining animals were relocated to Cleland Wildlife Park, Alice Springs Desert Park, or left on display at Perth Zoo. None were released back into the wild. Moonlit Sanctuary kept a single male from 2010 to 2011. The last recording of a Sandhill dunnart in captivity is a single male from Alice Springs Desert Park in 2012.\n\n### 1.2.4 The Great Victoria Desert Biodiversity Trust\n\nThe Great Victoria Desert Biodiversity Trust (GVDBT) was established in 2014 as an independent not-for-profit entity as part of the approval process for the Tropicana Gold Mine. The GVDBT aims to establish a bioregional plan (for two GVD sub-regions in WA), undertake priority research and management (including research on the Sandhill dunnart), and facilitate the involvement of Traditional Custodians.\n\nWorkshops on Sandhill dunnarts were held in 2014 and 2019 to determine and prioritise research and management activities to help conserve viable populations of Sandhill dunnart in the WA GVD. Knowledge gaps identified during the workshops included, distribution, threats, effectiveness of mitigation strategies, monitoring, habitat requirements, diet and life history, and appropriate management. Based on the workshops, the GVDBT developed a Research and Adaptive Management Plan (RAMP) for the Sandhill dunnart (GVDBT 2016), and the recovery actions in this plan (Summary of recovery objectives, recovery actions, performance criteria, potential partners and priority ratings) are designed to complement the research priorities and conservation action priorities identified in the RAMP. In 2016 DBCA produced for the GVDBT a report on defining a baseline survey design for the Sandhill dunnart in the WA GVD and this was updated to include more guidance on the use of camera traps. These guidelines were revised in 2020 (GHD 2020).\n\n### 1.2.5 Habitat protection in declared conservation areas\n\nThe GVD covers an enormous area, approximately 420,000 km2, and is the largest dune desert in Australia. It extends from north of the Nullarbor Plain to the Gibson Desert and Central Ranges in WA and to the central Australian ranges. From west to east, it extends from Laverton in WA to Coober Pedy in SA. Approximately half of this land is managed by Traditional Custodian groups, including Mirning, Anangu Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara, Maralinga, Kokatha, Wirangu and Barngarla groups, and Spinifex people (Pila Nguru Aboriginal Corporation). A further 70,000 km2 (about one fifth) of the GVD is in conservation parks and reserves. Almost all the remaining area is land owned by the State (known as ‘Crown land’ or ‘Unallocated Crown Land’), much of which is overlain by mining tenements (including Tropicana Gold Mine and Iluka Resources) and native title claims.\n\nWhile large areas of potential habitat of the Sandhill dunnart are reserved in several conservation areas, Queen Victoria Spring Nature Reserve is the only one known to have Sandhill dunnarts in WA. All other known populations occur on Unallocated Crown Land. In the SA portion of the GVD, most Sandhill dunnarts have been found in YRR with some additional records in Yellabinna Wilderness Protection Area and Yumbarra Conservation Park, despite survey efforts further north (Moseby et al. 2016).\n\nThe majority of Eyre Peninsula (54%) has been cleared for agriculture (DEWNR 2014a) and much of the uncleared land is under grazing leases. One of the largest areas of remnant vegetation is the Central-Northwest Linkage, spanning from Hincks Conservation Park through to the Kulliparu Conservation Park, approximately 9,900 km2. This area contains 6,820 km2 (69%) of native vegetation, of which 3,170 km2 (46%) is protected either in national parks, conservation parks or Heritage agreements. The discovery of Sandhill dunnarts in Hincks Wilderness Protection Area in 2005 has prompted further survey work within this broader area.\n\nThere are several conservation areas on northern Eyre Peninsula that contain known or potentially suitable habitat for Sandhill dunnarts, including Pinkawillinie Conservation Park (1,271 km2), Ironstone Hill Conservation Park (197 km2), Hambidge Wilderness Protection Area (380 km2), Hincks Wilderness Protection Area (669 km2), Gawler Ranges National Park (1786 km2) and Pureba Conservation Park (2264 km2). While brief initial surveys of Pinkawillinie Conservation Park (Churchill 2001b) and Hambidge Wilderness Protection Area (NCSSA 1967) failed to find any Sandhill dunnarts, survey work in 2005 successfully captured two animals in Pinkawillinie Conservation Park. In 2010, another Sandhill dunnart was found in Pinkawillinie Conservation Park (July 2010), and two were found in Hambidge Wilderness Protection Area (July 2010). During 2020 one animal was captured in the north-east of the Pinkawillinie Conservation Park (Moseby and Lynch 2020) with camera detections during 2020 and 2021 at 4 nearby locations and two locations in the north-western area of the park (all within 5 km of previous known locations). During 2022 follow up work (Bell 2022) captured a sub-adult near the eastern boundary of Pureba Conservation Park. Two 14 camera arrays set during this period, one near this capture location, the other on the southwestern boundary of the Gawler Ranges National Park, detected sandhill dunnarts at one camera each (DEW datastore). Further survey work is needed to verify the presence of the species in contiguous habitat between these locations and within other reserves of the region. Gawler Ranges National Park and Yumbarra Conservation Park are co-managed by Traditional Owners.\n\nOn the northeastern Eyre Peninsula, several large conservation reserves have the potential to contain Sandhill dunnarts. Lake Gilles Conservation Park (451 km2) and Munyaroo Conservation Park (123 km2) are of particular interest given their close proximity to Sandhill dunnart capture locations in the Middleback Range area (particularly Ironstone Hill Conservation Park and Secret Rocks). While some surveys have been conducted at Lake Gilles Conservation Park (Churchill 2001b; EP Project Group 1973), Munyaroo Conservation Park has not been adequately surveyed and requires further investigation. Further survey is also warranted in Pureba Conservation Park, as sandhill dunnarts have been recently recorded near the boundary (Bell 2022).\n\nSome of the Sandhill dunnarts found in the Middleback Range area also occur on grazing leases (such as Moola and Cooyerdoo) and are subject to disturbance by pastoralism. Individuals have been trapped in areas that are adjacent to iron-ore mines, as well as sites that are located between cleared lines for high-voltage electricity cables and a railway line that services the mines. The most southern capture site in the Middleback Range area is adjacent to a major highway between Whyalla and Port Lincoln and is on the boundary of another pastoral property that has been cleared previously for wheat production. The Middleback Alliance, a partnership between DEW, Arrium Mining, Ecological Horizons and other local landholders operates in this area (Middleback Alliance 2015). The Middleback Alliance aims to sustainably manage private and public land in the region including goat, rabbit and fox control, fire management, and threatened species management, including surveying and monitoring Sandhill dunnart sites.\n\n## 1.3 Cultural significance\n\nA large proportion of the wild populations of Sandhill dunnart are found on Indigenous lands managed by First Nations people. Indigenous rangers have and continue to make significant contributions to annual surveys for Sandhill dunnart. The plan aims to continue strengthening collaboration between Traditional Custodians and other land managers, with the goal of keeping Country healthy for both the Sandhill dunnart and the people. It is expected that further engagement of Indigenous groups involved in the conservation of the Sandhill dunnart will occur on a site-by-site basis as this recovery plan is implemented.\n\nTraditional Custodians are significant partners involved in the recovery of the Sandhill dunnart and its habitat including through:\n\n• developing and implementing land management activities to support Sandhill dunnart recovery on land managed by, or associated with, Traditional Custodians, including linkages to Healthy Country plans;\n\n• developing and implementing research projects on land managed by, or associated with Traditional Custodians;\n\n• opportunities to increase land management capacity through sharing of cultural and scientific knowledge;\n\n• documenting new records of Sandhill dunnart; and\n\n• two-way science and knowledge sharing.\n\nThe potential distribution of Sandhill dunnart overlaps with several Indigenous Protected Areas (IPAs):\n\n- Maralinga Tjarutja Lands IPA South Australia\n- Watarru IPA South Australia\n- Walalkara IPA South Australia\n- Yalata IPA South Australia\n- Apara - Makiri - Punti IPA South Australia\n- Anangu Tjutaku IPA Western Australia\n- Ngaanyatjarra IPA Western Australia\n\n![Map showing the distribution of Sandhill dunnart within SA and WA. It also includes the relevant IPA boundaries that intersect with potential Sandhill dunnart habitat.](image.004.jpeg)\n\nMap 1: Indigenous Protected Areas (IPAs) overlapping with Sandhill dunnart distribution\n\n> Note: Source: Base map Geoscience Australia; species distribution data Species of National Environmental Significance database.\n\n> Note: Caveat: The information presented in this map has been provided by a range of groups and agencies. While every effort has been made to ensure accuracy and completeness, no guarantee is given, nor responsibility taken by the Commonwealth for errors or omissions, and the Commonwealth does not accept responsibility in respect of any information or advice given in relation to, or as a consequence of, anything contained herein.\n\n> Note: Species distribution mapping: The species distribution mapping categories are indicative only and aim to capture (a) the habitat or geographic feature that represents to recent observed locations of the species (known to occur) or habitat occurring in close proximity to these locations (likely to occur); and (b) the broad environmental envelope or geographic region that encompasses all areas that could provide habitat for the species (may occur). These presence categories are created using an extensive database of species observations records, national and regional-scale environmental data, environmental modelling techniques and documented scientific research.\n\n## 1.4 Key partners\n\nImplementation of this Recovery Plan will depend on a coordinated approach between a range of stakeholders, which include the following:\n\n#### Australian Government\n\n- Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water\n- Parks Australia (Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Park)\n- Department of Defence\n\n#### State Government\n\n- Country Fire Service\n- Local councils, and Local Government Authorities\n- SA – Department for Environment and Water (DEW) including Alinytjara Wilurara, Eyre Peninsula and South Australian Arid Lands Landscape Boards\n- NT – Department of Land Resource Management\n- WA – Department of Biodiversity, Conservation and Attractions (DBCA), Rangelands Natural Resource Management, Department of Fire and Emergency Services, Department of Water and Environmental Regulation, Department of Mines, Petroleum and Exploration\n\n#### Traditional Owners\n\n- SA – Mirning, Anangu Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara, Maralinga, Kokatha, Wirangu and Barngarla\n- WA – the Spinifex People (Pila Nguru Aboriginal Corporation) Upurli Upurli Nguratja, Untiri Pulka, Pilki People, Nangaanya-ku, Yilka, Desert Support Services, Central Desert Native Title Services\n- NT – Central Land Council (Katiti-Petermann Indigenous Protected Area)\n\n#### Mining/gas companies\n\n- Including, but not limited to – AngloGold Ashanti Australia Ltd (Tropicana Joint Venture Gold Mine); Iluka Resources Limited; Vimy Resources (Mulga Rock), Deep Yellow, Lost Sands Pty Ltd\n\n#### Other\n\n- Friends groups (such as the Friends of the Great Victoria Desert)\n- Great Victoria Desert Biodiversity Trust (GVDBT)\n- Middleback Alliance, SA\n- Private landholders\n- Goldfields Environmental Management Group (GEMG)\n\n# 2 Species information\n\n## 2.1 Description\n\nThe Sandhill dunnart, Sminthopsis psammophila, is the second largest of 19 species of the marsupial genus Sminthopsis (Dasyuridae) that occur predominantly in arid and semi-arid regions of Australia. All species are nocturnal, predominantly insectivorous and are similar in appearance, characterised by their long-pointed snouts, large eyes and ears, and relatively long slender hind feet.\n\nThe Sandhill dunnart differs from other members of its genus by its large size at maturity – mass 25–55 g, body length 85–114 mm, and tail length 106–133 mm (Pearson and Churchill 2008). It has comparatively large eyes and ears, and a distinctive tail that is an excellent identifier as it is clearly contrasted, pale above and dark grey below, tapering towards the tip and has a crest of stiff black hairs along the ventral surface of the distal portion (Archer 1981; Figure 1). It has distinctive bicoloured fur patterning, drab grey to buff fur on the dorsal surface and white fur on the underside with darker hair nearer the skin. It has a pale grey head and black pencilling extending from the shoulders to the wedge between the eyes and a black eye-ring.\n\n![Two photographs of the Sandhill dunnart. \nMore information on the Sandhill dunnarts description is available in Section 2.1: Description](image.005.png)\n\nFigure 1: Sandhill Dunnart, Sminthopsis psammophila\n\nPhoto credit: Amanda McLean and Joanna Riley\n\n## 2.2 Distribution and population structure\n\n### 2.2.1 Core populations\n\nThe Sandhill dunnart is known to occur in three core population areas as shown in Map 2 (near Queen Victoria Spring Nature Reserve in the southwestern corner of the GVD in WA; YRR in the southeastern GVD in SA; and Eyre Peninsula in SA). The estimated extent of occurrence (EOO) is 151,635 km² and area of occupancy (AOO) is 500–1900 km2 (Woinarski and Burbidge 2016; Map 2). Habitat clearance in the southern portion of Eyre Peninsula greatly reduces available habitat. The chenopod shrubland communities in the areas south and east of Whyalla do not support significant habitat favoured by Sandhill dunnart.\n\nThe EOO is now considered stable, but the AOO is declining due to the limited availability of suitable habitat as a result of the frequent loss of suitable habitat by wildfire and other threats (Churchill 2001, Woinarski et al. 2014, Riley 2020). While wildfire is an important ecological process, the limited availability of structurally suitable habitat means that burning of suitable habitat in the current matrix constitutes a threat to Sandhill dunnart (Section 2.5.1: Inappropriate fire regimes).\n\nTargeted efforts in the southwestern GVD in 2018 identified four additional sites within the WA GVD population where Sandhill dunnarts occur, extending the WA GVD population range approximately 70 km south and confirming previous baseline study findings (Greening Australia 2019). The surveys confirmed the presence of the species from a previously un-surveyed area situated on the eastern fringe of a local broad area of undulating yellow sandplains. The Sandhill dunnart was recorded within patches of long-unburnt vegetation situated within landscapes affected by widespread recent fire (several high-intensity burns from 2000 to 2017; US Geological Survey 2018). Sandhill dunnarts were found in areas where the local topography provided some protection from fire (occurring within swales (between tall sand dunes), sand plains, and dune slopes (Riley et al. 2021a) or adjacent to mulga shrublands) (Greening Australia 2019).\n\nRiley et al. (2021b) used predictive species distribution models with ground validation in April 2018 to confirm 18 new spatially independent Sandhill dunnart records in the WA GVD, including several in a remote region 150 km northwest of the known range. In SA, new records were obtained in Yellabinna National Park, near the southeastern Boundary of Pureba Conservation Park, and on the western boundary of Gawler Ranges National Park (R Brandle, pers. comm.) in areas that were predicted as suitable for the species using models (Riley et al. 2021b).\n\n![Modelled distribution of Sandhill dunnart across SA and WA. \nMore information is available in Section 2.2: Distribution and population structure](image.006.jpeg)\n\nMap 2: Modelled distribution of Sandhill dunnart\n\n> Note: Source: Base map Geoscience Australia; species distribution data Species of National Environmental Significance database.\n\n> Note: Caveat: The information presented in this map has been provided by a range of groups and agencies. While every effort has been made to ensure accuracy and completeness, no guarantee is given, nor responsibility taken by the Commonwealth for errors or omissions, and the Commonwealth does not accept responsibility in respect of any information or advice given in relation to, or as a consequence of, anything contained herein.\n\n> Note: Species distribution mapping: The species distribution mapping categories are indicative only and aim to capture (a) the habitat or geographic feature that represents to recent observed locations of the species (known to occur) or habitat occurring in close proximity to these locations (likely to occur); and (b) the broad environmental envelope or geographic region that encompasses all areas that could provide habitat for the species (may occur). These presence categories are created using an extensive database of species observations records, national and regional-scale environmental data, environmental modelling techniques and documented scientific research.\n\nInvestigation into the contemporary genetic structure of the Sandhill dunnart show that the three core populations are genetically differentiated and, therefore, may represent functionally separate populations (McLean 2015). However, examination of the historic genetic structure found limited genetic differentiation between core populations (Gaikhorst et al. undated; McLean 2015), suggesting the three core populations were once connected. This absence of major geographical barriers between populations suggests the genetic pattern may be a result of fragmentation, with connecting populations going locally extinct over time (McLean 2015). Alternatively, core regions may still be connected by undetected populations, particularly in the southern GVD where there may be large areas of suitable habitat (McLean 2015; McLean, et al. 2019). Further survey effort is needed to clarify the presence or absence of Sandhill dunnart populations between the three core population areas.\n\nThe distribution of the Sandhill dunnart has declined since European settlement. Its pre-European distribution extended further north and west. The species was previously found in NT where it was first captured near Lake Amadeus in 1894 (Spencer 1896), and bones in caves were recently verified from near Yalgoo and Lake Barlee in Western Australia, 400–600 km west of the known WA GVD population (Riley et al 2021b). Subsequent surveys have failed to relocate the species in the NT, but further surveys are warranted.\n\nOwl pellets containing remains of Sandhill dunnarts have come from caves at the base of Uluru, NT (Parker 1973; Archer 1981), and caves at Darke Peak on Eyre Peninsula, SA (Baynes 1987). Owl pellets containing sub-fossil Sandhill dunnart remains have been collected from Black Point Sinkhole at Venus Bay, SA. These sub-fossil deposits were radiocarbon dated at 3,030–2,160 years before present (Baynes 1987; Copley et al. 1999).\n\n### 2.2.2 Important sub-populations\n\nThe three core populations (WA GVD, YRR and Eyre Peninsula) of Sandhill Dunnarts consist of five known sub-populations. All sub-populations are considered important for the long-term recovery and survival of the species. These sub-populations are located in the following areas:\n\n1. Southwestern Great Victoria Desert, WA (WA GVD)\n2. Great Victoria Desert, SA (SA GVD) including:\n - Yellabinna Regional Reserve,\n - Yellabinna Wilderness Protected Area,\n - Yumbarra Conservation Park, and\n - East of Pureba Conservation Park.\n3. Northcentral Eyre Peninsula (EP), SA including:\n - Pinkawillinie Conservation Park (near Kyancutta), and\n - Gawler Ranges National Park.\n4. Middleback dunefields (near Whyalla), northeastern Eyre Peninsula (EP), SA\n5. Central Eyre Peninsula (EP), SA including:\n - Hincks Conservation Park, and\n - Hambridge Conservation Park.\n\n## 2.3 Habitat\n\nThe presence of dense pre-senescent, usually long unburned (greater than 20 years without fire) spinifex (Triodia spp.) hummocks in association with sand dune systems appears to be the most significant factor explaining known Sandhill dunnart habitat in SA (Churchill 2001; Ward 2009), although current distribution over fire history suggests that there are also other factors that explain distribution. In Western Australia, Riley et al. (2021a) concluded through radio tracking that the survey and conservation of the Sandhill dunnart necessitate attention to habitats that have not burned for over 32 years. These habitats include dense lower stratum swales, sand plains, and dune slopes. This was supported by MaxEnt modelling (Riley 2020). The distribution is also constrained by semi-arid climatic conditions (Riley 2020). Modelling supports the view that Sandhill dunnart distribution is constrained by both the availability of Triodia spp. habitat (that is restricted to sandy soils) in dense southern semi-arid deserts and desert influenced by higher winter rainfall than Australia’s northern and central deserts (Riley 2020).\n\nIn WA, Sandhill dunnarts are primarily found in plains and dunes (longitudinal and ring dunes) with interdune corridors and plains; occasional salt pans at a mean ± standard deviation elevation of 402 ± 22 m a.s.l. (DAFWA 2014; Riley 2020). Vegetation communities are dominated by spinifex, predominantly T. desertorum and T. basedowii, hummock grasslands with scattered eucalypts including marble gums, Eucalyptus gongylocarpa, situated over wattle scrub, Acacia spp., and mallees, Eucalyptus spp. (Beard et al. 2013). The study site soils are ‘Yellow deep sand, Soil Group 446’ except for ‘Mulga’ habitat class soils where a variable depth sandy loamy clay crust is present (Schoknecht and Pathan 2013).\n\nSandhill dunnart models (Riley 2020) responded to surface geologies of ‘Qd’ (Dunes, sandplain with dunes and swales; this category may include numerous interdune claypans and may be locally Gypsiferous), ‘Czs’ (Sand or gravel plains that may include some residual alluvium, quartz sand sheets commonly with ferruginous pisoliths or pebbles, local clay, calcrete, laterite, silcrete, silt, and colluvium); and ‘Ln’ (Middleback subgroup: comprising Jaspilite, quartzite, gneiss, quartz-mica schist; and dolomitic marble). Understanding these geological formations is important for modelling the presence of Sandhill dunnart (Raymond et al. 2007).\n\nIn SA, species associations vary but are generally low, open mallee woodland over a diverse shrub layer and relatively dense spinifex; there is also a greater diversity of Triodia species which may be present, including T. irritans, T. scariosa and T. lanata.\n\nIn the WA GVD recent radio-tracking showed that Sandhill dunnarts are most often associated with dense, long-unburned sand plain, swale and dune slope habitats (Riley et al. 2021a, Riley et al. 2022), with a strong preference for dense lower habitat stratums and mature vegetation. Sandhill dunnart speciation occurred approximately 15 million years ago (Archer 1982), while dune development in the GVD was geologically recent (up to 781 000 years ago; Madigan 1936), so it is likely that sand dunes are probably not a prerequisite habitat feature for the species to persist (Riley 2020). Riley (2020) also found that Sandhill dunnart sheltering habitats could be far away from dune crests within swales or sand plains. Nonetheless, 82% of all shelters were within 500 m of a dune crest (Riley et al 2021a), suggesting that dunes and their influence on vegetation and fire dynamics enhance habitat suitability.\n\nThere appear to be additional areas of potentially suitable habitat in the southern GVD where the species has not yet been recorded – due to low, no or inappropriate survey effort, although they are patchily distributed (extract from Riley et al. 2022). Suitable habitat on Eyre Peninsula is limited due to historical land clearance.\n\n### 2.3.1 Shelter preferences\n\nSandhill dunnarts typically use burrows as diurnal refuges to maintain thermodynamic equilibrium (Porter and Gates 1969; Riley 2020, Riley et al. 2021a), and individuals have been observed using sun basking (passive rewarming) at burrow entrances, particularly during cooler conditions (Churchill 2001a, 2001b, Riley et al. 2021a). Shelter selection appears to be non-random within warmer habitat classes, and around 50% of entrances in a WA GVD radio tracking study were observed to face north (Riley et al. 2021a). Sandhill dunnarts have been observed using other types of shelter, including spinifex hummocks (Riley 2020, Churchill 2001a; Figure 2 f-h). In the Eyre Peninsula 68% of shelters were spherical nests within ‘Stage 3’ spinifex hummocks, 9% of shelters were within logs and 23% were burrows. In YRR, 96 % of shelters located by Churchill (2001b) were burrows (Riley 2020). In addition, fluorescent tagging of Eyre Peninsula individuals by Philp (2011) demonstrated that burrows were preferred as refuges during nocturnal foraging. In the Eyre Peninsula, when sheltering in spinifex, Sandhill dunnarts appeared to prefer large hummocks which have either an intact structure or have just started to die off in the centre (Churchill 2001a; Figure 3, life stages 2–4). However, it is unclear whether there are climatic or ecological differences affecting shelter use among populations, or whether these nests are diurnal or temporary shelters. In the WA GVD, when spinifex was chosen, Sandhill dunnarts opted for softer leaved species that would likely provide lower protection from predation, but which appear to have superior thermal properties, suggesting that thermal factors could be significant for the species (Riley 2020).\n\nTogether, these findings suggest that the habitat and shelter preferences of the species are complex, and may be population specific, and that site-specific characteristics are important in targeting management and recovery actions.\n\n![Composite of 8 images, all examples of different Sandhill dunnart burrows](image.007.png)\n\nFigure 2: Examples of Sandhill dunnart burrows\n\n> Note: (a) Exposed burrow with emerging individual inset; (b) Concealed burrow under a ‘Stage 5’ Triodia desertorum; (c) ‘Stage 3’ T. desertorum hummock; (d) Lepidobolus deserti hummock with individual inset; (e) Schoenus hexandrus hummock with individual inset; (f) Log shelter; (g) Bark shelter; (h) Burned mallee stump hollow with individual inset. Extract from Riley et al. 2021a Supplementary Data SD5.\n\n### 2.3.2 Spinifex hummocks – Fire and structure\n\nThe habitats preferred by the Sandhill dunnart, including dense sand plains, swales, and dune slopes, thrive in the absence of wildfire. In some areas, it has been over 40 years since a fire occurred. This long period without fire allows for the development of a range of suitable sites that provide adequate shelter and reduces the risk of predation (Brown et al., 1999; Laundré et al., 2001, 2010).\n\nPost-fire age of spinifex may be an important habitat indicator due to its influence on the cover and structure of Triodia. Recently burnt hummocks are too small for Sandhill dunnarts and long unburnt sites generally provide limited cover due to senescence of Triodia. The post-fire age of spinifex that Sandhill dunnarts will inhabit varies between sites and regions. In WA, most captures have been in habitat that was 17–26 years post-fire, with an optimum age structure recommended of 10–30 years post-fire (Gaikhorst and Lambert 2014). Riley et al. (2021a, 2021b) confirmed with tracking and satellite imagery that the mean fire age of preferred Sandhill dunnart nesting and foraging habitat in the WA GVD is 32+ years (range: 0–40+ years). In SA, captures have been in habitat ranging from 5 to >60 years post-fire (Churchill 2001b; Moseby et al. 2016; Ward 2009; Philp 2011; McLean 2012). Sandhill dunnarts captured at some SA sites with older spinifex (for example, Ooldea in the GVD and occasionally on Eyre Peninsula), have been shown to occupy burrows rather than nesting within hummocks (Churchill 2001a).\n\nGiven the apparently non-constant post-fire growth of Triodia at SA Sandhill dunnart capture sites (being also affected by rainfall, substrate, soil nutrients, and species), structural characteristics may be more useful predictors of Sandhill dunnart presence than post-fire age (Moseby et al. 2016). McLean (2015) found no preference for post-fire age. The number of logs (≥5 cm diameter), average height of Triodia hummocks and the overall complexity of vegetation were found to be the three most important habitat variables for predicting Sandhill dunnart abundance. Using modelling, Moseby et al. (2016) also found Sandhill dunnarts were more likely to populate areas which were ≥10 years post-fire where at least 10% of the Triodia had a minimum height of 330 mm. Moseby et al. (2016) recommend that fire be used as a management tool for maintaining habitat where Triodia cover declines below 10%, rather than using ‘post-fire age’ as a sole indicator.\n\n### 2.3.3 Habitat important to persistence and recovery\n\nAlthough habitat availability does not appear to be a limiting factor to the Sandhill dunnart, at least in the southern GVD, due to the relatively high mobility of the species, large areas of suitable habitat will need to be available to protect remaining populations (McLean 2015).\n\nFurther research is required to identify and map the habitat critical to survival of the species based on known habitat characteristics rather than relying on trapping programs which fail to consistently detect the species (Moseby et al. 2016). Maximum entropy models combined with accurate fire mapping have been valuable in locating unknown Sandhill dunnart populations in WA (Riley et al. 2021b). Landsat imagery is recommended for fire scar mapping in the GVD (Ruscalleda-Alvarez et al. 2021).\n\nThe most important habitat is considered to comprise:\n\n- Unburned habitat at extant Sandhill dunnart sites (based on the current available knowledge; Map 2);\n- Marble gum, mallee and Triodia spp. between dunes in the GVD of WA;\n- All Triodia sand dunes with a mallee Eucalyptus overstorey on Eyre Peninsula;\n- All Triodia sand dunes with a mallee Eucalyptus overstorey which occur between the three core population areas (Map 2); and\n- Areas within 500 m of a Dune crest within occupied sites in the GVD.\n\n![A composite of photographs which show the life stages of some Triodia spp. ](image.008.png)\n\nFigure 3: Life stages of some Triodia spp.\n\nNote: Drawings by Vicki Reynolds, photos are from Gaikhorst and Lambert (2014). At Stage 1 (Fig. 3a) the Triodia is a small tusk of grass. It then grows into a dense hummock by Stage 2 (Fig. 3b). At Stage 3 (Fig. 3c), some species of Triodia start to die off in the middle and continues to grow outwards until it reaches a ring (Stage 4; Fig. 3d), which breaks down into fragments (Stage 5; Fig. 3e).\n\nSource: Churchill 2001b\n\n## 2.4 Ecology\n\n### 2.4.1 Diet\n\nSandhill dunnarts typically consume invertebrates including ants, beetles, spiders, grasshoppers, termites, wasps and centipedes (Pearson and Churchill 2008). Small reptile bones (possibly a gecko) have been recorded from one scat (Churchill 2001b). At least two other Squamata species have been recorded, and Gastropoda have been detected in the faecal pellets of several individuals (Riley 2020, Riley et al. 2022). Sandhill dunnarts were previously thought to be largely opportunistic feeders, eating prey types in similar proportions to their availability (Churchill 2001b). Recent research indicates that (rarely for small arid zone mammal species) Sandhill dunnarts have an ant-rich diet, consuming a diverse range of ants in greater than expected proportions (Riley et al. 2022), and demonstrates metabolic controls that can allow for an ant-rich diet (which is difficult to digest), such as the ability to manipulate their metabolic rate with sun basking, shelter choice, and selective torpor (Riley 2020). It is difficult to say whether they have developed adaptations to facilitate consumption of ants, broadening their niche to deal with the scarcity of other prey at certain times of the year, or prefer ants (Shipley et al. 2009). Nonetheless, an ant-based diet appears to be an important survival adaptation for desert fauna in the WA GVD.\n\nSandhill dunnarts in the WA GVD generally foraged continuously from dusk to dawn, except during heavy rainfall and very cold (0–5°C) temperatures (Riley et al. 2021b).\n\n### 2.4.2 Reproduction\n\nSandhill dunnart females are polyoestrous, which means females have multiple oestrus cycles with 22–23 days between cycles (Riley 2020). Both male and female Sandhill dunnarts reach sexual maturity in their first year. Wild individuals usually mate following winter rains in August and September. They have a 16–19 day gestation period (Lambert et al. 2011), and young are typically born in September or October. The young remain in the pouch for up to 45 days and weaned young have been recorded between October and March (Lambert et al. 2011). The breeding season may be delayed or reduced in response to a reduction in available food resources (McLean 2015).\n\nFemales possess eight teats (Pearson and Churchill 2008) and have been recorded with up to eight young (How and Bignall 2009), although five to six are more common in the wild (Lambert et al. 2011). They usually produce a single litter each year but could possibly produce a second litter during good seasons (Churchill 2001b).\n\nIndividuals typically survive for just one breeding year in the wild, as with other Sminthopsis species, but males probably do not experience post-mating “male die off” as recorded in the Antechinus, and Phascogale genera because of differing physiologies (Morton 1982, Dickman and Braithwaite 1992, Pearson and Churchill 2008). The maximum age recorded for males and females is 19 months and 25 months, respectively, but in favourable conditions both sexes have been observed breeding over two consecutive years (McLean 2015). In captivity they have been found to breed for up to 3 seasons (Lambert et al. 2011) and live for up to six years (Sandhill Dunnart Workshop 2014).\n\nWild juveniles typically disperse between December and January, and both sexes are highly mobile to track intermittent resource patches (Pearson and Robinson 1990, McLean et al. 2019). Resource availability mediates condition, breeding and survival. In drought, breeding is delayed, and the survival of second year females and juveniles is reduced due to increased resource competition (McLean 2015).\n\nPopulations exhibit classic boom-bust dynamics typical of arid-zone mammals across Australia and population growth and decline are linked to rainfall (Southgate and Masters 1996, Dickman et al. 2001, Letnic and Dickman 2010).\n\nMovement ecology studies (extensive male ranging; see Section 2.4.4: Movement ecology) suggest a polygynous or polyandrous social organisation (Riley 2020).\n\n### 2.4.3 Temperature and diurnal shelter microclimate\n\nThe climate over the distributional range of the Sandhill dunnart is characterised by high diurnal variation sometimes fluctuating by over 35°C. Seasonal variation is also high with summer maximum temperatures sometimes exceeding 45°C and minimum winter temperatures sometimes falling to –4.5°C (Riley et al. 2021a; Australian Bureau of Meteorology 2025). Ground surface temperatures can reach up to 61°C because of reflective heat from the sand (Riley et al. 2021a).\n\nThe presence of large spinifex hummocks is considered an important habitat feature, as hummocks may provide a moderated microclimate suitable for Sandhill dunnart nest sites and reduce predation risk (Churchill 2001b). Sandhill dunnarts commonly nest within hummocks or in burrows excavated beneath hummocks, although they are known to also use hollow logs and Mitchell’s hopping-mouse (Notomys mitchellii) burrows (Churchill 2001b). Other hummock species (Lepidobolus deserti and Schoenus hexandrus), a burned mallee tree stump and a piece of bark have also been used during diurnal sheltering in the WA GVD (Riley et al. 2021a). In SA, the interior of spinifex hummocks has been found to be significantly cooler at high ambient temperatures (12.5°C cooler on average when the ambient temperature was >40°C), and significantly warmer at low ambient temperatures (6.5°C warmer on average when the ambient temperature was <0°C) (Churchill 2001b). However, no thermal benefit of spinifex hummocks was found in the WA GVD (Riley et al. 2021a).\n\nSandhill dunnarts significantly prefer burrows as diurnal shelters in the WA GVD and Ooldea in the SA GVD. Burrows provide even greater moderation of the microclimate with temperatures in the burrow (30 cm below the surface) showing virtually no variation throughout the day and night (Churchill 2001b; Riley et al. 2021a). Burrows also maintained a near constant humidity level (Churchill 2001b).\n\n### 2.4.4 Movement ecology\n\nThe mean home range area (100% minimum convex polygon) recorded for Sandhill dunnarts in the WA GVD is 70 ha (Riley 2020; Riley et al. 2022). A previous study in SA suggested that the species has a mean home range of 7.8 ha, although ranging data from Churchill’s (2001b) unpublished study also supports a larger home range; Sandhill dunnarts had a maximum home range area of 42 ha in SA in that study (Churchill 2001b). This uncertainty warrants further investigation of home range sizes in SA.\n\nThere was a strong effect of sex and reproductive status on the ranging behaviour of Sandhill dunnarts in the WA GVD (Riley et al. 2022). Reproductively active females had comparatively small mean home ranges of approximately 16 ha (Churchill 2001b; Riley 2022), presumably to secure or maintain breeding territories or good quality nesting burrows (Churchill 2001b). Limited data from SA indicates that Sandhill dunnart remain within a given home range for at least 8 months, but the boundaries of territories may drift over time (Churchill 2001b). Non-reproductively active individuals (of both sexes) in the WA GVD had mean home range areas between 21 and 29 ha (Riley et al. 2022). The maximum home range area of reproductively active males is significantly larger (274 ha recorded; Riley et al. 2022). The home ranges of males can overlap those of other males and females, although it is unclear how common this is (Churchill 2001b; Riley 2020). Potentially, if female territories do not overlap, then individual males may copulate with up to as many as 17 females within their range (Riley 2020). If female territories do overlap, this number may be higher.\n\nSandhill dunnarts have been recorded in SA in densities of up to 30–90 individuals/km2 in SA (Ward unpublished; Ward et al. 2008), however this represents an extreme upper limit. In high quality habitat in a typical good year may be around 0.1 individuals/km2, and in a bust year density may be as low as 0.01 individuals/km2. However, densities are likely to be dependent on habitat availability, habitat quality, predation, and food resources (Gaikhorst and Lambert 2014). Making accurate population density estimates for the species is challenging. In a key SA study, the population density of Sandhill dunnart was estimated at 25 individuals/km2 of suitable habitat (Churchill 2001a). This figure was a projection of a maximum of five individuals captured at one 20 ha SA trapping site and may be an overestimate. More often, the capture rate is much more variable (likely due to droughts and deficits in resource availability) and not usually this high (McLean 2015, Turpin and Riley 2021, Riley 2020).\n\nIn SA, individuals may move 200–300 m per foraging period (two foraging periods have been recorded on warm nights), but they are able to traverse long distances in short periods of time, up to 1,960 m in two hours (Churchill 2001b). In WA, individuals were extremely mobile and had a maximum speed of 3 km/h (Riley et al. 2022). In contrast to previous dasyurid studies, Sandhill dunnart foraged continuously throughout the night until just before sunrise and then quickly returned to shelters that were up to 1 km away (Riley et al. 2022). The high mobility of the species appears to be necessary in a system with spatially and temporally variable food resources (McLean 2015).\n\n## 2.5 Threats\n\nSince European settlement there has been a major episode of mammal declines and extinctions in Australia (>10% of the 273 endemic terrestrial species) (Woinarski et al. 2015). The major drivers of this decline have been predation by introduced species (feral cats and foxes) and altered fire regimes (Woinarski et al. 2015). In some parts of the Sandhill dunnart’s range, other land use practices such as pastoralism and clearing for agriculture, have also been a major cause of decline, particularly on the Eyre Peninsula.\n\nAlong with habitat loss and fragmentation (particularly on Eyre Peninsula), predation by cats and foxes and altered fire regimes are considered severe threats to Sandhill dunnart survival (Woinarski et al. 2014). Other threats include the direct threat of predation by native carnivores, and the indirect threat of declining habitat quality caused by introduced herbivores (especially sheep, goats, rabbits, camels, and cattle) and weed species.\n\nClimate change impacts may also increase the risk of wildfire through lower rainfall and increased lightning, as well as result in larger, hotter and more frequent fires. Moreover, a potential emerging threat affecting spinifex that may be linked to climate is the recently observed die-off events.\n\nSandhill dunnarts are within the Critical Weight Range (CWR) of Australian mammals, which includes medium-sized mammals of 35–5000 g. Extinction risk has been, and is predicted to remain, high among these CWR species (Burbidge and McKenzie 1989). The CWR species at greatest risk are ground-dwelling species from low-rainfall areas, as the sparse vegetation provides limited cover from predation by cats and foxes (Johnson and Isaac 2009).\n\n### 2.5.1 Inappropriate fire regimes\n\nAll populations, except eastern GVD\n\nChange in fire patterns is considered a major threat to Sandhill dunnarts (Woinarski et al. 2014). It is typically believed that historic “firestick farming” conducted by First Nations people produced complex mosaics of different age classes of vegetation (Burrows et al. 2006); this benefited species through encouraging new vegetation growth, increasing structural diversity, providing cover in unburnt patches and typically increasing food availability in unburnt areas (Latz 1995). Latz (1995) considered that most vegetation communities throughout arid Australia have become dependent on a regime of fires lit by First Nations people; however in areas of low First Nations population density (for example, waterless regions like the eastern GVD) it is more likely that lightning strikes had a greater influence on the fire regime than First Nations people (Hateley and Hateley 2010); this is also believed to be the case for Eyre Peninsula (J. Tilley pers. comm.).\n\nFire is a major threat to biodiversity in the WA GVD, including the Sandhill dunnart (Turpin and Johnstone 2017, Turpin and Riley 2021). Destructive summer fires (from lightning strikes) remove the mature vegetation required for protection and shelter. Repeated fire events inhibit the development of habitat. The current fire regime, arising from the cessation of traditional burning practices, is ongoing and as such, large areas of the GVD are burnt each summer. Since the commencement of monitoring in the WA GVD, fires have rendered large areas of habitat unsuitable for the Sandhill dunnart and have resulted in the loss of several known populations, including at monitoring sites known to formerly support the species (Turpin and Riley 2021). Previously occupied sites affected by fire do not support the species post burn for many years (Turpin and Riley 2021).\n\nIn general, long unburned, spinifex-dominated natural refugial habitats are important to reduce predation risk of Sandhill dunnart. Conversely, Sandhill dunnart successfully forages during periods of high predation risk (during or after fire and other disturbance events), probably by using dense habitats, burrows, and evasive techniques. Wildfire management may be the most important aspect for the conservation of Sandhill dunnart and sympatric small arid zone mammals in the Australian arid zone.\n\nMitigating against the likelihood of large-scale wildfires will be critical for Sandhill dunnart survival, particularly as climate change causes an increase in the frequency and severity of wildfires (McLean 2015; Riley et al. 2021b).\n\nSummer lightning strikes are the most frequent cause of wildfire in the arid-zone, and they are likely to increase in frequency as temperatures rise – there is an approximate 6% increase in global lightning frequencies for every 1°C rise in temperature (Price and Rind 1991, 1994, Williams et al. 2001). With no active fire management when wildfires occur, large areas are likely to burn once initiated.\n\nIn some areas, the frequency of weekly wildfires has increased by 40% over the past five years, and this abruptly altered pattern is most likely related to climate change (Clarke et al. 2013; IPCC 2014; Dutta et al. 2016).\n\nIn addition to climate action, prescribed burning is recommended to reduce this threat and maintain a mosaic of suitable habitat for Sandhill dunnarts (DENR 2012; DEWNR 2014b; DEWNR 2014c; Gaikhorst and Lambert 2014; Moseby et al. 2016), but not in the eastern GVD (Armstrong 2015).\n\nThe fire management plan for Central Eyre Peninsula 2014–2024 (DEWNR 2014b) recognises that Sandhill dunnart habitats are strongly influenced by fire history. Strategies in the plan include implementing fuel management to maintain suitable age classes of hummocks for known populations, fuel management to protect against large-scale fires, and trialling ecological prescribed burns to improve Sandhill dunnart habitat. In 2010 and 2011, prescribed burns were undertaken in Sandhill dunnart habitat in the Secret Rocks area on Eyre Peninsula (northeastern Eyre Peninsula), burning a total of approximately 1300 ha. In 2014 and 2015, prescribed burns were conducted in Ironstone Hill Conservation Park to limit the spread of bushfire through Sandhill dunnart habitat and to redistribute age class of spinifex hummocks (J. Tilley pers. comm.).\n\nAlinytjara Wilurara Landscape Board and the former SA Department of Environment, Water and Natural Resources (DEWNR), now Department for Environment and Water (DEW), also developed an ecological fire management strategy for the Sandhill dunnart in SA (DEWNR 2012). The strategy focuses on fire risk management for the Sandhill dunnart. The strategy recommends undertaking prescribed burns which maintain 66% of a given area of suitable habitat, are not within the breeding and weaning season, avoid burning optimum habitat, and avoid burning areas adjacent to habitat burnt <8 years earlier. The strategy also recommends prescribed burns in habitat >8 years post-fire and <20 years post-fire. The variability in recommended times acknowledges that vegetation growth rates in habitats with highly variable rainfall are not linear. As such the physical structure of Triodia spp. favoured by Sandhill dunnarts cannot be directly correlated to time since fire but is more likely to be associated with cumulative rainfall or microhabitat variables.\n\nLand managers of the WA rangelands have developed Guiding Principles for fire management in the region, including areas containing Sandhill dunnart habitat (RFLG 2015). The principles recognise that prescribed burns which create mosaics of post-fire vegetation growth stages, including long unburnt vegetation, will benefit biodiversity and buffer against large wildfires.\n\nFire regimes that cause declines in biodiversity are a key threatening process listed under the EPBC Act. Advice on this key threatening process includes more information about the threats of inappropriate fire regimes to species (DAWE 2022).\n\n### 2.5.2 Habitat loss and fragmentation\n\nAll populations, particularly Eyre Peninsula\n\nSandhill dunnarts have been lost from parts of their former range on central and northern Eyre Peninsula through historic clearance for agriculture (Aitken 1971). Around 54% of land has been cleared and the remaining vegetation is heavily fragmented with only 42% still connected (DEWNR 2014a). This fragmentation reduces opportunities for Sandhill dunnarts to recolonise areas of potential habitat. Sandhill dunnarts occurring in isolated native vegetation are also vulnerable to local extirpations as a result of stochastic events such as drought and large wildfires. Due to the isolated nature of remnant vegetation patches on Eyre Peninsula, McLean, et al (2019) undertook genetic analyses to determine whether gene flow is occurring between isolated vegetation patches to inform management. This was to determine the need for translocations or creation of habitat corridors (McLean et al. 2019).\n\nAt a fine spatial scale, McLean, et al. (2019) found no significant genetic structure or sex-biased dispersal within a study site of 240 km2. Their findings suggest that both sexes are highly mobile, which allows individuals to locate localised resource patches when they become available. They detected evidence of a genetic bottleneck within the population, possibly caused by a recent drought highlighting the importance of maintaining connectivity across the landscape for semi-arid and arid-zone species to enable them to track resource pulses and maintain genetic diversity. They found that the level of genetic diversity within the Eyre Peninsula sites is at risk of decline given the reduced allelic richness and heterozygosity, as well as the isolated nature of remnant vegetation patches compared with the populations in the GVD. Relatively recent (Churchill 2001b; Kemper et al. 2011; Moseby et al. 2016) and historic (Aitken 1971; Baynes 1987) records suggest that Sandhill dunnart was widespread over the central and northern Eyre Peninsula before European settlement. Since European settlement, Eyre Peninsula has lost over half (57%) of its native vegetation (Churchill 2001a; Brandle 2010). Habitat clearance in the southern portion of Eyre Peninsula greatly reduces available habitat, and its effects are significant. The chenopod shrubland communities south and east of Whyalla do not provide significant habitat preferred by the Sandhill dunnart.\n\nThe extent to which Sandhill dunnart may be affected by habitat loss and fragmentation elsewhere is unknown. However, fragmentation will likely result in isolated populations where movement, needed to track resources, is hindered by unfavourable landscapes between remnant vegetation. Loss of vegetation appears to have resulted in the contraction of the once widespread Sandhill dunnart to remnant patches in central and northern Eyre Peninsula. Research is needed to determine the long-term viability of these populations and the level of connectivity (gene flow) between them. If remnant patches are isolated, populations may become locally extinct due to environmental, demographic, and other stochastic events, such as wildfires (Lande 1988; McLean et al. 2018).\n\nThere has been no land clearance for agriculture in the GVD, however, new threats are emerging that may cause irrevocable damage to Sandhill dunnart habitat. Mining and other industry operations have been proposed or undertaken within arid and semi-arid regions of SA and WA that support Sandhill dunnart habitat. These activities often involve large scale vegetation clearance and substrate disturbance in sandy spinifex and mallee environments. In YRR, exploration tracks have been created using a roller which is designed to crush the vegetation but leave the soil surface intact (Warland and Mills 2011). Subsequent observations suggest that rolled Triodia typically dies (Sandhill dunnart Workshop 2014), however, regeneration of Triodia is likely to be faster using this method compared to bulldozing or grading, given that the rootstock and seedbank are left intact after rolling. While rolling may allow some habitat recovery, expanding mining activities continue to threaten Sandhill dunnart populations.\n\nGiven the dispersed impacts of exploration activity, it is hard to assess what impacts it may have on Sandhill dunnarts. If rolled tracks are positioned in tight grids, then direct impacts on Sandhill dunnart nests may be a concern. Land clearance and the construction of tracks also have the indirect, but potentially significant, effect of facilitating the spread of weeds such as buffel grass (Cenchrus ciliaris).\n\n### 2.5.3 Predation by cats and foxes\n\nAll populations\n\nCats and foxes are known predators of some Sminthopsis species in arid Australia (Catling 1988; Paltridge et al. 1997; Read and Bowen 2001; Paltridge 2002), but the extent of their impact on the Sandhill dunnart is unknown. Currently core populations of Sandhill dunnarts are surviving in the presence of both cats and foxes (McLean 2015; Turpin and Riley 2021).\n\nAnalysis of 128 predator scats taken from known areas with Sandhill dunnarts has found a small percentage of scats (<2%) contained Sandhill dunnart remains, however, the predators were unidentified, but may have been a dog, dingo or fox (Boulton and Foulkes 2000). The Sandhill dunnart is ranked by Woolley et al. (2019) within the top Australian species at most risk of predation by the feral cat.\n\nFurther research into predation impacts of cats and foxes (and predation impacts of other species such as dingoes) on Sandhill dunnart populations is recommended. Several projects on feral cat control in Australia were funded as part of the Threatened Species Strategy (Australian Government 2015) and the Threatened Species Action Plan 2022-2032 (Australian Government 2022). This included developing and testing bait dispensing technologies and refining the use of feral cat baits. None of the funded projects directly relate to Sandhill dunnarts, however they may benefit and inform management of cats within the Sandhill dunnart’s range. Control of feral cats and foxes is desirable but will need to consider predator-prey interactions. For example, cat predation on Dasyurids is known to increase when consumption of rabbits is decreased (Doherty et al. 2015).\n\nFurthermore, in a study of feral cats in northern Australian savanna, McGregor et. al. (2015) found the hunting success of the cats (per attempt; n = 13) was only 17% in habitats with dense grass or complex rocks, compared to 70% in open areas (n = 101). This suggests that dense and complex microhabitats are likely to decrease cat predation rates.\n\nPredation by feral cats is a key threatening process listed under the EPBC Act. The threat abatement plan for predation by feral cats provides useful information on managing feral cats in a variety of landscapes and habitats (DCCEEW 2024).\n\nPredation by the European red fox (Vulpes vulpes) is a key threatening process listed under the EPBC Act. The threat abatement plan for predation by European red fox provides useful information on managing fox in a variety of landscapes and habitats (DEWHA 2008).\n\n### 2.5.4 Introduced flora (including buffel grass)\n\nAll populations\n\nThere are comparatively few serious weeds that are invading spinifex grasslands, except for buffel grass (Cenchrus ciliaris). Buffel grass is considered one of Australia’s worst environmental weeds (Humphries et al. 1991). It is a perennial tussock grass native to Africa, India and Asia and was introduced into Australia for pasture and dust control. It has spread widely across northern and central Australia (Marshall et al. 2012) including known and potential habitat of the Sandhill dunnart in WA, SA and NT (Lawson et al. 2004).\n\nBuffel grass can increase the intensity and frequency of fire events, threatening plant and animal communities that are not adapted to these modified fire regimes (Adair and Groves 1998). Buffel grass dries quickly and produces a more combustible and contiguous flammable fuel than native grasses, resulting in hotter and more intense fires (Humphries et al. 1993). It regenerates rapidly after fire suppressing the regeneration of native species (Paltridge et al. 2009) and forms dense monocultures, reducing diversity (Clarke et al. 2005) and productivity of some vegetation types (Humphries et al. 1993).\n\nBuffel grass is considered a major threat to Sandhill dunnarts due to the way that its dominance across landscapes leads to changes in availability of bare ground and the intensity and frequency of fires, resulting in the loss of nesting spinifex hummocks and potential changes to food availability (Sandhill dunnart Workshop 2014). Mitigation of this threat includes preventing the spread of buffel grass and controlling buffel grass where it establishes near known subpopulations of Sandhill dunnarts, including along incursion pathways (such as, access tracks and roads, and along adjacent watercourses). A SA Buffel Grass Strategic Plan (Biosecurity SA 2012) provides options for controlling the spread of buffel grass during the early stages of invasion; however, there is currently no feasible control method available once it is well established over an extensive area.\n\nNovel biota and their impact on biodiversity is a key threatening process listed under the EPBC Act. Advice on this key threatening process includes more information on the management of invasive flora, including buffel grass (TSSC 2013).\n\nAt the time this plan came into effect a specific threat abatement plan for buffel grass is in development by DCCEEW and will be published on the DCCEEW website when finalised.\n\n### 2.5.5 Introduced herbivores\n\nAll populations\n\nIntroduced herbivores (cattle, goats, sheep, rabbits and camels) may have an impact on the survival of Sandhill dunnarts indirectly in a variety of ways, including:\n\n- altering the structure of spinifex hummocks;\n- changing the fire regime by removing biomass;\n- reducing floristic diversity of habitats over time;\n- causing soil compaction and disturbance;\n- sustaining higher numbers of introduced predators (for example, rabbits and house mice provide an increased food source for foxes and feral cats \\[Holden and Mutze 2002\\], which may then switch to preying on native species when rabbit or mouse numbers decline during droughts or when rabbit numbers crash due to Rabbit Haemorrhagic Disease or myxomatosis outbreaks); and\n- encouraging the spread of introduced predators such as foxes and feral cats into areas that usually have only very low densities (Read and Bowen 2001, Moseby and Hill 2011).\n\nIntroduced herbivores are unlikely to have more than localised impacts on the habitats occupied by Sandhill dunnarts. The southern GVD is not suitable for introduced stock due to a lack of water sources and the low nutritional value of spinifex. On Eyre Peninsula, some sites in the Middleback dune fields are grazed by sheep, goats and rabbits; however, most of these animals appear to avoid the spinifex-dominated habitats in favour of other habitat types with more nutritious plants.\n\n### 2.5.6 Climate change\n\nAll populations\n\nPredicted anthropogenic climate change is likely to influence the distribution, habitat suitability and recovery prospects of Sandhill dunnart. Over the past century, Australia’s annual mean temperature has increased more than 1°C, while the south-west of the continent has experienced a decline in annual rainfall of up to 20% (Riley et al. 2021b).\n\nSemi-arid desert specialists such as the Sandhill dunnart are often dependent on winter rainfall and are susceptible to rainfall deficits, wildfires and extreme temperatures caused by anthropogenic climate change (Riley 2020). Future distributions of the Sandhill dunnart, considering the effects of climate change, current fire, and habitat fragmentation, have been modelled by Riley (2020) and Riley, et al. (2021b). Suitable habitat for Sandhill dunnart is predicted to contract significantly towards the more mesic southern parts of its range. As a sandy desert specialist, the distribution of the species is also geographically limited at its southern bounds due to the cessation of suitable habitats. Consequently, further extension of the range southwards is unlikely without assisted migration (Riley et al. 2021b).\n\nRiley et al. (2021b) note that the WA GVD and YRR populations are at a higher climatic risk, with the Eyre Peninsula population also predicted to contract in range as a result of climate change.\n\nThe decline in Sandhill dunnart populations appears to be occurring from north to south, tracking the effects of climate change (Riley 2020, Riley et al. 2021b). Unlike other arid zone mammal species where decline and extinction has occurred from south to north following the displacement of First Nations peoples (who were managing the land to prevent fire), the Sandhill dunnart’s contraction aligns with increasing aridity and warming (Riley et al. 2021b). The species reliance on dense, semi-arid habitats makes it highly sensitive to climate driven habitat shifts, as increasing temperature and limited rainfall are likely to degrade the refugial environments on which it depends (Riley et al. 2021b).\n\nRiley (2020) and J. Turpin (pers. comm.) have observed that extreme heat events have caused mass vegetation die-offs in the WA GVD (Figure 4). Rapidly increasing global temperatures, irregular rainfall patterns and more frequent wildfires and droughts are particularly dangerous in the Australian arid zone and threaten Sandhill dunnart habitat. Water is already scarce, vegetation is highly flammable, and the flat arid landscape offers little elevation for species to escape rising temperatures (Pittock 2009, Lindenmayer et al. 2010).\n\nNorthern and western habitats are predicted to become increasingly unsuitable for Sandhill dunnart and sympatric desert species over the next 50 years. Regions of the southern central WA (outside of the arid zone) were indicated as climatic refuges by the modelling. Translocations to constructed artificial fenced reserves with transplanted soils, seeds and vegetation from natural arid zone habitats may be required. However further research into their feasibility and value for sandhill dunnarts will be required before this may be considered an option to mitigate the projected loss of distribution due to climate change (Riley 2020).\n\n![Photographs showing habitat destruction and degradation from fire, droughts and hot winds in the Great Victoria Desert. ](image.009.png)\n\nFigure 4: GVD habitat destruction\n\n> Note: Large wildfires (left), droughts and hot winds (right) destroyed sensitive Western Australian Great Victoria Desert (WA GVD) habitat in 2019. Extract from Riley 2020.\n\nFurther, recent observations of Triodia die-off in Sandhill dunnart habitat in the WA GVD, and the APY Lands of far northern SA (including Wamitjara and Kenmore Park mail road), may be linked to climate change, although this is unclear. If climate change is the cause, then Sandhill dunnart habitat (and other semi-arid species), may be nearing a tipping point. Active investigation of the causes underlying this die-off is warranted.\n\n### 2.5.7 Native herbivores\n\nAll populations\n\nNative herbivores such as kangaroos are also a potential issue in the Middleback dune fields. Euros (Osphranter robustus) graze regenerating Triodia, sometimes preventing recruitment after fire and Western Grey Kangaroos (Macropus fuliginosus) in high density lay on Triodia hummocks, squashing them and presumably limit their value for dunnarts (J. Read pers. comm.). This is not an issue in other areas such as Yellabinna where dingoes control the usually low kangaroo numbers.\n\nEuros, Western Grey Kangaroo and Red Kangaroo (O. rufus) represent a significant threat to Triodia structure and abundance where there are permanent water sources nearby (R. Brandle pers. comm.). Native herbivores may also be partially responsible for the impacts summarised in Section: 2.5.5 Introduced herbivores in areas where Dingoes (Canis lupus dingo) are persecuted (inside the dog fence in SA). Waterpoint management and control of numbers in fenced areas are key to managing these impacts.\n\nTable 2: Risk matrix for the Sandhill dunnart\n\n| Consequence (x) // Likelihood (y) | Not significant | Minor | Moderate | Major | Catastrophic |\n| --------------------------------- | --------------- | ------------------------------ | -------------------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------------ |\n| Almost certain | | | | Very-high riskInappropriate fire regimesHabitat loss and fragmentation | |\n| Likely | | Moderate riskNative herbivores | High riskIntroduced herbivoresClimate change | Very-high riskPredation by cats and foxesIntroduced flora | |\n| Possible | | | | | |\n| Unlikely | | | | | |\n| Unknown | | | | | |\n\nRisk matrix key:\n\n| Low risk | Moderate risk | High risk | Very-high risk |\n| -------- | ------------- | --------- | -------------- |\n\nDefinition of likelihood and consequence categories\n\nConsequence is a measure of the severity of the impact of the threat on the survival of the species.\n\n- Catastrophic – affecting survival, reproduction or essential movement of individuals in >80% of the population or across >80% of the distribution within the next 3 generations or 10 years, whichever is longer.\n- Major – affecting survival, reproduction or essential movement of individuals in 50-80 % of the population or across 50-80% of the distribution within the next 3 generations or 10 years, whichever is longer.\n- Moderate – affecting survival, reproduction or essential movement of individuals in 20-50% of the population or across 20-50% of the distribution within the next 3 generations or 10 years, whichever is longer.\n- Minor – affecting survival, reproduction or essential movement of individuals in 5-30% of the population or across 5-30% of the distribution within the next 3 generations or 10 years, whichever is longer.\n- Not significant – affecting survival, reproduction or essential movement of individuals in <5% of the population or across <5% of the distribution within the next 3 generations or 10 years, whichever is longer.\n\nLikelihood is a measure of how regularly the threat impacts the species.\n\n- Almost certain – >90% chance that threat will have an impact on the species within the next 3 generations or 10 years, whichever is longer.\n- Likely – 66-90% chance that threat will have an impact on the species within the next 3 generations or 10 years, whichever is longer.\n- Possible – 33-66% chance that threat will have an impact on the species within the next 3 generations or 10 years, whichever is longer.\n- Unlikely – <33% chance that threat will have an impact on the species within the next 3 generations or 10 years, whichever is longer.\n- Unknown – probability that threat will have an impact on the species within the next 3 generations or 10 years, whichever is longer, could be 0-100%.\n\n \n\n# 3 Recovery planning\n\n## 3.1 Vision\n\nSandhill dunnart populations are healthy and stable and have expanded across their potential range. The quality and connectedness of habitat is being improved by regional communities and land managers who have adopted management practices to support the long-term sustainability of the species so that it becomes eligible for removal from the EPBC Act List of Threatened Species.\n\n## 3.2 Objectives\n\nThe Objectives in place to enact the Vision for the Sandhill dunnart are as follows:\n\n1. Threats to Sandhill dunnart are appropriately managed reducing their impact to Sandhill dunnart sub-populations and habitat;\n2. Sandhill dunnart habitat is rehabilitated, connected and protected;\n3. Collective understanding of Sandhill dunnart populations, habitat, ecology and threats has improved; and\n4. Conservation of Sandhill dunnart and their habitat is led and championed by Traditional Custodians, community, experts and governments.","sortOrder":27},{"sectionNumber":"2.4.1 Diet","sectionType":"division","heading":"2.4.1 Diet","content":"### 2.4.1 Diet\n\nSandhill dunnarts typically consume invertebrates including ants, beetles, spiders, grasshoppers, termites, wasps and centipedes (Pearson and Churchill 2008). Small reptile bones (possibly a gecko) have been recorded from one scat (Churchill 2001b). At least two other Squamata species have been recorded, and Gastropoda have been detected in the faecal pellets of several individuals (Riley 2020, Riley et al. 2022). Sandhill dunnarts were previously thought to be largely opportunistic feeders, eating prey types in similar proportions to their availability (Churchill 2001b). Recent research indicates that (rarely for small arid zone mammal species) Sandhill dunnarts have an ant-rich diet, consuming a diverse range of ants in greater than expected proportions (Riley et al. 2022), and demonstrates metabolic controls that can allow for an ant-rich diet (which is difficult to digest), such as the ability to manipulate their metabolic rate with sun basking, shelter choice, and selective torpor (Riley 2020). It is difficult to say whether they have developed adaptations to facilitate consumption of ants, broadening their niche to deal with the scarcity of other prey at certain times of the year, or prefer ants (Shipley et al. 2009). Nonetheless, an ant-based diet appears to be an important survival adaptation for desert fauna in the WA GVD.\n\nSandhill dunnarts in the WA GVD generally foraged continuously from dusk to dawn, except during heavy rainfall and very cold (0–5°C) temperatures (Riley et al. 2021b).","sortOrder":28},{"sectionNumber":"2.4.2 Reproduction","sectionType":"division","heading":"2.4.2 Reproduction","content":"### 2.4.2 Reproduction\n\nSandhill dunnart females are polyoestrous, which means females have multiple oestrus cycles with 22–23 days between cycles (Riley 2020). Both male and female Sandhill dunnarts reach sexual maturity in their first year. Wild individuals usually mate following winter rains in August and September. They have a 16–19 day gestation period (Lambert et al. 2011), and young are typically born in September or October. The young remain in the pouch for up to 45 days and weaned young have been recorded between October and March (Lambert et al. 2011). The breeding season may be delayed or reduced in response to a reduction in available food resources (McLean 2015).\n\nFemales possess eight teats (Pearson and Churchill 2008) and have been recorded with up to eight young (How and Bignall 2009), although five to six are more common in the wild (Lambert et al. 2011). They usually produce a single litter each year but could possibly produce a second litter during good seasons (Churchill 2001b).\n\nIndividuals typically survive for just one breeding year in the wild, as with other Sminthopsis species, but males probably do not experience post-mating “male die off” as recorded in the Antechinus, and Phascogale genera because of differing physiologies (Morton 1982, Dickman and Braithwaite 1992, Pearson and Churchill 2008). The maximum age recorded for males and females is 19 months and 25 months, respectively, but in favourable conditions both sexes have been observed breeding over two consecutive years (McLean 2015). In captivity they have been found to breed for up to 3 seasons (Lambert et al. 2011) and live for up to six years (Sandhill Dunnart Workshop 2014).\n\nWild juveniles typically disperse between December and January, and both sexes are highly mobile to track intermittent resource patches (Pearson and Robinson 1990, McLean et al. 2019). Resource availability mediates condition, breeding and survival. In drought, breeding is delayed, and the survival of second year females and juveniles is reduced due to increased resource competition (McLean 2015).\n\nPopulations exhibit classic boom-bust dynamics typical of arid-zone mammals across Australia and population growth and decline are linked to rainfall (Southgate and Masters 1996, Dickman et al. 2001, Letnic and Dickman 2010).\n\nMovement ecology studies (extensive male ranging; see Section 2.4.4: Movement ecology) suggest a polygynous or polyandrous social organisation (Riley 2020).","sortOrder":29},{"sectionNumber":"2.4.3 Temperature and diurnal shelter mi","sectionType":"division","heading":"2.4.3 Temperature and diurnal shelter microclimate","content":"### 2.4.3 Temperature and diurnal shelter microclimate\n\nThe climate over the distributional range of the Sandhill dunnart is characterised by high diurnal variation sometimes fluctuating by over 35°C. Seasonal variation is also high with summer maximum temperatures sometimes exceeding 45°C and minimum winter temperatures sometimes falling to –4.5°C (Riley et al. 2021a; Australian Bureau of Meteorology 2025). Ground surface temperatures can reach up to 61°C because of reflective heat from the sand (Riley et al. 2021a).\n\nThe presence of large spinifex hummocks is considered an important habitat feature, as hummocks may provide a moderated microclimate suitable for Sandhill dunnart nest sites and reduce predation risk (Churchill 2001b). Sandhill dunnarts commonly nest within hummocks or in burrows excavated beneath hummocks, although they are known to also use hollow logs and Mitchell’s hopping-mouse (Notomys mitchellii) burrows (Churchill 2001b). Other hummock species (Lepidobolus deserti and Schoenus hexandrus), a burned mallee tree stump and a piece of bark have also been used during diurnal sheltering in the WA GVD (Riley et al. 2021a). In SA, the interior of spinifex hummocks has been found to be significantly cooler at high ambient temperatures (12.5°C cooler on average when the ambient temperature was >40°C), and significantly warmer at low ambient temperatures (6.5°C warmer on average when the ambient temperature was <0°C) (Churchill 2001b). However, no thermal benefit of spinifex hummocks was found in the WA GVD (Riley et al. 2021a).\n\nSandhill dunnarts significantly prefer burrows as diurnal shelters in the WA GVD and Ooldea in the SA GVD. Burrows provide even greater moderation of the microclimate with temperatures in the burrow (30 cm below the surface) showing virtually no variation throughout the day and night (Churchill 2001b; Riley et al. 2021a). Burrows also maintained a near constant humidity level (Churchill 2001b).","sortOrder":30},{"sectionNumber":"2.4.4 Movement ecology","sectionType":"division","heading":"2.4.4 Movement ecology","content":"### 2.4.4 Movement ecology\n\nThe mean home range area (100% minimum convex polygon) recorded for Sandhill dunnarts in the WA GVD is 70 ha (Riley 2020; Riley et al. 2022). A previous study in SA suggested that the species has a mean home range of 7.8 ha, although ranging data from Churchill’s (2001b) unpublished study also supports a larger home range; Sandhill dunnarts had a maximum home range area of 42 ha in SA in that study (Churchill 2001b). This uncertainty warrants further investigation of home range sizes in SA.\n\nThere was a strong effect of sex and reproductive status on the ranging behaviour of Sandhill dunnarts in the WA GVD (Riley et al. 2022). Reproductively active females had comparatively small mean home ranges of approximately 16 ha (Churchill 2001b; Riley 2022), presumably to secure or maintain breeding territories or good quality nesting burrows (Churchill 2001b). Limited data from SA indicates that Sandhill dunnart remain within a given home range for at least 8 months, but the boundaries of territories may drift over time (Churchill 2001b). Non-reproductively active individuals (of both sexes) in the WA GVD had mean home range areas between 21 and 29 ha (Riley et al. 2022). The maximum home range area of reproductively active males is significantly larger (274 ha recorded; Riley et al. 2022). The home ranges of males can overlap those of other males and females, although it is unclear how common this is (Churchill 2001b; Riley 2020). Potentially, if female territories do not overlap, then individual males may copulate with up to as many as 17 females within their range (Riley 2020). If female territories do overlap, this number may be higher.\n\nSandhill dunnarts have been recorded in SA in densities of up to 30–90 individuals/km2 in SA (Ward unpublished; Ward et al. 2008), however this represents an extreme upper limit. In high quality habitat in a typical good year may be around 0.1 individuals/km2, and in a bust year density may be as low as 0.01 individuals/km2. However, densities are likely to be dependent on habitat availability, habitat quality, predation, and food resources (Gaikhorst and Lambert 2014). Making accurate population density estimates for the species is challenging. In a key SA study, the population density of Sandhill dunnart was estimated at 25 individuals/km2 of suitable habitat (Churchill 2001a). This figure was a projection of a maximum of five individuals captured at one 20 ha SA trapping site and may be an overestimate. More often, the capture rate is much more variable (likely due to droughts and deficits in resource availability) and not usually this high (McLean 2015, Turpin and Riley 2021, Riley 2020).\n\nIn SA, individuals may move 200–300 m per foraging period (two foraging periods have been recorded on warm nights), but they are able to traverse long distances in short periods of time, up to 1,960 m in two hours (Churchill 2001b). In WA, individuals were extremely mobile and had a maximum speed of 3 km/h (Riley et al. 2022). In contrast to previous dasyurid studies, Sandhill dunnart foraged continuously throughout the night until just before sunrise and then quickly returned to shelters that were up to 1 km away (Riley et al. 2022). The high mobility of the species appears to be necessary in a system with spatially and temporally variable food resources (McLean 2015).","sortOrder":31},{"sectionNumber":"2.5","sectionType":"part","heading":"Threats","content":"## 2.5 Threats\n\nSince European settlement there has been a major episode of mammal declines and extinctions in Australia (>10% of the 273 endemic terrestrial species) (Woinarski et al. 2015). The major drivers of this decline have been predation by introduced species (feral cats and foxes) and altered fire regimes (Woinarski et al. 2015). In some parts of the Sandhill dunnart’s range, other land use practices such as pastoralism and clearing for agriculture, have also been a major cause of decline, particularly on the Eyre Peninsula.\n\nAlong with habitat loss and fragmentation (particularly on Eyre Peninsula), predation by cats and foxes and altered fire regimes are considered severe threats to Sandhill dunnart survival (Woinarski et al. 2014). Other threats include the direct threat of predation by native carnivores, and the indirect threat of declining habitat quality caused by introduced herbivores (especially sheep, goats, rabbits, camels, and cattle) and weed species.\n\nClimate change impacts may also increase the risk of wildfire through lower rainfall and increased lightning, as well as result in larger, hotter and more frequent fires. Moreover, a potential emerging threat affecting spinifex that may be linked to climate is the recently observed die-off events.\n\nSandhill dunnarts are within the Critical Weight Range (CWR) of Australian mammals, which includes medium-sized mammals of 35–5000 g. Extinction risk has been, and is predicted to remain, high among these CWR species (Burbidge and McKenzie 1989). The CWR species at greatest risk are ground-dwelling species from low-rainfall areas, as the sparse vegetation provides limited cover from predation by cats and foxes (Johnson and Isaac 2009).","sortOrder":32},{"sectionNumber":"2.5.1 Inappropriate fire regimes","sectionType":"division","heading":"2.5.1 Inappropriate fire regimes","content":"### 2.5.1 Inappropriate fire regimes\n\nAll populations, except eastern GVD\n\nChange in fire patterns is considered a major threat to Sandhill dunnarts (Woinarski et al. 2014). It is typically believed that historic “firestick farming” conducted by First Nations people produced complex mosaics of different age classes of vegetation (Burrows et al. 2006); this benefited species through encouraging new vegetation growth, increasing structural diversity, providing cover in unburnt patches and typically increasing food availability in unburnt areas (Latz 1995). Latz (1995) considered that most vegetation communities throughout arid Australia have become dependent on a regime of fires lit by First Nations people; however in areas of low First Nations population density (for example, waterless regions like the eastern GVD) it is more likely that lightning strikes had a greater influence on the fire regime than First Nations people (Hateley and Hateley 2010); this is also believed to be the case for Eyre Peninsula (J. Tilley pers. comm.).\n\nFire is a major threat to biodiversity in the WA GVD, including the Sandhill dunnart (Turpin and Johnstone 2017, Turpin and Riley 2021). Destructive summer fires (from lightning strikes) remove the mature vegetation required for protection and shelter. Repeated fire events inhibit the development of habitat. The current fire regime, arising from the cessation of traditional burning practices, is ongoing and as such, large areas of the GVD are burnt each summer. Since the commencement of monitoring in the WA GVD, fires have rendered large areas of habitat unsuitable for the Sandhill dunnart and have resulted in the loss of several known populations, including at monitoring sites known to formerly support the species (Turpin and Riley 2021). Previously occupied sites affected by fire do not support the species post burn for many years (Turpin and Riley 2021).\n\nIn general, long unburned, spinifex-dominated natural refugial habitats are important to reduce predation risk of Sandhill dunnart. Conversely, Sandhill dunnart successfully forages during periods of high predation risk (during or after fire and other disturbance events), probably by using dense habitats, burrows, and evasive techniques. Wildfire management may be the most important aspect for the conservation of Sandhill dunnart and sympatric small arid zone mammals in the Australian arid zone.\n\nMitigating against the likelihood of large-scale wildfires will be critical for Sandhill dunnart survival, particularly as climate change causes an increase in the frequency and severity of wildfires (McLean 2015; Riley et al. 2021b).\n\nSummer lightning strikes are the most frequent cause of wildfire in the arid-zone, and they are likely to increase in frequency as temperatures rise – there is an approximate 6% increase in global lightning frequencies for every 1°C rise in temperature (Price and Rind 1991, 1994, Williams et al. 2001). With no active fire management when wildfires occur, large areas are likely to burn once initiated.\n\nIn some areas, the frequency of weekly wildfires has increased by 40% over the past five years, and this abruptly altered pattern is most likely related to climate change (Clarke et al. 2013; IPCC 2014; Dutta et al. 2016).\n\nIn addition to climate action, prescribed burning is recommended to reduce this threat and maintain a mosaic of suitable habitat for Sandhill dunnarts (DENR 2012; DEWNR 2014b; DEWNR 2014c; Gaikhorst and Lambert 2014; Moseby et al. 2016), but not in the eastern GVD (Armstrong 2015).\n\nThe fire management plan for Central Eyre Peninsula 2014–2024 (DEWNR 2014b) recognises that Sandhill dunnart habitats are strongly influenced by fire history. Strategies in the plan include implementing fuel management to maintain suitable age classes of hummocks for known populations, fuel management to protect against large-scale fires, and trialling ecological prescribed burns to improve Sandhill dunnart habitat. In 2010 and 2011, prescribed burns were undertaken in Sandhill dunnart habitat in the Secret Rocks area on Eyre Peninsula (northeastern Eyre Peninsula), burning a total of approximately 1300 ha. In 2014 and 2015, prescribed burns were conducted in Ironstone Hill Conservation Park to limit the spread of bushfire through Sandhill dunnart habitat and to redistribute age class of spinifex hummocks (J. Tilley pers. comm.).\n\nAlinytjara Wilurara Landscape Board and the former SA Department of Environment, Water and Natural Resources (DEWNR), now Department for Environment and Water (DEW), also developed an ecological fire management strategy for the Sandhill dunnart in SA (DEWNR 2012). The strategy focuses on fire risk management for the Sandhill dunnart. The strategy recommends undertaking prescribed burns which maintain 66% of a given area of suitable habitat, are not within the breeding and weaning season, avoid burning optimum habitat, and avoid burning areas adjacent to habitat burnt <8 years earlier. The strategy also recommends prescribed burns in habitat >8 years post-fire and <20 years post-fire. The variability in recommended times acknowledges that vegetation growth rates in habitats with highly variable rainfall are not linear. As such the physical structure of Triodia spp. favoured by Sandhill dunnarts cannot be directly correlated to time since fire but is more likely to be associated with cumulative rainfall or microhabitat variables.\n\nLand managers of the WA rangelands have developed Guiding Principles for fire management in the region, including areas containing Sandhill dunnart habitat (RFLG 2015). The principles recognise that prescribed burns which create mosaics of post-fire vegetation growth stages, including long unburnt vegetation, will benefit biodiversity and buffer against large wildfires.\n\nFire regimes that cause declines in biodiversity are a key threatening process listed under the EPBC Act. Advice on this key threatening process includes more information about the threats of inappropriate fire regimes to species (DAWE 2022).","sortOrder":33},{"sectionNumber":"2.5.2 Habitat loss and fragmentation","sectionType":"division","heading":"2.5.2 Habitat loss and fragmentation","content":"### 2.5.2 Habitat loss and fragmentation\n\nAll populations, particularly Eyre Peninsula\n\nSandhill dunnarts have been lost from parts of their former range on central and northern Eyre Peninsula through historic clearance for agriculture (Aitken 1971). Around 54% of land has been cleared and the remaining vegetation is heavily fragmented with only 42% still connected (DEWNR 2014a). This fragmentation reduces opportunities for Sandhill dunnarts to recolonise areas of potential habitat. Sandhill dunnarts occurring in isolated native vegetation are also vulnerable to local extirpations as a result of stochastic events such as drought and large wildfires. Due to the isolated nature of remnant vegetation patches on Eyre Peninsula, McLean, et al (2019) undertook genetic analyses to determine whether gene flow is occurring between isolated vegetation patches to inform management. This was to determine the need for translocations or creation of habitat corridors (McLean et al. 2019).\n\nAt a fine spatial scale, McLean, et al. (2019) found no significant genetic structure or sex-biased dispersal within a study site of 240 km2. Their findings suggest that both sexes are highly mobile, which allows individuals to locate localised resource patches when they become available. They detected evidence of a genetic bottleneck within the population, possibly caused by a recent drought highlighting the importance of maintaining connectivity across the landscape for semi-arid and arid-zone species to enable them to track resource pulses and maintain genetic diversity. They found that the level of genetic diversity within the Eyre Peninsula sites is at risk of decline given the reduced allelic richness and heterozygosity, as well as the isolated nature of remnant vegetation patches compared with the populations in the GVD. Relatively recent (Churchill 2001b; Kemper et al. 2011; Moseby et al. 2016) and historic (Aitken 1971; Baynes 1987) records suggest that Sandhill dunnart was widespread over the central and northern Eyre Peninsula before European settlement. Since European settlement, Eyre Peninsula has lost over half (57%) of its native vegetation (Churchill 2001a; Brandle 2010). Habitat clearance in the southern portion of Eyre Peninsula greatly reduces available habitat, and its effects are significant. The chenopod shrubland communities south and east of Whyalla do not provide significant habitat preferred by the Sandhill dunnart.\n\nThe extent to which Sandhill dunnart may be affected by habitat loss and fragmentation elsewhere is unknown. However, fragmentation will likely result in isolated populations where movement, needed to track resources, is hindered by unfavourable landscapes between remnant vegetation. Loss of vegetation appears to have resulted in the contraction of the once widespread Sandhill dunnart to remnant patches in central and northern Eyre Peninsula. Research is needed to determine the long-term viability of these populations and the level of connectivity (gene flow) between them. If remnant patches are isolated, populations may become locally extinct due to environmental, demographic, and other stochastic events, such as wildfires (Lande 1988; McLean et al. 2018).\n\nThere has been no land clearance for agriculture in the GVD, however, new threats are emerging that may cause irrevocable damage to Sandhill dunnart habitat. Mining and other industry operations have been proposed or undertaken within arid and semi-arid regions of SA and WA that support Sandhill dunnart habitat. These activities often involve large scale vegetation clearance and substrate disturbance in sandy spinifex and mallee environments. In YRR, exploration tracks have been created using a roller which is designed to crush the vegetation but leave the soil surface intact (Warland and Mills 2011). Subsequent observations suggest that rolled Triodia typically dies (Sandhill dunnart Workshop 2014), however, regeneration of Triodia is likely to be faster using this method compared to bulldozing or grading, given that the rootstock and seedbank are left intact after rolling. While rolling may allow some habitat recovery, expanding mining activities continue to threaten Sandhill dunnart populations.\n\nGiven the dispersed impacts of exploration activity, it is hard to assess what impacts it may have on Sandhill dunnarts. If rolled tracks are positioned in tight grids, then direct impacts on Sandhill dunnart nests may be a concern. Land clearance and the construction of tracks also have the indirect, but potentially significant, effect of facilitating the spread of weeds such as buffel grass (Cenchrus ciliaris).","sortOrder":34},{"sectionNumber":"2.5.3 Predation by cats and foxes","sectionType":"division","heading":"2.5.3 Predation by cats and foxes","content":"### 2.5.3 Predation by cats and foxes\n\nAll populations\n\nCats and foxes are known predators of some Sminthopsis species in arid Australia (Catling 1988; Paltridge et al. 1997; Read and Bowen 2001; Paltridge 2002), but the extent of their impact on the Sandhill dunnart is unknown. Currently core populations of Sandhill dunnarts are surviving in the presence of both cats and foxes (McLean 2015; Turpin and Riley 2021).\n\nAnalysis of 128 predator scats taken from known areas with Sandhill dunnarts has found a small percentage of scats (<2%) contained Sandhill dunnart remains, however, the predators were unidentified, but may have been a dog, dingo or fox (Boulton and Foulkes 2000). The Sandhill dunnart is ranked by Woolley et al. (2019) within the top Australian species at most risk of predation by the feral cat.\n\nFurther research into predation impacts of cats and foxes (and predation impacts of other species such as dingoes) on Sandhill dunnart populations is recommended. Several projects on feral cat control in Australia were funded as part of the Threatened Species Strategy (Australian Government 2015) and the Threatened Species Action Plan 2022-2032 (Australian Government 2022). This included developing and testing bait dispensing technologies and refining the use of feral cat baits. None of the funded projects directly relate to Sandhill dunnarts, however they may benefit and inform management of cats within the Sandhill dunnart’s range. Control of feral cats and foxes is desirable but will need to consider predator-prey interactions. For example, cat predation on Dasyurids is known to increase when consumption of rabbits is decreased (Doherty et al. 2015).\n\nFurthermore, in a study of feral cats in northern Australian savanna, McGregor et. al. (2015) found the hunting success of the cats (per attempt; n = 13) was only 17% in habitats with dense grass or complex rocks, compared to 70% in open areas (n = 101). This suggests that dense and complex microhabitats are likely to decrease cat predation rates.\n\nPredation by feral cats is a key threatening process listed under the EPBC Act. The threat abatement plan for predation by feral cats provides useful information on managing feral cats in a variety of landscapes and habitats (DCCEEW 2024).\n\nPredation by the European red fox (Vulpes vulpes) is a key threatening process listed under the EPBC Act. The threat abatement plan for predation by European red fox provides useful information on managing fox in a variety of landscapes and habitats (DEWHA 2008).","sortOrder":35},{"sectionNumber":"2.5.4 Introduced flora (including buffel","sectionType":"division","heading":"2.5.4 Introduced flora (including buffel grass)","content":"### 2.5.4 Introduced flora (including buffel grass)\n\nAll populations\n\nThere are comparatively few serious weeds that are invading spinifex grasslands, except for buffel grass (Cenchrus ciliaris). Buffel grass is considered one of Australia’s worst environmental weeds (Humphries et al. 1991). It is a perennial tussock grass native to Africa, India and Asia and was introduced into Australia for pasture and dust control. It has spread widely across northern and central Australia (Marshall et al. 2012) including known and potential habitat of the Sandhill dunnart in WA, SA and NT (Lawson et al. 2004).\n\nBuffel grass can increase the intensity and frequency of fire events, threatening plant and animal communities that are not adapted to these modified fire regimes (Adair and Groves 1998). Buffel grass dries quickly and produces a more combustible and contiguous flammable fuel than native grasses, resulting in hotter and more intense fires (Humphries et al. 1993). It regenerates rapidly after fire suppressing the regeneration of native species (Paltridge et al. 2009) and forms dense monocultures, reducing diversity (Clarke et al. 2005) and productivity of some vegetation types (Humphries et al. 1993).\n\nBuffel grass is considered a major threat to Sandhill dunnarts due to the way that its dominance across landscapes leads to changes in availability of bare ground and the intensity and frequency of fires, resulting in the loss of nesting spinifex hummocks and potential changes to food availability (Sandhill dunnart Workshop 2014). Mitigation of this threat includes preventing the spread of buffel grass and controlling buffel grass where it establishes near known subpopulations of Sandhill dunnarts, including along incursion pathways (such as, access tracks and roads, and along adjacent watercourses). A SA Buffel Grass Strategic Plan (Biosecurity SA 2012) provides options for controlling the spread of buffel grass during the early stages of invasion; however, there is currently no feasible control method available once it is well established over an extensive area.\n\nNovel biota and their impact on biodiversity is a key threatening process listed under the EPBC Act. Advice on this key threatening process includes more information on the management of invasive flora, including buffel grass (TSSC 2013).\n\nAt the time this plan came into effect a specific threat abatement plan for buffel grass is in development by DCCEEW and will be published on the DCCEEW website when finalised.","sortOrder":36},{"sectionNumber":"2.5.5 Introduced herbivores","sectionType":"division","heading":"2.5.5 Introduced herbivores","content":"### 2.5.5 Introduced herbivores\n\nAll populations\n\nIntroduced herbivores (cattle, goats, sheep, rabbits and camels) may have an impact on the survival of Sandhill dunnarts indirectly in a variety of ways, including:\n\n- altering the structure of spinifex hummocks;\n- changing the fire regime by removing biomass;\n- reducing floristic diversity of habitats over time;\n- causing soil compaction and disturbance;\n- sustaining higher numbers of introduced predators (for example, rabbits and house mice provide an increased food source for foxes and feral cats \\[Holden and Mutze 2002\\], which may then switch to preying on native species when rabbit or mouse numbers decline during droughts or when rabbit numbers crash due to Rabbit Haemorrhagic Disease or myxomatosis outbreaks); and\n- encouraging the spread of introduced predators such as foxes and feral cats into areas that usually have only very low densities (Read and Bowen 2001, Moseby and Hill 2011).\n\nIntroduced herbivores are unlikely to have more than localised impacts on the habitats occupied by Sandhill dunnarts. The southern GVD is not suitable for introduced stock due to a lack of water sources and the low nutritional value of spinifex. On Eyre Peninsula, some sites in the Middleback dune fields are grazed by sheep, goats and rabbits; however, most of these animals appear to avoid the spinifex-dominated habitats in favour of other habitat types with more nutritious plants.","sortOrder":37},{"sectionNumber":"2.5.6 Climate change","sectionType":"division","heading":"2.5.6 Climate change","content":"### 2.5.6 Climate change\n\nAll populations\n\nPredicted anthropogenic climate change is likely to influence the distribution, habitat suitability and recovery prospects of Sandhill dunnart. Over the past century, Australia’s annual mean temperature has increased more than 1°C, while the south-west of the continent has experienced a decline in annual rainfall of up to 20% (Riley et al. 2021b).\n\nSemi-arid desert specialists such as the Sandhill dunnart are often dependent on winter rainfall and are susceptible to rainfall deficits, wildfires and extreme temperatures caused by anthropogenic climate change (Riley 2020). Future distributions of the Sandhill dunnart, considering the effects of climate change, current fire, and habitat fragmentation, have been modelled by Riley (2020) and Riley, et al. (2021b). Suitable habitat for Sandhill dunnart is predicted to contract significantly towards the more mesic southern parts of its range. As a sandy desert specialist, the distribution of the species is also geographically limited at its southern bounds due to the cessation of suitable habitats. Consequently, further extension of the range southwards is unlikely without assisted migration (Riley et al. 2021b).\n\nRiley et al. (2021b) note that the WA GVD and YRR populations are at a higher climatic risk, with the Eyre Peninsula population also predicted to contract in range as a result of climate change.\n\nThe decline in Sandhill dunnart populations appears to be occurring from north to south, tracking the effects of climate change (Riley 2020, Riley et al. 2021b). Unlike other arid zone mammal species where decline and extinction has occurred from south to north following the displacement of First Nations peoples (who were managing the land to prevent fire), the Sandhill dunnart’s contraction aligns with increasing aridity and warming (Riley et al. 2021b). The species reliance on dense, semi-arid habitats makes it highly sensitive to climate driven habitat shifts, as increasing temperature and limited rainfall are likely to degrade the refugial environments on which it depends (Riley et al. 2021b).\n\nRiley (2020) and J. Turpin (pers. comm.) have observed that extreme heat events have caused mass vegetation die-offs in the WA GVD (Figure 4). Rapidly increasing global temperatures, irregular rainfall patterns and more frequent wildfires and droughts are particularly dangerous in the Australian arid zone and threaten Sandhill dunnart habitat. Water is already scarce, vegetation is highly flammable, and the flat arid landscape offers little elevation for species to escape rising temperatures (Pittock 2009, Lindenmayer et al. 2010).\n\nNorthern and western habitats are predicted to become increasingly unsuitable for Sandhill dunnart and sympatric desert species over the next 50 years. Regions of the southern central WA (outside of the arid zone) were indicated as climatic refuges by the modelling. Translocations to constructed artificial fenced reserves with transplanted soils, seeds and vegetation from natural arid zone habitats may be required. However further research into their feasibility and value for sandhill dunnarts will be required before this may be considered an option to mitigate the projected loss of distribution due to climate change (Riley 2020).\n\n![Photographs showing habitat destruction and degradation from fire, droughts and hot winds in the Great Victoria Desert. ](image.009.png)\n\nFigure 4: GVD habitat destruction\n\n> Note: Large wildfires (left), droughts and hot winds (right) destroyed sensitive Western Australian Great Victoria Desert (WA GVD) habitat in 2019. Extract from Riley 2020.\n\nFurther, recent observations of Triodia die-off in Sandhill dunnart habitat in the WA GVD, and the APY Lands of far northern SA (including Wamitjara and Kenmore Park mail road), may be linked to climate change, although this is unclear. If climate change is the cause, then Sandhill dunnart habitat (and other semi-arid species), may be nearing a tipping point. Active investigation of the causes underlying this die-off is warranted.","sortOrder":38},{"sectionNumber":"2.5.7 Native herbivores","sectionType":"division","heading":"2.5.7 Native herbivores","content":"### 2.5.7 Native herbivores\n\nAll populations\n\nNative herbivores such as kangaroos are also a potential issue in the Middleback dune fields. Euros (Osphranter robustus) graze regenerating Triodia, sometimes preventing recruitment after fire and Western Grey Kangaroos (Macropus fuliginosus) in high density lay on Triodia hummocks, squashing them and presumably limit their value for dunnarts (J. Read pers. comm.). This is not an issue in other areas such as Yellabinna where dingoes control the usually low kangaroo numbers.\n\nEuros, Western Grey Kangaroo and Red Kangaroo (O. rufus) represent a significant threat to Triodia structure and abundance where there are permanent water sources nearby (R. Brandle pers. comm.). Native herbivores may also be partially responsible for the impacts summarised in Section: 2.5.5 Introduced herbivores in areas where Dingoes (Canis lupus dingo) are persecuted (inside the dog fence in SA). Waterpoint management and control of numbers in fenced areas are key to managing these impacts.\n\nTable 2: Risk matrix for the Sandhill dunnart\n\n| Consequence (x) // Likelihood (y) | Not significant | Minor | Moderate | Major | Catastrophic |\n| --------------------------------- | --------------- | ------------------------------ | -------------------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------------ |\n| Almost certain | | | | Very-high riskInappropriate fire regimesHabitat loss and fragmentation | |\n| Likely | | Moderate riskNative herbivores | High riskIntroduced herbivoresClimate change | Very-high riskPredation by cats and foxesIntroduced flora | |\n| Possible | | | | | |\n| Unlikely | | | | | |\n| Unknown | | | | | |\n\nRisk matrix key:\n\n| Low risk | Moderate risk | High risk | Very-high risk |\n| -------- | ------------- | --------- | -------------- |\n\nDefinition of likelihood and consequence categories\n\nConsequence is a measure of the severity of the impact of the threat on the survival of the species.\n\n- Catastrophic – affecting survival, reproduction or essential movement of individuals in >80% of the population or across >80% of the distribution within the next 3 generations or 10 years, whichever is longer.\n- Major – affecting survival, reproduction or essential movement of individuals in 50-80 % of the population or across 50-80% of the distribution within the next 3 generations or 10 years, whichever is longer.\n- Moderate – affecting survival, reproduction or essential movement of individuals in 20-50% of the population or across 20-50% of the distribution within the next 3 generations or 10 years, whichever is longer.\n- Minor – affecting survival, reproduction or essential movement of individuals in 5-30% of the population or across 5-30% of the distribution within the next 3 generations or 10 years, whichever is longer.\n- Not significant – affecting survival, reproduction or essential movement of individuals in <5% of the population or across <5% of the distribution within the next 3 generations or 10 years, whichever is longer.\n\nLikelihood is a measure of how regularly the threat impacts the species.\n\n- Almost certain – >90% chance that threat will have an impact on the species within the next 3 generations or 10 years, whichever is longer.\n- Likely – 66-90% chance that threat will have an impact on the species within the next 3 generations or 10 years, whichever is longer.\n- Possible – 33-66% chance that threat will have an impact on the species within the next 3 generations or 10 years, whichever is longer.\n- Unlikely – <33% chance that threat will have an impact on the species within the next 3 generations or 10 years, whichever is longer.\n- Unknown – probability that threat will have an impact on the species within the next 3 generations or 10 years, whichever is longer, could be 0-100%.","sortOrder":39},{"sectionNumber":"3","sectionType":"part","heading":"Recovery planning","content":"# 1 Background\n\nThis is the National Recovery Plan for the Sandhill dunnart (Sminthopsis psammophila), made in accordance with Part 13 of the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act). This plan guides conservation of the species across its range and identifies the research and management actions necessary to halt decline and support its recovery, so that its chances of long-term survival in nature are maximised.\n\n## 1.1 Conservation status\n\nThe Sandhill dunnart is listed as 'Endangered' under the EPBC Act.\n\nThe Action Plan for Australian Mammals (Woinarski et al. 2014) assessed the national status of the species as 'Vulnerable’, a conclusion which was supported by the most recent assessment for the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List of Threatened Species (Woinarski and Burbidge 2016). Both assessments used the following IUCN criteria (2001 ver. 3.1):\n\n (B2) area of occupancy < 2,000 km2;\n (a) number of locations ≤ 10;\n (b) continuing decline in:\n\n (ii) area of occupancy,\n (iii) area, extent and/or quality of habitat,\n (iv) number of locations or subpopulations, and (Woinarski et al. 2014 only)\n (v) number of mature individuals);\n (D2) restricted area of occupancy, where number of locations ≤ 5.\n\nIn South Australia (SA), the Sandhill dunnart is listed as ‘Vulnerable’ under Schedule 7, National Parks and Wildlife Act 1972 (NPW Act). In Western Australia (WA), the species is listed as ‘Endangered’ under the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 (BC Act), based on IUCN criteria B2ab(ii,iii,iv,v) (2012 ver. 3.1 2nd ed.). In the Northern Territory (NT), the species is listed as ‘Data Deficient’ under the Territory Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act 2006 (TPWC Act).\n\nInternationally, the Sandhill dunnart is listed on Appendix 1 of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), which prohibits international trade in specimens of the species except when the purpose of the import is not commercial (such as scientific research).\n\n## 1.2 Conservation action\n\n### 1.2.1 Surveys and monitoring\n\nSeveral surveys targeting Sandhill dunnarts have been conducted and are continuing in the Great Victoria Desert (GVD) and on Eyre Peninsula since 2000. These have resulted in two new spatially independent locations 150 km north of the known range in WA (near Laverton) and several new locations recorded within the species’ known range. In addition, information has been gained on the ecology, diet, habitat, distribution, genetics, and threats to Sandhill dunnarts (McLean 2015, Riley 2020).\n\nEnvironmental Impact Assessments (EIA) associated with mining activities have increased survey efforts and added data to assist in understanding the species (Gaikhorst and Lambert 2014). Most of these surveys from north of Queen Victoria Spring to the north-west of Plumridge Lakes Nature Reserve have been associated with the EIA for the Tropicana Gold Mine (Tropicana Joint Venture 2010; EPA 2010). The Great Victoria Desert Biodiversity Trust (GVDBT) (Sandhill Dunnart Workshop 2014), setup as an offset for the Tropicana Gold Mine, are also seeking to develop standardised survey methods and long-term monitoring protocols for monitoring Sandhill dunnarts in the two western subregions (Shield and Central) of the GVD in WA (2015a; 2015b). These are intended to build upon the 'Survey guidelines for Australia’s threatened mammals’ (Australian Government 2011). Iluka Mine in Yellabinna have conducted surveys for the species over many years as well an including collecting baseline and monitoring data.\n\nThere have been irregular surveys by Ecological Horizons, other researchers and the SA Department for Environment and Water (DEW) in the Middleback ranges over recent decades. Landscape Board National Landcare Program (NLP) funded projects in the Yellabinna, Pinkawillinie and Gawler Ranges areas.\n\nSurveys have been ongoing in the Yellabinna Mallee country via the Alinytjara Wilurara Landscape Board (AWLB). Surveys in the far-west including Yellabinna were undertaken over the past ten years via the Alinytjara Wilurara NRM (now Alinytjara Wilurara Landscape Board) from 2018 to 2023, which are planned to continue if funding permits. The Middleback Alliance undertook aerial fox baiting over the past 5 years and a survey to attempt to quantify the impacts, although this was made difficult by drought (R. Brandle pers comms).\n\nTurpin and Lloyd (2014) and Turpin and Riley (2017) have conducted the Sandhill dunnart Monitoring Program for APA Group biannually since 2014 along the Eastern Goldfields Pipeline in the GVD in WA, representing the only long-term monitoring studies for the species in WA. Riley (2020) and Riley et al. (2021b) were also funded by the Goldfields Environmental Management Group (GEMG) to perform motion camera surveys for the species throughout WA.\n\nFurther surveys are required in areas which are likely to be suitable for Sandhill dunnarts in SA and WA, including in the GVD of WA and SA (Map 2 ). Potential survey areas within the GVD include:\n\n the mallee/spinifex habitat north of Yellabinna Regional Reserve (YRR),\n the spinifex and sand dune communities in the Maralinga Tjarutja Lands,\n Mamungari Conservation Park, and\n the southern Anangu Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara Lands (APY Lands).\n\nSandhill dunnart records are included in the Atlas of Living Australia (Atlas of Living Australia 2025).\n\n### 1.2.2 Sandhill dunnart Project (SA Alinytjara Wilurara Landscape Board)\n\nThe Alinytjara Wilurara NRM Board has been working with communities across the region to implement the draft Sandhill dunnart recovery plan (Churchill 2001a). This has included undertaking Sandhill dunnart surveys in the Maralinga Tjarutja Lands and training in sand-plot tracking through the Oak Valley Land Management Engagement program (Alinytjara Wilurara Landscape Board 2015).\n\nIn addition, long-term monitoring has been undertaken with surveys occurring at the Immarna site since 2007 – a location within the YRR just to the east of the Ooldea siding. Surveys have focused on pitfall trapping and measuring Triodia densities and heights (Moseby, et al. 2016).\n\nIn 2018, Alinytjara Wilurara Landscape Board (AWLB) secured National Landcare Program 2 funds to continue these works, not only at the Immarna site, but also across much of the Yellabinna and Yumbarra reserves area, focusing on determining the key habitats for the species, as well as attempting to extend the current known areas of occupancy within this area. Surveys have been planned by examining fire-scar mapping to target areas with a post-fire age of 15 years, or more. This has resulted in the species being found at three more locations, suggesting that these dunnarts occur across Yellabinna Regional Reserve. This project was funded until 2023 and aimed to determine whether there are any “core” habitat areas or refuge areas (Pavey et al. 2017) for the Sandhill dunnart and, if so, how these might best be defined spatially and ecologically. It also includes threat abatement works focused on reducing predation pressures from foxes and feral cats, and surveillance against the establishment of the habitat transforming weed, buffel grass.\n\n### 1.2.3 Captive breeding research\n\nIn 2005, five Sandhill dunnarts (3 males and 2 females) were collected from the GVD in WA and transferred to Perth Zoo for captive breeding research (D. Jose pers. comm.). A total of six litters were produced over three seasons, with 41 animals bred. Research was published on their oestrus cycle, gestation period, and the growth and development of their young (Lambert et al. 2011), and a Husbandry Manual was also produced (Ferguson 2008). At the conclusion of the project in 2007, the remaining animals were relocated to Cleland Wildlife Park, Alice Springs Desert Park, or left on display at Perth Zoo. None were released back into the wild. Moonlit Sanctuary kept a single male from 2010 to 2011. The last recording of a Sandhill dunnart in captivity is a single male from Alice Springs Desert Park in 2012.\n\n### 1.2.4 The Great Victoria Desert Biodiversity Trust\n\nThe Great Victoria Desert Biodiversity Trust (GVDBT) was established in 2014 as an independent not-for-profit entity as part of the approval process for the Tropicana Gold Mine. The GVDBT aims to establish a bioregional plan (for two GVD sub-regions in WA), undertake priority research and management (including research on the Sandhill dunnart), and facilitate the involvement of Traditional Custodians.\n\nWorkshops on Sandhill dunnarts were held in 2014 and 2019 to determine and prioritise research and management activities to help conserve viable populations of Sandhill dunnart in the WA GVD. Knowledge gaps identified during the workshops included, distribution, threats, effectiveness of mitigation strategies, monitoring, habitat requirements, diet and life history, and appropriate management. Based on the workshops, the GVDBT developed a Research and Adaptive Management Plan (RAMP) for the Sandhill dunnart (GVDBT 2016), and the recovery actions in this plan (Summary of recovery objectives, recovery actions, performance criteria, potential partners and priority ratings) are designed to complement the research priorities and conservation action priorities identified in the RAMP. In 2016 DBCA produced for the GVDBT a report on defining a baseline survey design for the Sandhill dunnart in the WA GVD and this was updated to include more guidance on the use of camera traps. These guidelines were revised in 2020 (GHD 2020).\n\n### 1.2.5 Habitat protection in declared conservation areas\n\nThe GVD covers an enormous area, approximately 420,000 km2, and is the largest dune desert in Australia. It extends from north of the Nullarbor Plain to the Gibson Desert and Central Ranges in WA and to the central Australian ranges. From west to east, it extends from Laverton in WA to Coober Pedy in SA. Approximately half of this land is managed by Traditional Custodian groups, including Mirning, Anangu Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara, Maralinga, Kokatha, Wirangu and Barngarla groups, and Spinifex people (Pila Nguru Aboriginal Corporation). A further 70,000 km2 (about one fifth) of the GVD is in conservation parks and reserves. Almost all the remaining area is land owned by the State (known as ‘Crown land’ or ‘Unallocated Crown Land’), much of which is overlain by mining tenements (including Tropicana Gold Mine and Iluka Resources) and native title claims.\n\nWhile large areas of potential habitat of the Sandhill dunnart are reserved in several conservation areas, Queen Victoria Spring Nature Reserve is the only one known to have Sandhill dunnarts in WA. All other known populations occur on Unallocated Crown Land. In the SA portion of the GVD, most Sandhill dunnarts have been found in YRR with some additional records in Yellabinna Wilderness Protection Area and Yumbarra Conservation Park, despite survey efforts further north (Moseby et al. 2016).\n\nThe majority of Eyre Peninsula (54%) has been cleared for agriculture (DEWNR 2014a) and much of the uncleared land is under grazing leases. One of the largest areas of remnant vegetation is the Central-Northwest Linkage, spanning from Hincks Conservation Park through to the Kulliparu Conservation Park, approximately 9,900 km2. This area contains 6,820 km2 (69%) of native vegetation, of which 3,170 km2 (46%) is protected either in national parks, conservation parks or Heritage agreements. The discovery of Sandhill dunnarts in Hincks Wilderness Protection Area in 2005 has prompted further survey work within this broader area.\n\nThere are several conservation areas on northern Eyre Peninsula that contain known or potentially suitable habitat for Sandhill dunnarts, including Pinkawillinie Conservation Park (1,271 km2), Ironstone Hill Conservation Park (197 km2), Hambidge Wilderness Protection Area (380 km2), Hincks Wilderness Protection Area (669 km2), Gawler Ranges National Park (1786 km2) and Pureba Conservation Park (2264 km2). While brief initial surveys of Pinkawillinie Conservation Park (Churchill 2001b) and Hambidge Wilderness Protection Area (NCSSA 1967) failed to find any Sandhill dunnarts, survey work in 2005 successfully captured two animals in Pinkawillinie Conservation Park. In 2010, another Sandhill dunnart was found in Pinkawillinie Conservation Park (July 2010), and two were found in Hambidge Wilderness Protection Area (July 2010). During 2020 one animal was captured in the north-east of the Pinkawillinie Conservation Park (Moseby and Lynch 2020) with camera detections during 2020 and 2021 at 4 nearby locations and two locations in the north-western area of the park (all within 5 km of previous known locations). During 2022 follow up work (Bell 2022) captured a sub-adult near the eastern boundary of Pureba Conservation Park. Two 14 camera arrays set during this period, one near this capture location, the other on the southwestern boundary of the Gawler Ranges National Park, detected sandhill dunnarts at one camera each (DEW datastore). Further survey work is needed to verify the presence of the species in contiguous habitat between these locations and within other reserves of the region. Gawler Ranges National Park and Yumbarra Conservation Park are co-managed by Traditional Owners.\n\nOn the northeastern Eyre Peninsula, several large conservation reserves have the potential to contain Sandhill dunnarts. Lake Gilles Conservation Park (451 km2) and Munyaroo Conservation Park (123 km2) are of particular interest given their close proximity to Sandhill dunnart capture locations in the Middleback Range area (particularly Ironstone Hill Conservation Park and Secret Rocks). While some surveys have been conducted at Lake Gilles Conservation Park (Churchill 2001b; EP Project Group 1973), Munyaroo Conservation Park has not been adequately surveyed and requires further investigation. Further survey is also warranted in Pureba Conservation Park, as sandhill dunnarts have been recently recorded near the boundary (Bell 2022).\n\nSome of the Sandhill dunnarts found in the Middleback Range area also occur on grazing leases (such as Moola and Cooyerdoo) and are subject to disturbance by pastoralism. Individuals have been trapped in areas that are adjacent to iron-ore mines, as well as sites that are located between cleared lines for high-voltage electricity cables and a railway line that services the mines. The most southern capture site in the Middleback Range area is adjacent to a major highway between Whyalla and Port Lincoln and is on the boundary of another pastoral property that has been cleared previously for wheat production. The Middleback Alliance, a partnership between DEW, Arrium Mining, Ecological Horizons and other local landholders operates in this area (Middleback Alliance 2015). The Middleback Alliance aims to sustainably manage private and public land in the region including goat, rabbit and fox control, fire management, and threatened species management, including surveying and monitoring Sandhill dunnart sites.\n\n## 1.3 Cultural significance\n\nA large proportion of the wild populations of Sandhill dunnart are found on Indigenous lands managed by First Nations people. Indigenous rangers have and continue to make significant contributions to annual surveys for Sandhill dunnart. The plan aims to continue strengthening collaboration between Traditional Custodians and other land managers, with the goal of keeping Country healthy for both the Sandhill dunnart and the people. It is expected that further engagement of Indigenous groups involved in the conservation of the Sandhill dunnart will occur on a site-by-site basis as this recovery plan is implemented.\n\nTraditional Custodians are significant partners involved in the recovery of the Sandhill dunnart and its habitat including through:\n\n• developing and implementing land management activities to support Sandhill dunnart recovery on land managed by, or associated with, Traditional Custodians, including linkages to Healthy Country plans;\n\n• developing and implementing research projects on land managed by, or associated with Traditional Custodians;\n\n• opportunities to increase land management capacity through sharing of cultural and scientific knowledge;\n\n• documenting new records of Sandhill dunnart; and\n\n• two-way science and knowledge sharing.\n\nThe potential distribution of Sandhill dunnart overlaps with several Indigenous Protected Areas (IPAs):\n\n- Maralinga Tjarutja Lands IPA South Australia\n- Watarru IPA South Australia\n- Walalkara IPA South Australia\n- Yalata IPA South Australia\n- Apara - Makiri - Punti IPA South Australia\n- Anangu Tjutaku IPA Western Australia\n- Ngaanyatjarra IPA Western Australia\n\n![Map showing the distribution of Sandhill dunnart within SA and WA. It also includes the relevant IPA boundaries that intersect with potential Sandhill dunnart habitat.](image.004.jpeg)\n\nMap 1: Indigenous Protected Areas (IPAs) overlapping with Sandhill dunnart distribution\n\n> Note: Source: Base map Geoscience Australia; species distribution data Species of National Environmental Significance database.\n\n> Note: Caveat: The information presented in this map has been provided by a range of groups and agencies. While every effort has been made to ensure accuracy and completeness, no guarantee is given, nor responsibility taken by the Commonwealth for errors or omissions, and the Commonwealth does not accept responsibility in respect of any information or advice given in relation to, or as a consequence of, anything contained herein.\n\n> Note: Species distribution mapping: The species distribution mapping categories are indicative only and aim to capture (a) the habitat or geographic feature that represents to recent observed locations of the species (known to occur) or habitat occurring in close proximity to these locations (likely to occur); and (b) the broad environmental envelope or geographic region that encompasses all areas that could provide habitat for the species (may occur). These presence categories are created using an extensive database of species observations records, national and regional-scale environmental data, environmental modelling techniques and documented scientific research.\n\n## 1.4 Key partners\n\nImplementation of this Recovery Plan will depend on a coordinated approach between a range of stakeholders, which include the following:\n\n#### Australian Government\n\n- Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water\n- Parks Australia (Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Park)\n- Department of Defence\n\n#### State Government\n\n- Country Fire Service\n- Local councils, and Local Government Authorities\n- SA – Department for Environment and Water (DEW) including Alinytjara Wilurara, Eyre Peninsula and South Australian Arid Lands Landscape Boards\n- NT – Department of Land Resource Management\n- WA – Department of Biodiversity, Conservation and Attractions (DBCA), Rangelands Natural Resource Management, Department of Fire and Emergency Services, Department of Water and Environmental Regulation, Department of Mines, Petroleum and Exploration\n\n#### Traditional Owners\n\n- SA – Mirning, Anangu Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara, Maralinga, Kokatha, Wirangu and Barngarla\n- WA – the Spinifex People (Pila Nguru Aboriginal Corporation) Upurli Upurli Nguratja, Untiri Pulka, Pilki People, Nangaanya-ku, Yilka, Desert Support Services, Central Desert Native Title Services\n- NT – Central Land Council (Katiti-Petermann Indigenous Protected Area)\n\n#### Mining/gas companies\n\n- Including, but not limited to – AngloGold Ashanti Australia Ltd (Tropicana Joint Venture Gold Mine); Iluka Resources Limited; Vimy Resources (Mulga Rock), Deep Yellow, Lost Sands Pty Ltd\n\n#### Other\n\n- Friends groups (such as the Friends of the Great Victoria Desert)\n- Great Victoria Desert Biodiversity Trust (GVDBT)\n- Middleback Alliance, SA\n- Private landholders\n- Goldfields Environmental Management Group (GEMG)\n\n# 2 Species information\n\n## 2.1 Description\n\nThe Sandhill dunnart, Sminthopsis psammophila, is the second largest of 19 species of the marsupial genus Sminthopsis (Dasyuridae) that occur predominantly in arid and semi-arid regions of Australia. All species are nocturnal, predominantly insectivorous and are similar in appearance, characterised by their long-pointed snouts, large eyes and ears, and relatively long slender hind feet.\n\nThe Sandhill dunnart differs from other members of its genus by its large size at maturity – mass 25–55 g, body length 85–114 mm, and tail length 106–133 mm (Pearson and Churchill 2008). It has comparatively large eyes and ears, and a distinctive tail that is an excellent identifier as it is clearly contrasted, pale above and dark grey below, tapering towards the tip and has a crest of stiff black hairs along the ventral surface of the distal portion (Archer 1981; Figure 1). It has distinctive bicoloured fur patterning, drab grey to buff fur on the dorsal surface and white fur on the underside with darker hair nearer the skin. It has a pale grey head and black pencilling extending from the shoulders to the wedge between the eyes and a black eye-ring.\n\n![Two photographs of the Sandhill dunnart. \nMore information on the Sandhill dunnarts description is available in Section 2.1: Description](image.005.png)\n\nFigure 1: Sandhill Dunnart, Sminthopsis psammophila\n\nPhoto credit: Amanda McLean and Joanna Riley\n\n## 2.2 Distribution and population structure\n\n### 2.2.1 Core populations\n\nThe Sandhill dunnart is known to occur in three core population areas as shown in Map 2 (near Queen Victoria Spring Nature Reserve in the southwestern corner of the GVD in WA; YRR in the southeastern GVD in SA; and Eyre Peninsula in SA). The estimated extent of occurrence (EOO) is 151,635 km² and area of occupancy (AOO) is 500–1900 km2 (Woinarski and Burbidge 2016; Map 2). Habitat clearance in the southern portion of Eyre Peninsula greatly reduces available habitat. The chenopod shrubland communities in the areas south and east of Whyalla do not support significant habitat favoured by Sandhill dunnart.\n\nThe EOO is now considered stable, but the AOO is declining due to the limited availability of suitable habitat as a result of the frequent loss of suitable habitat by wildfire and other threats (Churchill 2001, Woinarski et al. 2014, Riley 2020). While wildfire is an important ecological process, the limited availability of structurally suitable habitat means that burning of suitable habitat in the current matrix constitutes a threat to Sandhill dunnart (Section 2.5.1: Inappropriate fire regimes).\n\nTargeted efforts in the southwestern GVD in 2018 identified four additional sites within the WA GVD population where Sandhill dunnarts occur, extending the WA GVD population range approximately 70 km south and confirming previous baseline study findings (Greening Australia 2019). The surveys confirmed the presence of the species from a previously un-surveyed area situated on the eastern fringe of a local broad area of undulating yellow sandplains. The Sandhill dunnart was recorded within patches of long-unburnt vegetation situated within landscapes affected by widespread recent fire (several high-intensity burns from 2000 to 2017; US Geological Survey 2018). Sandhill dunnarts were found in areas where the local topography provided some protection from fire (occurring within swales (between tall sand dunes), sand plains, and dune slopes (Riley et al. 2021a) or adjacent to mulga shrublands) (Greening Australia 2019).\n\nRiley et al. (2021b) used predictive species distribution models with ground validation in April 2018 to confirm 18 new spatially independent Sandhill dunnart records in the WA GVD, including several in a remote region 150 km northwest of the known range. In SA, new records were obtained in Yellabinna National Park, near the southeastern Boundary of Pureba Conservation Park, and on the western boundary of Gawler Ranges National Park (R Brandle, pers. comm.) in areas that were predicted as suitable for the species using models (Riley et al. 2021b).\n\n![Modelled distribution of Sandhill dunnart across SA and WA. \nMore information is available in Section 2.2: Distribution and population structure](image.006.jpeg)\n\nMap 2: Modelled distribution of Sandhill dunnart\n\n> Note: Source: Base map Geoscience Australia; species distribution data Species of National Environmental Significance database.\n\n> Note: Caveat: The information presented in this map has been provided by a range of groups and agencies. While every effort has been made to ensure accuracy and completeness, no guarantee is given, nor responsibility taken by the Commonwealth for errors or omissions, and the Commonwealth does not accept responsibility in respect of any information or advice given in relation to, or as a consequence of, anything contained herein.\n\n> Note: Species distribution mapping: The species distribution mapping categories are indicative only and aim to capture (a) the habitat or geographic feature that represents to recent observed locations of the species (known to occur) or habitat occurring in close proximity to these locations (likely to occur); and (b) the broad environmental envelope or geographic region that encompasses all areas that could provide habitat for the species (may occur). These presence categories are created using an extensive database of species observations records, national and regional-scale environmental data, environmental modelling techniques and documented scientific research.\n\nInvestigation into the contemporary genetic structure of the Sandhill dunnart show that the three core populations are genetically differentiated and, therefore, may represent functionally separate populations (McLean 2015). However, examination of the historic genetic structure found limited genetic differentiation between core populations (Gaikhorst et al. undated; McLean 2015), suggesting the three core populations were once connected. This absence of major geographical barriers between populations suggests the genetic pattern may be a result of fragmentation, with connecting populations going locally extinct over time (McLean 2015). Alternatively, core regions may still be connected by undetected populations, particularly in the southern GVD where there may be large areas of suitable habitat (McLean 2015; McLean, et al. 2019). Further survey effort is needed to clarify the presence or absence of Sandhill dunnart populations between the three core population areas.\n\nThe distribution of the Sandhill dunnart has declined since European settlement. Its pre-European distribution extended further north and west. The species was previously found in NT where it was first captured near Lake Amadeus in 1894 (Spencer 1896), and bones in caves were recently verified from near Yalgoo and Lake Barlee in Western Australia, 400–600 km west of the known WA GVD population (Riley et al 2021b). Subsequent surveys have failed to relocate the species in the NT, but further surveys are warranted.\n\nOwl pellets containing remains of Sandhill dunnarts have come from caves at the base of Uluru, NT (Parker 1973; Archer 1981), and caves at Darke Peak on Eyre Peninsula, SA (Baynes 1987). Owl pellets containing sub-fossil Sandhill dunnart remains have been collected from Black Point Sinkhole at Venus Bay, SA. These sub-fossil deposits were radiocarbon dated at 3,030–2,160 years before present (Baynes 1987; Copley et al. 1999).\n\n### 2.2.2 Important sub-populations\n\nThe three core populations (WA GVD, YRR and Eyre Peninsula) of Sandhill Dunnarts consist of five known sub-populations. All sub-populations are considered important for the long-term recovery and survival of the species. These sub-populations are located in the following areas:\n\n1. Southwestern Great Victoria Desert, WA (WA GVD)\n2. Great Victoria Desert, SA (SA GVD) including:\n - Yellabinna Regional Reserve,\n - Yellabinna Wilderness Protected Area,\n - Yumbarra Conservation Park, and\n - East of Pureba Conservation Park.\n3. Northcentral Eyre Peninsula (EP), SA including:\n - Pinkawillinie Conservation Park (near Kyancutta), and\n - Gawler Ranges National Park.\n4. Middleback dunefields (near Whyalla), northeastern Eyre Peninsula (EP), SA\n5. Central Eyre Peninsula (EP), SA including:\n - Hincks Conservation Park, and\n - Hambridge Conservation Park.\n\n## 2.3 Habitat\n\nThe presence of dense pre-senescent, usually long unburned (greater than 20 years without fire) spinifex (Triodia spp.) hummocks in association with sand dune systems appears to be the most significant factor explaining known Sandhill dunnart habitat in SA (Churchill 2001; Ward 2009), although current distribution over fire history suggests that there are also other factors that explain distribution. In Western Australia, Riley et al. (2021a) concluded through radio tracking that the survey and conservation of the Sandhill dunnart necessitate attention to habitats that have not burned for over 32 years. These habitats include dense lower stratum swales, sand plains, and dune slopes. This was supported by MaxEnt modelling (Riley 2020). The distribution is also constrained by semi-arid climatic conditions (Riley 2020). Modelling supports the view that Sandhill dunnart distribution is constrained by both the availability of Triodia spp. habitat (that is restricted to sandy soils) in dense southern semi-arid deserts and desert influenced by higher winter rainfall than Australia’s northern and central deserts (Riley 2020).\n\nIn WA, Sandhill dunnarts are primarily found in plains and dunes (longitudinal and ring dunes) with interdune corridors and plains; occasional salt pans at a mean ± standard deviation elevation of 402 ± 22 m a.s.l. (DAFWA 2014; Riley 2020). Vegetation communities are dominated by spinifex, predominantly T. desertorum and T. basedowii, hummock grasslands with scattered eucalypts including marble gums, Eucalyptus gongylocarpa, situated over wattle scrub, Acacia spp., and mallees, Eucalyptus spp. (Beard et al. 2013). The study site soils are ‘Yellow deep sand, Soil Group 446’ except for ‘Mulga’ habitat class soils where a variable depth sandy loamy clay crust is present (Schoknecht and Pathan 2013).\n\nSandhill dunnart models (Riley 2020) responded to surface geologies of ‘Qd’ (Dunes, sandplain with dunes and swales; this category may include numerous interdune claypans and may be locally Gypsiferous), ‘Czs’ (Sand or gravel plains that may include some residual alluvium, quartz sand sheets commonly with ferruginous pisoliths or pebbles, local clay, calcrete, laterite, silcrete, silt, and colluvium); and ‘Ln’ (Middleback subgroup: comprising Jaspilite, quartzite, gneiss, quartz-mica schist; and dolomitic marble). Understanding these geological formations is important for modelling the presence of Sandhill dunnart (Raymond et al. 2007).\n\nIn SA, species associations vary but are generally low, open mallee woodland over a diverse shrub layer and relatively dense spinifex; there is also a greater diversity of Triodia species which may be present, including T. irritans, T. scariosa and T. lanata.\n\nIn the WA GVD recent radio-tracking showed that Sandhill dunnarts are most often associated with dense, long-unburned sand plain, swale and dune slope habitats (Riley et al. 2021a, Riley et al. 2022), with a strong preference for dense lower habitat stratums and mature vegetation. Sandhill dunnart speciation occurred approximately 15 million years ago (Archer 1982), while dune development in the GVD was geologically recent (up to 781 000 years ago; Madigan 1936), so it is likely that sand dunes are probably not a prerequisite habitat feature for the species to persist (Riley 2020). Riley (2020) also found that Sandhill dunnart sheltering habitats could be far away from dune crests within swales or sand plains. Nonetheless, 82% of all shelters were within 500 m of a dune crest (Riley et al 2021a), suggesting that dunes and their influence on vegetation and fire dynamics enhance habitat suitability.\n\nThere appear to be additional areas of potentially suitable habitat in the southern GVD where the species has not yet been recorded – due to low, no or inappropriate survey effort, although they are patchily distributed (extract from Riley et al. 2022). Suitable habitat on Eyre Peninsula is limited due to historical land clearance.\n\n### 2.3.1 Shelter preferences\n\nSandhill dunnarts typically use burrows as diurnal refuges to maintain thermodynamic equilibrium (Porter and Gates 1969; Riley 2020, Riley et al. 2021a), and individuals have been observed using sun basking (passive rewarming) at burrow entrances, particularly during cooler conditions (Churchill 2001a, 2001b, Riley et al. 2021a). Shelter selection appears to be non-random within warmer habitat classes, and around 50% of entrances in a WA GVD radio tracking study were observed to face north (Riley et al. 2021a). Sandhill dunnarts have been observed using other types of shelter, including spinifex hummocks (Riley 2020, Churchill 2001a; Figure 2 f-h). In the Eyre Peninsula 68% of shelters were spherical nests within ‘Stage 3’ spinifex hummocks, 9% of shelters were within logs and 23% were burrows. In YRR, 96 % of shelters located by Churchill (2001b) were burrows (Riley 2020). In addition, fluorescent tagging of Eyre Peninsula individuals by Philp (2011) demonstrated that burrows were preferred as refuges during nocturnal foraging. In the Eyre Peninsula, when sheltering in spinifex, Sandhill dunnarts appeared to prefer large hummocks which have either an intact structure or have just started to die off in the centre (Churchill 2001a; Figure 3, life stages 2–4). However, it is unclear whether there are climatic or ecological differences affecting shelter use among populations, or whether these nests are diurnal or temporary shelters. In the WA GVD, when spinifex was chosen, Sandhill dunnarts opted for softer leaved species that would likely provide lower protection from predation, but which appear to have superior thermal properties, suggesting that thermal factors could be significant for the species (Riley 2020).\n\nTogether, these findings suggest that the habitat and shelter preferences of the species are complex, and may be population specific, and that site-specific characteristics are important in targeting management and recovery actions.\n\n![Composite of 8 images, all examples of different Sandhill dunnart burrows](image.007.png)\n\nFigure 2: Examples of Sandhill dunnart burrows\n\n> Note: (a) Exposed burrow with emerging individual inset; (b) Concealed burrow under a ‘Stage 5’ Triodia desertorum; (c) ‘Stage 3’ T. desertorum hummock; (d) Lepidobolus deserti hummock with individual inset; (e) Schoenus hexandrus hummock with individual inset; (f) Log shelter; (g) Bark shelter; (h) Burned mallee stump hollow with individual inset. Extract from Riley et al. 2021a Supplementary Data SD5.\n\n### 2.3.2 Spinifex hummocks – Fire and structure\n\nThe habitats preferred by the Sandhill dunnart, including dense sand plains, swales, and dune slopes, thrive in the absence of wildfire. In some areas, it has been over 40 years since a fire occurred. This long period without fire allows for the development of a range of suitable sites that provide adequate shelter and reduces the risk of predation (Brown et al., 1999; Laundré et al., 2001, 2010).\n\nPost-fire age of spinifex may be an important habitat indicator due to its influence on the cover and structure of Triodia. Recently burnt hummocks are too small for Sandhill dunnarts and long unburnt sites generally provide limited cover due to senescence of Triodia. The post-fire age of spinifex that Sandhill dunnarts will inhabit varies between sites and regions. In WA, most captures have been in habitat that was 17–26 years post-fire, with an optimum age structure recommended of 10–30 years post-fire (Gaikhorst and Lambert 2014). Riley et al. (2021a, 2021b) confirmed with tracking and satellite imagery that the mean fire age of preferred Sandhill dunnart nesting and foraging habitat in the WA GVD is 32+ years (range: 0–40+ years). In SA, captures have been in habitat ranging from 5 to >60 years post-fire (Churchill 2001b; Moseby et al. 2016; Ward 2009; Philp 2011; McLean 2012). Sandhill dunnarts captured at some SA sites with older spinifex (for example, Ooldea in the GVD and occasionally on Eyre Peninsula), have been shown to occupy burrows rather than nesting within hummocks (Churchill 2001a).\n\nGiven the apparently non-constant post-fire growth of Triodia at SA Sandhill dunnart capture sites (being also affected by rainfall, substrate, soil nutrients, and species), structural characteristics may be more useful predictors of Sandhill dunnart presence than post-fire age (Moseby et al. 2016). McLean (2015) found no preference for post-fire age. The number of logs (≥5 cm diameter), average height of Triodia hummocks and the overall complexity of vegetation were found to be the three most important habitat variables for predicting Sandhill dunnart abundance. Using modelling, Moseby et al. (2016) also found Sandhill dunnarts were more likely to populate areas which were ≥10 years post-fire where at least 10% of the Triodia had a minimum height of 330 mm. Moseby et al. (2016) recommend that fire be used as a management tool for maintaining habitat where Triodia cover declines below 10%, rather than using ‘post-fire age’ as a sole indicator.\n\n### 2.3.3 Habitat important to persistence and recovery\n\nAlthough habitat availability does not appear to be a limiting factor to the Sandhill dunnart, at least in the southern GVD, due to the relatively high mobility of the species, large areas of suitable habitat will need to be available to protect remaining populations (McLean 2015).\n\nFurther research is required to identify and map the habitat critical to survival of the species based on known habitat characteristics rather than relying on trapping programs which fail to consistently detect the species (Moseby et al. 2016). Maximum entropy models combined with accurate fire mapping have been valuable in locating unknown Sandhill dunnart populations in WA (Riley et al. 2021b). Landsat imagery is recommended for fire scar mapping in the GVD (Ruscalleda-Alvarez et al. 2021).\n\nThe most important habitat is considered to comprise:\n\n- Unburned habitat at extant Sandhill dunnart sites (based on the current available knowledge; Map 2);\n- Marble gum, mallee and Triodia spp. between dunes in the GVD of WA;\n- All Triodia sand dunes with a mallee Eucalyptus overstorey on Eyre Peninsula;\n- All Triodia sand dunes with a mallee Eucalyptus overstorey which occur between the three core population areas (Map 2); and\n- Areas within 500 m of a Dune crest within occupied sites in the GVD.\n\n![A composite of photographs which show the life stages of some Triodia spp. ](image.008.png)\n\nFigure 3: Life stages of some Triodia spp.\n\nNote: Drawings by Vicki Reynolds, photos are from Gaikhorst and Lambert (2014). At Stage 1 (Fig. 3a) the Triodia is a small tusk of grass. It then grows into a dense hummock by Stage 2 (Fig. 3b). At Stage 3 (Fig. 3c), some species of Triodia start to die off in the middle and continues to grow outwards until it reaches a ring (Stage 4; Fig. 3d), which breaks down into fragments (Stage 5; Fig. 3e).\n\nSource: Churchill 2001b\n\n## 2.4 Ecology\n\n### 2.4.1 Diet\n\nSandhill dunnarts typically consume invertebrates including ants, beetles, spiders, grasshoppers, termites, wasps and centipedes (Pearson and Churchill 2008). Small reptile bones (possibly a gecko) have been recorded from one scat (Churchill 2001b). At least two other Squamata species have been recorded, and Gastropoda have been detected in the faecal pellets of several individuals (Riley 2020, Riley et al. 2022). Sandhill dunnarts were previously thought to be largely opportunistic feeders, eating prey types in similar proportions to their availability (Churchill 2001b). Recent research indicates that (rarely for small arid zone mammal species) Sandhill dunnarts have an ant-rich diet, consuming a diverse range of ants in greater than expected proportions (Riley et al. 2022), and demonstrates metabolic controls that can allow for an ant-rich diet (which is difficult to digest), such as the ability to manipulate their metabolic rate with sun basking, shelter choice, and selective torpor (Riley 2020). It is difficult to say whether they have developed adaptations to facilitate consumption of ants, broadening their niche to deal with the scarcity of other prey at certain times of the year, or prefer ants (Shipley et al. 2009). Nonetheless, an ant-based diet appears to be an important survival adaptation for desert fauna in the WA GVD.\n\nSandhill dunnarts in the WA GVD generally foraged continuously from dusk to dawn, except during heavy rainfall and very cold (0–5°C) temperatures (Riley et al. 2021b).\n\n### 2.4.2 Reproduction\n\nSandhill dunnart females are polyoestrous, which means females have multiple oestrus cycles with 22–23 days between cycles (Riley 2020). Both male and female Sandhill dunnarts reach sexual maturity in their first year. Wild individuals usually mate following winter rains in August and September. They have a 16–19 day gestation period (Lambert et al. 2011), and young are typically born in September or October. The young remain in the pouch for up to 45 days and weaned young have been recorded between October and March (Lambert et al. 2011). The breeding season may be delayed or reduced in response to a reduction in available food resources (McLean 2015).\n\nFemales possess eight teats (Pearson and Churchill 2008) and have been recorded with up to eight young (How and Bignall 2009), although five to six are more common in the wild (Lambert et al. 2011). They usually produce a single litter each year but could possibly produce a second litter during good seasons (Churchill 2001b).\n\nIndividuals typically survive for just one breeding year in the wild, as with other Sminthopsis species, but males probably do not experience post-mating “male die off” as recorded in the Antechinus, and Phascogale genera because of differing physiologies (Morton 1982, Dickman and Braithwaite 1992, Pearson and Churchill 2008). The maximum age recorded for males and females is 19 months and 25 months, respectively, but in favourable conditions both sexes have been observed breeding over two consecutive years (McLean 2015). In captivity they have been found to breed for up to 3 seasons (Lambert et al. 2011) and live for up to six years (Sandhill Dunnart Workshop 2014).\n\nWild juveniles typically disperse between December and January, and both sexes are highly mobile to track intermittent resource patches (Pearson and Robinson 1990, McLean et al. 2019). Resource availability mediates condition, breeding and survival. In drought, breeding is delayed, and the survival of second year females and juveniles is reduced due to increased resource competition (McLean 2015).\n\nPopulations exhibit classic boom-bust dynamics typical of arid-zone mammals across Australia and population growth and decline are linked to rainfall (Southgate and Masters 1996, Dickman et al. 2001, Letnic and Dickman 2010).\n\nMovement ecology studies (extensive male ranging; see Section 2.4.4: Movement ecology) suggest a polygynous or polyandrous social organisation (Riley 2020).\n\n### 2.4.3 Temperature and diurnal shelter microclimate\n\nThe climate over the distributional range of the Sandhill dunnart is characterised by high diurnal variation sometimes fluctuating by over 35°C. Seasonal variation is also high with summer maximum temperatures sometimes exceeding 45°C and minimum winter temperatures sometimes falling to –4.5°C (Riley et al. 2021a; Australian Bureau of Meteorology 2025). Ground surface temperatures can reach up to 61°C because of reflective heat from the sand (Riley et al. 2021a).\n\nThe presence of large spinifex hummocks is considered an important habitat feature, as hummocks may provide a moderated microclimate suitable for Sandhill dunnart nest sites and reduce predation risk (Churchill 2001b). Sandhill dunnarts commonly nest within hummocks or in burrows excavated beneath hummocks, although they are known to also use hollow logs and Mitchell’s hopping-mouse (Notomys mitchellii) burrows (Churchill 2001b). Other hummock species (Lepidobolus deserti and Schoenus hexandrus), a burned mallee tree stump and a piece of bark have also been used during diurnal sheltering in the WA GVD (Riley et al. 2021a). In SA, the interior of spinifex hummocks has been found to be significantly cooler at high ambient temperatures (12.5°C cooler on average when the ambient temperature was >40°C), and significantly warmer at low ambient temperatures (6.5°C warmer on average when the ambient temperature was <0°C) (Churchill 2001b). However, no thermal benefit of spinifex hummocks was found in the WA GVD (Riley et al. 2021a).\n\nSandhill dunnarts significantly prefer burrows as diurnal shelters in the WA GVD and Ooldea in the SA GVD. Burrows provide even greater moderation of the microclimate with temperatures in the burrow (30 cm below the surface) showing virtually no variation throughout the day and night (Churchill 2001b; Riley et al. 2021a). Burrows also maintained a near constant humidity level (Churchill 2001b).\n\n### 2.4.4 Movement ecology\n\nThe mean home range area (100% minimum convex polygon) recorded for Sandhill dunnarts in the WA GVD is 70 ha (Riley 2020; Riley et al. 2022). A previous study in SA suggested that the species has a mean home range of 7.8 ha, although ranging data from Churchill’s (2001b) unpublished study also supports a larger home range; Sandhill dunnarts had a maximum home range area of 42 ha in SA in that study (Churchill 2001b). This uncertainty warrants further investigation of home range sizes in SA.\n\nThere was a strong effect of sex and reproductive status on the ranging behaviour of Sandhill dunnarts in the WA GVD (Riley et al. 2022). Reproductively active females had comparatively small mean home ranges of approximately 16 ha (Churchill 2001b; Riley 2022), presumably to secure or maintain breeding territories or good quality nesting burrows (Churchill 2001b). Limited data from SA indicates that Sandhill dunnart remain within a given home range for at least 8 months, but the boundaries of territories may drift over time (Churchill 2001b). Non-reproductively active individuals (of both sexes) in the WA GVD had mean home range areas between 21 and 29 ha (Riley et al. 2022). The maximum home range area of reproductively active males is significantly larger (274 ha recorded; Riley et al. 2022). The home ranges of males can overlap those of other males and females, although it is unclear how common this is (Churchill 2001b; Riley 2020). Potentially, if female territories do not overlap, then individual males may copulate with up to as many as 17 females within their range (Riley 2020). If female territories do overlap, this number may be higher.\n\nSandhill dunnarts have been recorded in SA in densities of up to 30–90 individuals/km2 in SA (Ward unpublished; Ward et al. 2008), however this represents an extreme upper limit. In high quality habitat in a typical good year may be around 0.1 individuals/km2, and in a bust year density may be as low as 0.01 individuals/km2. However, densities are likely to be dependent on habitat availability, habitat quality, predation, and food resources (Gaikhorst and Lambert 2014). Making accurate population density estimates for the species is challenging. In a key SA study, the population density of Sandhill dunnart was estimated at 25 individuals/km2 of suitable habitat (Churchill 2001a). This figure was a projection of a maximum of five individuals captured at one 20 ha SA trapping site and may be an overestimate. More often, the capture rate is much more variable (likely due to droughts and deficits in resource availability) and not usually this high (McLean 2015, Turpin and Riley 2021, Riley 2020).\n\nIn SA, individuals may move 200–300 m per foraging period (two foraging periods have been recorded on warm nights), but they are able to traverse long distances in short periods of time, up to 1,960 m in two hours (Churchill 2001b). In WA, individuals were extremely mobile and had a maximum speed of 3 km/h (Riley et al. 2022). In contrast to previous dasyurid studies, Sandhill dunnart foraged continuously throughout the night until just before sunrise and then quickly returned to shelters that were up to 1 km away (Riley et al. 2022). The high mobility of the species appears to be necessary in a system with spatially and temporally variable food resources (McLean 2015).\n\n## 2.5 Threats\n\nSince European settlement there has been a major episode of mammal declines and extinctions in Australia (>10% of the 273 endemic terrestrial species) (Woinarski et al. 2015). The major drivers of this decline have been predation by introduced species (feral cats and foxes) and altered fire regimes (Woinarski et al. 2015). In some parts of the Sandhill dunnart’s range, other land use practices such as pastoralism and clearing for agriculture, have also been a major cause of decline, particularly on the Eyre Peninsula.\n\nAlong with habitat loss and fragmentation (particularly on Eyre Peninsula), predation by cats and foxes and altered fire regimes are considered severe threats to Sandhill dunnart survival (Woinarski et al. 2014). Other threats include the direct threat of predation by native carnivores, and the indirect threat of declining habitat quality caused by introduced herbivores (especially sheep, goats, rabbits, camels, and cattle) and weed species.\n\nClimate change impacts may also increase the risk of wildfire through lower rainfall and increased lightning, as well as result in larger, hotter and more frequent fires. Moreover, a potential emerging threat affecting spinifex that may be linked to climate is the recently observed die-off events.\n\nSandhill dunnarts are within the Critical Weight Range (CWR) of Australian mammals, which includes medium-sized mammals of 35–5000 g. Extinction risk has been, and is predicted to remain, high among these CWR species (Burbidge and McKenzie 1989). The CWR species at greatest risk are ground-dwelling species from low-rainfall areas, as the sparse vegetation provides limited cover from predation by cats and foxes (Johnson and Isaac 2009).\n\n### 2.5.1 Inappropriate fire regimes\n\nAll populations, except eastern GVD\n\nChange in fire patterns is considered a major threat to Sandhill dunnarts (Woinarski et al. 2014). It is typically believed that historic “firestick farming” conducted by First Nations people produced complex mosaics of different age classes of vegetation (Burrows et al. 2006); this benefited species through encouraging new vegetation growth, increasing structural diversity, providing cover in unburnt patches and typically increasing food availability in unburnt areas (Latz 1995). Latz (1995) considered that most vegetation communities throughout arid Australia have become dependent on a regime of fires lit by First Nations people; however in areas of low First Nations population density (for example, waterless regions like the eastern GVD) it is more likely that lightning strikes had a greater influence on the fire regime than First Nations people (Hateley and Hateley 2010); this is also believed to be the case for Eyre Peninsula (J. Tilley pers. comm.).\n\nFire is a major threat to biodiversity in the WA GVD, including the Sandhill dunnart (Turpin and Johnstone 2017, Turpin and Riley 2021). Destructive summer fires (from lightning strikes) remove the mature vegetation required for protection and shelter. Repeated fire events inhibit the development of habitat. The current fire regime, arising from the cessation of traditional burning practices, is ongoing and as such, large areas of the GVD are burnt each summer. Since the commencement of monitoring in the WA GVD, fires have rendered large areas of habitat unsuitable for the Sandhill dunnart and have resulted in the loss of several known populations, including at monitoring sites known to formerly support the species (Turpin and Riley 2021). Previously occupied sites affected by fire do not support the species post burn for many years (Turpin and Riley 2021).\n\nIn general, long unburned, spinifex-dominated natural refugial habitats are important to reduce predation risk of Sandhill dunnart. Conversely, Sandhill dunnart successfully forages during periods of high predation risk (during or after fire and other disturbance events), probably by using dense habitats, burrows, and evasive techniques. Wildfire management may be the most important aspect for the conservation of Sandhill dunnart and sympatric small arid zone mammals in the Australian arid zone.\n\nMitigating against the likelihood of large-scale wildfires will be critical for Sandhill dunnart survival, particularly as climate change causes an increase in the frequency and severity of wildfires (McLean 2015; Riley et al. 2021b).\n\nSummer lightning strikes are the most frequent cause of wildfire in the arid-zone, and they are likely to increase in frequency as temperatures rise – there is an approximate 6% increase in global lightning frequencies for every 1°C rise in temperature (Price and Rind 1991, 1994, Williams et al. 2001). With no active fire management when wildfires occur, large areas are likely to burn once initiated.\n\nIn some areas, the frequency of weekly wildfires has increased by 40% over the past five years, and this abruptly altered pattern is most likely related to climate change (Clarke et al. 2013; IPCC 2014; Dutta et al. 2016).\n\nIn addition to climate action, prescribed burning is recommended to reduce this threat and maintain a mosaic of suitable habitat for Sandhill dunnarts (DENR 2012; DEWNR 2014b; DEWNR 2014c; Gaikhorst and Lambert 2014; Moseby et al. 2016), but not in the eastern GVD (Armstrong 2015).\n\nThe fire management plan for Central Eyre Peninsula 2014–2024 (DEWNR 2014b) recognises that Sandhill dunnart habitats are strongly influenced by fire history. Strategies in the plan include implementing fuel management to maintain suitable age classes of hummocks for known populations, fuel management to protect against large-scale fires, and trialling ecological prescribed burns to improve Sandhill dunnart habitat. In 2010 and 2011, prescribed burns were undertaken in Sandhill dunnart habitat in the Secret Rocks area on Eyre Peninsula (northeastern Eyre Peninsula), burning a total of approximately 1300 ha. In 2014 and 2015, prescribed burns were conducted in Ironstone Hill Conservation Park to limit the spread of bushfire through Sandhill dunnart habitat and to redistribute age class of spinifex hummocks (J. Tilley pers. comm.).\n\nAlinytjara Wilurara Landscape Board and the former SA Department of Environment, Water and Natural Resources (DEWNR), now Department for Environment and Water (DEW), also developed an ecological fire management strategy for the Sandhill dunnart in SA (DEWNR 2012). The strategy focuses on fire risk management for the Sandhill dunnart. The strategy recommends undertaking prescribed burns which maintain 66% of a given area of suitable habitat, are not within the breeding and weaning season, avoid burning optimum habitat, and avoid burning areas adjacent to habitat burnt <8 years earlier. The strategy also recommends prescribed burns in habitat >8 years post-fire and <20 years post-fire. The variability in recommended times acknowledges that vegetation growth rates in habitats with highly variable rainfall are not linear. As such the physical structure of Triodia spp. favoured by Sandhill dunnarts cannot be directly correlated to time since fire but is more likely to be associated with cumulative rainfall or microhabitat variables.\n\nLand managers of the WA rangelands have developed Guiding Principles for fire management in the region, including areas containing Sandhill dunnart habitat (RFLG 2015). The principles recognise that prescribed burns which create mosaics of post-fire vegetation growth stages, including long unburnt vegetation, will benefit biodiversity and buffer against large wildfires.\n\nFire regimes that cause declines in biodiversity are a key threatening process listed under the EPBC Act. Advice on this key threatening process includes more information about the threats of inappropriate fire regimes to species (DAWE 2022).\n\n### 2.5.2 Habitat loss and fragmentation\n\nAll populations, particularly Eyre Peninsula\n\nSandhill dunnarts have been lost from parts of their former range on central and northern Eyre Peninsula through historic clearance for agriculture (Aitken 1971). Around 54% of land has been cleared and the remaining vegetation is heavily fragmented with only 42% still connected (DEWNR 2014a). This fragmentation reduces opportunities for Sandhill dunnarts to recolonise areas of potential habitat. Sandhill dunnarts occurring in isolated native vegetation are also vulnerable to local extirpations as a result of stochastic events such as drought and large wildfires. Due to the isolated nature of remnant vegetation patches on Eyre Peninsula, McLean, et al (2019) undertook genetic analyses to determine whether gene flow is occurring between isolated vegetation patches to inform management. This was to determine the need for translocations or creation of habitat corridors (McLean et al. 2019).\n\nAt a fine spatial scale, McLean, et al. (2019) found no significant genetic structure or sex-biased dispersal within a study site of 240 km2. Their findings suggest that both sexes are highly mobile, which allows individuals to locate localised resource patches when they become available. They detected evidence of a genetic bottleneck within the population, possibly caused by a recent drought highlighting the importance of maintaining connectivity across the landscape for semi-arid and arid-zone species to enable them to track resource pulses and maintain genetic diversity. They found that the level of genetic diversity within the Eyre Peninsula sites is at risk of decline given the reduced allelic richness and heterozygosity, as well as the isolated nature of remnant vegetation patches compared with the populations in the GVD. Relatively recent (Churchill 2001b; Kemper et al. 2011; Moseby et al. 2016) and historic (Aitken 1971; Baynes 1987) records suggest that Sandhill dunnart was widespread over the central and northern Eyre Peninsula before European settlement. Since European settlement, Eyre Peninsula has lost over half (57%) of its native vegetation (Churchill 2001a; Brandle 2010). Habitat clearance in the southern portion of Eyre Peninsula greatly reduces available habitat, and its effects are significant. The chenopod shrubland communities south and east of Whyalla do not provide significant habitat preferred by the Sandhill dunnart.\n\nThe extent to which Sandhill dunnart may be affected by habitat loss and fragmentation elsewhere is unknown. However, fragmentation will likely result in isolated populations where movement, needed to track resources, is hindered by unfavourable landscapes between remnant vegetation. Loss of vegetation appears to have resulted in the contraction of the once widespread Sandhill dunnart to remnant patches in central and northern Eyre Peninsula. Research is needed to determine the long-term viability of these populations and the level of connectivity (gene flow) between them. If remnant patches are isolated, populations may become locally extinct due to environmental, demographic, and other stochastic events, such as wildfires (Lande 1988; McLean et al. 2018).\n\nThere has been no land clearance for agriculture in the GVD, however, new threats are emerging that may cause irrevocable damage to Sandhill dunnart habitat. Mining and other industry operations have been proposed or undertaken within arid and semi-arid regions of SA and WA that support Sandhill dunnart habitat. These activities often involve large scale vegetation clearance and substrate disturbance in sandy spinifex and mallee environments. In YRR, exploration tracks have been created using a roller which is designed to crush the vegetation but leave the soil surface intact (Warland and Mills 2011). Subsequent observations suggest that rolled Triodia typically dies (Sandhill dunnart Workshop 2014), however, regeneration of Triodia is likely to be faster using this method compared to bulldozing or grading, given that the rootstock and seedbank are left intact after rolling. While rolling may allow some habitat recovery, expanding mining activities continue to threaten Sandhill dunnart populations.\n\nGiven the dispersed impacts of exploration activity, it is hard to assess what impacts it may have on Sandhill dunnarts. If rolled tracks are positioned in tight grids, then direct impacts on Sandhill dunnart nests may be a concern. Land clearance and the construction of tracks also have the indirect, but potentially significant, effect of facilitating the spread of weeds such as buffel grass (Cenchrus ciliaris).\n\n### 2.5.3 Predation by cats and foxes\n\nAll populations\n\nCats and foxes are known predators of some Sminthopsis species in arid Australia (Catling 1988; Paltridge et al. 1997; Read and Bowen 2001; Paltridge 2002), but the extent of their impact on the Sandhill dunnart is unknown. Currently core populations of Sandhill dunnarts are surviving in the presence of both cats and foxes (McLean 2015; Turpin and Riley 2021).\n\nAnalysis of 128 predator scats taken from known areas with Sandhill dunnarts has found a small percentage of scats (<2%) contained Sandhill dunnart remains, however, the predators were unidentified, but may have been a dog, dingo or fox (Boulton and Foulkes 2000). The Sandhill dunnart is ranked by Woolley et al. (2019) within the top Australian species at most risk of predation by the feral cat.\n\nFurther research into predation impacts of cats and foxes (and predation impacts of other species such as dingoes) on Sandhill dunnart populations is recommended. Several projects on feral cat control in Australia were funded as part of the Threatened Species Strategy (Australian Government 2015) and the Threatened Species Action Plan 2022-2032 (Australian Government 2022). This included developing and testing bait dispensing technologies and refining the use of feral cat baits. None of the funded projects directly relate to Sandhill dunnarts, however they may benefit and inform management of cats within the Sandhill dunnart’s range. Control of feral cats and foxes is desirable but will need to consider predator-prey interactions. For example, cat predation on Dasyurids is known to increase when consumption of rabbits is decreased (Doherty et al. 2015).\n\nFurthermore, in a study of feral cats in northern Australian savanna, McGregor et. al. (2015) found the hunting success of the cats (per attempt; n = 13) was only 17% in habitats with dense grass or complex rocks, compared to 70% in open areas (n = 101). This suggests that dense and complex microhabitats are likely to decrease cat predation rates.\n\nPredation by feral cats is a key threatening process listed under the EPBC Act. The threat abatement plan for predation by feral cats provides useful information on managing feral cats in a variety of landscapes and habitats (DCCEEW 2024).\n\nPredation by the European red fox (Vulpes vulpes) is a key threatening process listed under the EPBC Act. The threat abatement plan for predation by European red fox provides useful information on managing fox in a variety of landscapes and habitats (DEWHA 2008).\n\n### 2.5.4 Introduced flora (including buffel grass)\n\nAll populations\n\nThere are comparatively few serious weeds that are invading spinifex grasslands, except for buffel grass (Cenchrus ciliaris). Buffel grass is considered one of Australia’s worst environmental weeds (Humphries et al. 1991). It is a perennial tussock grass native to Africa, India and Asia and was introduced into Australia for pasture and dust control. It has spread widely across northern and central Australia (Marshall et al. 2012) including known and potential habitat of the Sandhill dunnart in WA, SA and NT (Lawson et al. 2004).\n\nBuffel grass can increase the intensity and frequency of fire events, threatening plant and animal communities that are not adapted to these modified fire regimes (Adair and Groves 1998). Buffel grass dries quickly and produces a more combustible and contiguous flammable fuel than native grasses, resulting in hotter and more intense fires (Humphries et al. 1993). It regenerates rapidly after fire suppressing the regeneration of native species (Paltridge et al. 2009) and forms dense monocultures, reducing diversity (Clarke et al. 2005) and productivity of some vegetation types (Humphries et al. 1993).\n\nBuffel grass is considered a major threat to Sandhill dunnarts due to the way that its dominance across landscapes leads to changes in availability of bare ground and the intensity and frequency of fires, resulting in the loss of nesting spinifex hummocks and potential changes to food availability (Sandhill dunnart Workshop 2014). Mitigation of this threat includes preventing the spread of buffel grass and controlling buffel grass where it establishes near known subpopulations of Sandhill dunnarts, including along incursion pathways (such as, access tracks and roads, and along adjacent watercourses). A SA Buffel Grass Strategic Plan (Biosecurity SA 2012) provides options for controlling the spread of buffel grass during the early stages of invasion; however, there is currently no feasible control method available once it is well established over an extensive area.\n\nNovel biota and their impact on biodiversity is a key threatening process listed under the EPBC Act. Advice on this key threatening process includes more information on the management of invasive flora, including buffel grass (TSSC 2013).\n\nAt the time this plan came into effect a specific threat abatement plan for buffel grass is in development by DCCEEW and will be published on the DCCEEW website when finalised.\n\n### 2.5.5 Introduced herbivores\n\nAll populations\n\nIntroduced herbivores (cattle, goats, sheep, rabbits and camels) may have an impact on the survival of Sandhill dunnarts indirectly in a variety of ways, including:\n\n- altering the structure of spinifex hummocks;\n- changing the fire regime by removing biomass;\n- reducing floristic diversity of habitats over time;\n- causing soil compaction and disturbance;\n- sustaining higher numbers of introduced predators (for example, rabbits and house mice provide an increased food source for foxes and feral cats \\[Holden and Mutze 2002\\], which may then switch to preying on native species when rabbit or mouse numbers decline during droughts or when rabbit numbers crash due to Rabbit Haemorrhagic Disease or myxomatosis outbreaks); and\n- encouraging the spread of introduced predators such as foxes and feral cats into areas that usually have only very low densities (Read and Bowen 2001, Moseby and Hill 2011).\n\nIntroduced herbivores are unlikely to have more than localised impacts on the habitats occupied by Sandhill dunnarts. The southern GVD is not suitable for introduced stock due to a lack of water sources and the low nutritional value of spinifex. On Eyre Peninsula, some sites in the Middleback dune fields are grazed by sheep, goats and rabbits; however, most of these animals appear to avoid the spinifex-dominated habitats in favour of other habitat types with more nutritious plants.\n\n### 2.5.6 Climate change\n\nAll populations\n\nPredicted anthropogenic climate change is likely to influence the distribution, habitat suitability and recovery prospects of Sandhill dunnart. Over the past century, Australia’s annual mean temperature has increased more than 1°C, while the south-west of the continent has experienced a decline in annual rainfall of up to 20% (Riley et al. 2021b).\n\nSemi-arid desert specialists such as the Sandhill dunnart are often dependent on winter rainfall and are susceptible to rainfall deficits, wildfires and extreme temperatures caused by anthropogenic climate change (Riley 2020). Future distributions of the Sandhill dunnart, considering the effects of climate change, current fire, and habitat fragmentation, have been modelled by Riley (2020) and Riley, et al. (2021b). Suitable habitat for Sandhill dunnart is predicted to contract significantly towards the more mesic southern parts of its range. As a sandy desert specialist, the distribution of the species is also geographically limited at its southern bounds due to the cessation of suitable habitats. Consequently, further extension of the range southwards is unlikely without assisted migration (Riley et al. 2021b).\n\nRiley et al. (2021b) note that the WA GVD and YRR populations are at a higher climatic risk, with the Eyre Peninsula population also predicted to contract in range as a result of climate change.\n\nThe decline in Sandhill dunnart populations appears to be occurring from north to south, tracking the effects of climate change (Riley 2020, Riley et al. 2021b). Unlike other arid zone mammal species where decline and extinction has occurred from south to north following the displacement of First Nations peoples (who were managing the land to prevent fire), the Sandhill dunnart’s contraction aligns with increasing aridity and warming (Riley et al. 2021b). The species reliance on dense, semi-arid habitats makes it highly sensitive to climate driven habitat shifts, as increasing temperature and limited rainfall are likely to degrade the refugial environments on which it depends (Riley et al. 2021b).\n\nRiley (2020) and J. Turpin (pers. comm.) have observed that extreme heat events have caused mass vegetation die-offs in the WA GVD (Figure 4). Rapidly increasing global temperatures, irregular rainfall patterns and more frequent wildfires and droughts are particularly dangerous in the Australian arid zone and threaten Sandhill dunnart habitat. Water is already scarce, vegetation is highly flammable, and the flat arid landscape offers little elevation for species to escape rising temperatures (Pittock 2009, Lindenmayer et al. 2010).\n\nNorthern and western habitats are predicted to become increasingly unsuitable for Sandhill dunnart and sympatric desert species over the next 50 years. Regions of the southern central WA (outside of the arid zone) were indicated as climatic refuges by the modelling. Translocations to constructed artificial fenced reserves with transplanted soils, seeds and vegetation from natural arid zone habitats may be required. However further research into their feasibility and value for sandhill dunnarts will be required before this may be considered an option to mitigate the projected loss of distribution due to climate change (Riley 2020).\n\n![Photographs showing habitat destruction and degradation from fire, droughts and hot winds in the Great Victoria Desert. ](image.009.png)\n\nFigure 4: GVD habitat destruction\n\n> Note: Large wildfires (left), droughts and hot winds (right) destroyed sensitive Western Australian Great Victoria Desert (WA GVD) habitat in 2019. Extract from Riley 2020.\n\nFurther, recent observations of Triodia die-off in Sandhill dunnart habitat in the WA GVD, and the APY Lands of far northern SA (including Wamitjara and Kenmore Park mail road), may be linked to climate change, although this is unclear. If climate change is the cause, then Sandhill dunnart habitat (and other semi-arid species), may be nearing a tipping point. Active investigation of the causes underlying this die-off is warranted.\n\n### 2.5.7 Native herbivores\n\nAll populations\n\nNative herbivores such as kangaroos are also a potential issue in the Middleback dune fields. Euros (Osphranter robustus) graze regenerating Triodia, sometimes preventing recruitment after fire and Western Grey Kangaroos (Macropus fuliginosus) in high density lay on Triodia hummocks, squashing them and presumably limit their value for dunnarts (J. Read pers. comm.). This is not an issue in other areas such as Yellabinna where dingoes control the usually low kangaroo numbers.\n\nEuros, Western Grey Kangaroo and Red Kangaroo (O. rufus) represent a significant threat to Triodia structure and abundance where there are permanent water sources nearby (R. Brandle pers. comm.). Native herbivores may also be partially responsible for the impacts summarised in Section: 2.5.5 Introduced herbivores in areas where Dingoes (Canis lupus dingo) are persecuted (inside the dog fence in SA). Waterpoint management and control of numbers in fenced areas are key to managing these impacts.\n\nTable 2: Risk matrix for the Sandhill dunnart\n\n| Consequence (x) // Likelihood (y) | Not significant | Minor | Moderate | Major | Catastrophic |\n| --------------------------------- | --------------- | ------------------------------ | -------------------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------------ |\n| Almost certain | | | | Very-high riskInappropriate fire regimesHabitat loss and fragmentation | |\n| Likely | | Moderate riskNative herbivores | High riskIntroduced herbivoresClimate change | Very-high riskPredation by cats and foxesIntroduced flora | |\n| Possible | | | | | |\n| Unlikely | | | | | |\n| Unknown | | | | | |\n\nRisk matrix key:\n\n| Low risk | Moderate risk | High risk | Very-high risk |\n| -------- | ------------- | --------- | -------------- |\n\nDefinition of likelihood and consequence categories\n\nConsequence is a measure of the severity of the impact of the threat on the survival of the species.\n\n- Catastrophic – affecting survival, reproduction or essential movement of individuals in >80% of the population or across >80% of the distribution within the next 3 generations or 10 years, whichever is longer.\n- Major – affecting survival, reproduction or essential movement of individuals in 50-80 % of the population or across 50-80% of the distribution within the next 3 generations or 10 years, whichever is longer.\n- Moderate – affecting survival, reproduction or essential movement of individuals in 20-50% of the population or across 20-50% of the distribution within the next 3 generations or 10 years, whichever is longer.\n- Minor – affecting survival, reproduction or essential movement of individuals in 5-30% of the population or across 5-30% of the distribution within the next 3 generations or 10 years, whichever is longer.\n- Not significant – affecting survival, reproduction or essential movement of individuals in <5% of the population or across <5% of the distribution within the next 3 generations or 10 years, whichever is longer.\n\nLikelihood is a measure of how regularly the threat impacts the species.\n\n- Almost certain – >90% chance that threat will have an impact on the species within the next 3 generations or 10 years, whichever is longer.\n- Likely – 66-90% chance that threat will have an impact on the species within the next 3 generations or 10 years, whichever is longer.\n- Possible – 33-66% chance that threat will have an impact on the species within the next 3 generations or 10 years, whichever is longer.\n- Unlikely – <33% chance that threat will have an impact on the species within the next 3 generations or 10 years, whichever is longer.\n- Unknown – probability that threat will have an impact on the species within the next 3 generations or 10 years, whichever is longer, could be 0-100%.\n\n \n\n# 3 Recovery planning\n\n## 3.1 Vision\n\nSandhill dunnart populations are healthy and stable and have expanded across their potential range. The quality and connectedness of habitat is being improved by regional communities and land managers who have adopted management practices to support the long-term sustainability of the species so that it becomes eligible for removal from the EPBC Act List of Threatened Species.\n\n## 3.2 Objectives\n\nThe Objectives in place to enact the Vision for the Sandhill dunnart are as follows:\n\n1. Threats to Sandhill dunnart are appropriately managed reducing their impact to Sandhill dunnart sub-populations and habitat;\n2. Sandhill dunnart habitat is rehabilitated, connected and protected;\n3. Collective understanding of Sandhill dunnart populations, habitat, ecology and threats has improved; and\n4. Conservation of Sandhill dunnart and their habitat is led and championed by Traditional Custodians, community, experts and governments.","sortOrder":40},{"sectionNumber":"3.1","sectionType":"part","heading":"Vision","content":"## 3.1 Vision\n\nSandhill dunnart populations are healthy and stable and have expanded across their potential range. The quality and connectedness of habitat is being improved by regional communities and land managers who have adopted management practices to support the long-term sustainability of the species so that it becomes eligible for removal from the EPBC Act List of Threatened Species.","sortOrder":41},{"sectionNumber":"3.2","sectionType":"part","heading":"Objectives","content":"## 3.2 Objectives\n\nThe Objectives in place to enact the Vision for the Sandhill dunnart are as follows:\n\n1. Threats to Sandhill dunnart are appropriately managed reducing their impact to Sandhill dunnart sub-populations and habitat;\n2. Sandhill dunnart habitat is rehabilitated, connected and protected;\n3. Collective understanding of Sandhill dunnart populations, habitat, ecology and threats has improved; and\n4. Conservation of Sandhill dunnart and their habitat is led and championed by Traditional Custodians, community, experts and governments.","sortOrder":42},{"sectionNumber":"3.3","sectionType":"part","heading":"Recovery actions to meet the objectives","content":"## 3.3 Recovery actions to meet the objectives\n\nTable 3: Summary of recovery objectives, recovery actions, performance criteria, potential partners and priority ratings\n\n| Objectives | Actions | Performance Criteria | Potential partners | Priority |\n| ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------- | --------- |\n| 1. Threats to Sandhill dunnart are appropriately managed, reducing their impact to Sandhill dunnart sub-populations and habitat | 1.1 Prepare and implement adaptive ‘Habitat Management Plans’ for all sub-populations, addressing the major threats acting at each location | Habitat management plans are prepared in collaboration with Traditional Custodians and land managers and implementation commenced for all sub-populations within 3 years. These plans include:actions informed by adaptive management that address the threat of invasive herbivores and consider information and strategies to help determine the level of control or reduction needed at key sites to reduce vegetation impacts, andlinks to relevant Healthy Country plans.During preparation of habitat management plans, publications and reports of McLean, Turpin, Riley, Churchill, Lambert, Gaikhorst, Moseby, Read and other experts are consulted and referenced.A ‘Research and Adaptive Management Plan’ is developed for the WA GVD sub-population and included in habitat management plans.In preparing each plan the best available contemporary science and Traditional Ecological Knowledge are used (with the permission of Traditional Owners). Plans are reviewed on a five yearly basis, or less where required. | DEW, DBCA, NSDRT, Traditional Custodians, GVDBT, DCCEEW | Very High |\n| | 1.2 Implement spatially explicit fire management to ensure maintenance of sufficient suitable Sandhill dunnart habitat through time | A fire and habitat management plan is developed in conjunction with Traditional Custodians and land managers. It aligns with the Habitat management plan referred to in action 1.1 and includes:defensive strategies to prevent large wildfires in key sites developed and implemented, including preventative and mosaic burns includes measures to mitigate the risk of buffel grass spread, andtargets defined for minimum suitable habitat area to be retained developed and met.This fire and habitat management plan is developed in significant collaboration with Traditional Custodians to determine correct timing, location, and scale of preventative burns, and includes measures to mitigate the risk of buffel grass spread.Other fire management related priorities include:installation of physical firebreaks if needed, excluding areas where Sandhill dunnart is found in Great Victoria Desert in Western Australia,strategic burns of senescent habitat before it is no longer suitable for Sandhill dunnart are conducted, andmethods included to minimise exposure to predation (such as specific timing, predator control post-fire, tactical Felixer deployment adjacent to areas of predator migration).Other related priorities include:fire age preferences assessed for SA GVD individuals using tracking,accurate fire mapping for Sandhill dunnart habitat (for example, North Australia & Rangelands Fire Information) is available across the full range, andsatellite imagery, species distribution maps (SDMs) and geographic information systems (GIS) are used to map all climatically and geographically suitable Sandhill dunnart habitat that is also long unburned. This mapping process is reviewed annually to account for summer wildfires accurately.A fire-response strategy is developed which outlines methodology for post-fire monitoring, predator control and habitat restoration (including the potential for artificial shelter sites). This strategy includes guidance to enable post-fire translocations of sandhill dunnart where the affected population is extirpated and all connecting habitat is burnt. This guidance could include methodology for identifying source populations for translocations, as well as decision triggers and pre-approved processes to improve response times. | DEW, DBCA, NSDRT, Traditional Custodians, GVDBT, DCCEEW, DFES | Very High |\n| | 1.3 Establish fox and cat control at key sites through existing and targeted programs | Appropriate fox and cat control measures are established in consultation and agreement with Traditional Custodians managing sites where Sandhill dunnart occurs. These measures:include consideration that Sandhill dunnart is within the top five non‐volant, terrestrial, native mammal species with the greatest relative likelihood of being killed by feral cats (Woolley et al. 2019, Riley 2020),note that the nocturnal foraging behaviour of Sandhill dunnart suggests some natural resilience to predation risk (for example, continuous foraging during moonlit periods), andconsider the impacts on dingos and other predator-prey relationships.Predator exclusion fencing trialled in some areas.Noting that this is currently underway at Secret Rocks on the Eyre Peninsula.Options are assessed for ‘safe haven’ sites within 3 years of the recovery plan coming into effect. Planning for at least one additional site is initiated within 5 years of the recovery plan coming into effect.Cat and fox control is implemented alongside controlled burns in occupied areas to minimize post-fire impacts. Additionally, cat and fox control is conducted whenever there is infrastructure in these occupied sites to mitigate predator effects.Best practice management guidance for cat and fox control is referred to when developing control programs (DCCEEW 2024). Where possible and appropriate, humane and non-lethal options are considered along with an assessment on the impact on animal welfare (DCCEEW 2024). | DEW, DBCA, NSDRT, Traditional Custodians, GVDBT, DCCEEW | Very High |\n| | 1.4 Implement buffel grass biosecurity protocols to prevent spread into Sandhill dunnart habitat | Buffel grass is controlled near known sites, on access tracks and roads, and along adjacent watercourses in collaboration with the Buffel Grass Taskforce – Department of Primary Industries and Regions, South Australia (PIRSA) Biosecurity.Areas of Triodia die-off are identified, and preventative management to avoid incursion is conducted.Best practice buffel grass management combined with Traditional Ecological Knowledge used (in codesign with Traditional Owners) to inform adaptive buffel grass management in each regional context. Buffel grass management is reviewed every 5 years, or less where required. | DEW, DBCA, NSDRT, Traditional Custodians, GVDBT, DCCEEW | Very High |\n| | 1.5 Prepare and implement an adaptive ‘Habitat Management Plan’ addressing the threat of climate change | All populations monitored to compare how the distributional contractions predicted by the SDMs track against real range contractions (Riley 2020, Riley et al. 2021b).Monitoring is conducted in coordination with conservation organisations, Climate Council and academic institutions and with Traditional Custodians managing Country on which Sandhill dunnart occurs.Predictive models are updated with new records or environmental data to assess the impacts of future climate change on Sandhill dunnart (Riley et al. 2021b).Options for legally protecting long unburned climatically and geographically suitable climate refuge areas explored for use as nature reserves or conservation areas.Connectivity between populations is ensured and maintained and movement is facilitated in response to climate change, especially between YRR and Eyre Peninsula.Feasibility study of adaptive movement experiments initiated including modelling of areas that are potentially suitable within the projected area of climatic suitability under future climate scenarios, as well as investigating the feasibility of establishing suitable habitat in areas predicted to be more climatically appropriate.Feasibility study initiated within 5 years, with trial planning initiated within 10 years based on the outcome of the feasibility study.Required federal and state lawful authorisations and approvals are obtained to undertake a translocation. | DEW, DBCA, DENR, RT, Traditional Custodians, GVDBT, DCCEEW | Very High |\n| | 1.6 Study known observations of Triodia die off | Satellite imagery and other technologies are utilised using best practice and protocols to identify the timing and possible causes of Triodia die off in the WA GVD and the APY Lands of far northern SA (including Wamitjara, Kenmore Park and mail road).Experimental trials conducted to determine whether climatic conditions may have caused die off. | DEW, DBCA, NSDRT, Traditional Owners, GVDBT, Researchers | High |\n| 2. Sandhill dunnart habitat is rehabilitated, connected and protected | 2.1 Limit habitat loss and fragmentation | Impacts to high-value refuge habitat are avoided within 500 m of dune crests at sites where Sandhill dunnart is known to occur in the GVD.Noting that the implementation of buffer zones has effectively safeguarded these critical refuges, demonstrated by the fact that 82% of all shelters identified by Riley et al. (2021a) were located within this distance from dune crests.Structural integrity of dunes in known habitat is ensured and maintained.Vegetation structure at known sites is also ensured and maintained.Actions that reduce connectivity within localities are minimised or avoided.Impacts to known populations are avoided.Impacts to habitat connectivity are avoided.Impacts on Sandhill dunnart habitat through clearance at known population sites, especially in Eyre Peninsula are minimised. Land managers, Traditional Custodians and proponents should be engaged to ensure degradation of known and potential Sandhill dunnart habitat is minimised.Opportunities for maintaining or increasing habitat corridors between Eyre Peninsula populations are investigated within 5 years of the recovery plan commencing (for example, through SEB funding).Artificial lower stratum structures deployed in key habitats (Webb and Shine 2000, Bleicher and Dickman 2020)Habitats that support a large volume and diversity of vegetation and invertebrate biomass and are important for the species’ conservation are protected, restored and maintained (Riley 2020).Individuals from SA sub populations are tracked using GPS (Global positioning systems) data loggers and habitat preference analyses (Riley et al. 2021a, Riley et al. 2022) are performed to determine if there are site specific differences. | DEW, DBCA, NSDRT, Traditional Owners, GVDBT, DCCEEW | Very High |\n| 3. Collective understanding of Sandhill dunnart populations, habitat, ecology and threats has improved | 3.1 Conduct surveys to locate new populations in likely habitat between sub-populations and understand trends | Standardised survey methods are developed in conjunction with Traditional Custodians (GHD 2020; Section 4.1: Survey design) and are distributed to management staff, consultants, ranger groups and the recovery team within the first year of implementing this recovery plan.Noting that survey guidelines in WA have already been developed (GHD 2020), and any update should be applicable to the species across its distribution.At least three new surveys in likely Sandhill dunnart habitat are completed within 5 years of this recovery plan being implemented.New records are provided to the RT and relevant State and Territory authorities as required.Where supported by Traditional Custodians, genetic samples taken and analysed to determine how new populations are related to known populations and whether there is movement between populations.Where supported by Traditional Custodians, tissue samples or other genomic resources (such as live cells) from across the breadth of genetic diversity of the species is biobanked in a repository such as the South Australian Museum for conservation research. | DEW, DBCA, RT, Traditional Owners, GVDBT | High |\n| | 3.2 Conduct monitoring of sub-populations and their habitats to determine persistence, habitat preferences, and the impacts of predators and fire | Standardised monitoring guidelines are developed for all sub-populations (SA and WA) in conjunction with Traditional Custodians and for known habitat within 1 year of this recovery plan coming into effect. The guidelines are distributed to management staff, consultants and ranger groups (Section 4.1: Survey design).Monitoring is conducted annually at known sites to determine their population dynamics. Detailed data is collected on habitat variables and the relative incidence of predators.Monitoring data is analysed and reported to the RT and relevant state agencies every two years after the recovery plan comes into effect.Tracking studies in SA GVD are performed to determine if habitat preferences differ to WA GVD.A more detailed investigation into the home range sizes in SA has been conducted.Sensitive or isolated populations (for example, the northern outlying population in the WA GVD) are monitored to detect distribution shifts or local extinctions (Riley 2020).Further investigation of the impacts of predation on subpopulations (including interactions between predators, predator-prey interactions and the effectiveness of predator control) inform an improved understanding of the method, scale and intensity of predator control which is required to support recovery. | DEW, DBCA AWLB, RT, Traditional Owners, GVDBT | High |\n| | 3.3 Update understanding of fine-scale habitat preferences of Sandhill dunnarts at each site, to guide management | Characteristics of the preferred Sandhill dunnart habitat are identified, and the preferred habitat is mapped.Habitat critical for survival is well understood and its definition is refined by updating fine-scale habitat preferences for all sub-populations with radio tracking or GPS data loggers, with the objective of determining burrow sites, thermal preferences, and fine scale habitat use across the species range.Managers have a better understanding of site-specific species preferences to guide the development of additional guidance regarding key habitat attributes critical to the survival of the Sandhill dunnart. | DEW, DBCA, GVDBT, Researchers, DCCEEW, NIAA | Moderate |\n| | 3.4 Support inclusion of communities and Traditional Custodians in Sandhill dunnart survey, monitoring and research activities | Traditional Owners and the community play an active role in survey, monitoring, and research activities, whether by leading these efforts or assisting with them. There is an emphasis on two-way science, where knowledge sharing is not only supported but also encouraged and respected. | Traditional Owners, DEW, DBCA, GVDBT, Researchers, IPA’s, GVD, NIAA | Moderate |\n| | 3.5 Develop, publish and update (as necessary) survey information and guidance to support detection surveys | Other methods of detection are explored including detection dogs, nocturnal infrared cameras and environmental DNA analysis.Findings are published and effectively integrated into survey guidelines for Sandhill dunnart. | Traditional Owners, DEW, DBCA, GVDBT, Researchers | Moderate |\n| 4. Conservation of Sandhill dunnart and their habitat is led and championed by Traditional Custodians, community, experts and governments | 4.1 Support engagement of communities and Traditional Custodians in implementing Sandhill dunnart recovery | Traditional Custodians are empowered to implement recovery actions including fire management, feral animal control and buffel grass management/containment through adopting an adaptive management approach based on partnerships around co-design, co-implementation, social learning and cost-effective and risk-based collective decision making.Ranger programs are implementing recovery actions in the GVD. | DEW, DBCA, NSDRT, Traditional Custodians, GVDBT | High |\n| | 4.2 Investigate if the establishment of a recovery team is required to guide the recovery program for Sandhill dunnart | If required, key partners establish a National Sandhill dunnart Recovery Team (NSDRT) with opportunities provided to involve Traditional Custodians who are working on managing lands where this species occurs.Actions updated adaptively by the Recovery Team to regularly review and report against progress towards the current criteria and actions, to inform adaptive management and recovery. | DEW, DBCA, NSDRT, Traditional Custodians, GVDBT | Moderate |\n| | 4.3 Develop interpretative material on the Sandhill dunnart for public dissemination | Interpretative material developed and disseminated with interested and affected parties within 3 years of the recovery plan commencing.Actions and information to protect Sandhill dunnarts are incorporated in relevant management and land use plans at the local, regional and state scale within 5 years of the recovery plan coming into effect.Materials developed are easily accessible to the public and designed to raise awareness of the Sandhill dunnart and its ecological role.Additional potential implementation partners are identified and encouraged to be involved in implement of this recovery plan.Details on how to participate in Sandhill dunnart recovery efforts are provided as necessary. | DEW, DBCA, NSDRT | Moderate |","sortOrder":43},{"sectionNumber":"4","sectionType":"part","heading":"Management advice","content":"# 4 Management advice\n\n## 4.1 Survey design\n\nEarly Sandhill dunnart specimens were collected in a variety of ways; one specimen was hit with a thrown boot (Spencer 1896); another was caught under a hat, and several were caught by hand as they fled from smouldering spinifex (Aitken 1971). Since then, pitfall traps and Elliott traps have most often been used for capturing Sandhill dunnarts, although baited motion sensing camera traps are now also proving a much more useful survey tool (Riley et al. 2021b).\n\nPitfall trap rates are low, and the species has been known to escape pitfall traps (Read et al. 2015). Recent survey work found that Sandhill dunnarts are more readily captured in wide, deep pitfall traps (600–700 mm deep) (Read et al. 2015; Riley and Turpin pers comms). Elliot traps are not recommended due to low capture rates (Read et al 2015). Biological surveys conducted within the range of the Sandhill dunnart in SA, up until about 2000, consistently used shallower pitfall traps (455 mm deep) (DEH 2000), which may explain low numbers of Sandhill dunnarts captured during those surveys. Most sites sampled on the Eyre Peninsula by the Biological Survey were done after 2000 and included larger deeper pits targeting deeper sand country with Triodia, specifically to include Sandhill dunnart in the sampling (Brandle 2010). However no new populations were detected during that survey (Brandle 2010). Sandhill dunnarts were trapped on what is now Iron Stone Hill Conservation Park in 2009 using these larger pits. More recent surveys using baited camera traps 2020 to 2022 have proved useful.\n\nSpecific survey guidelines have been developed for the GVDBT by WA Parks and Wildlife Department in 2016 and revised by GHD in 2020 (GHD 2020). From these guidelines it appears likely that a minimum depth is important, but diameter also appears to be highly significant for a multitude of species in recent studies, and it seems likely this also applies to Sandhill dunnarts.\n\nTraditional trapping has low power regardless of method. The Great Victoria Desert Targeted Sandhill Dunnart and Malleefowl Survey 2018 (PDF: 3.8MB) (Greening Australia 2019) highlighted that trap success for the Sandhill dunnart was low, accounting for 0.5 % of all captures (3 out of 565 individuals) at only two survey sites, while its presence was detected by camera at four sites (10/64 cameras), revealing the relative effectiveness of the survey techniques employed. One camera installed at a pitfall trap location detected individuals moving along pitfall fence lines, indicating that the fence line height (30 cm) was adequate to influence the species’ movements. GHD (2020) have prepared updated Sandhill dunnart survey guidelines to include information on how to use camera traps in such surveys.\n\nSearches for small mammal tracks as an indicator of the presence of Sandhill dunnarts relies heavily on personal skills and experience, as the quadruped gait of Sandhill dunnarts is similar to other dunnarts and hopping mice. Moseby et al. (2009) provide guidelines for undertaking mammal track searches in the Australian arid zone, which include two-hectare searches and recording the co-occurrence of all species. Suspected tracks should be confirmed with adequate camera or pitfall trapping.\n\nIn the past 20 years, several mammal surveys have been conducted in specific areas of central Australia. However, few of these surveys have focused on Sandhill dunnarts, and many areas that appear to be suitable habitat for this species have yet to be examined. To improve management efforts, further surveys are needed to locate new populations and monitor existing ones, utilizing the best available techniques.\n\nThe lack of Sandhill dunnart captures over large areas of their potential range is likely due to:\n\n- Lack of survey efforts and/or surveys conducted in unsuitable habitats;\n- Surveys carried out using inappropriate-sized pitfalls (less than 500 mm deep);\n- Surveys conducted during poor seasons. McLean (2015) found significantly lower capture rates during a lower rainfall year compared to a higher rainfall year, possibly due to a reduction in food resources, decreased survival rate, and decreased reproduction;\n- Surveys conducted at inappropriate times of year, although these specific periods have not been defined. Churchill (2001a) found Sandhill dunnarts to be most easily trapped in March and September; however, Read and Moseby (2009) caught dispersing juveniles in the Middleback dunefields in summer;\n- Surveys conducted during nights of high moon illumination. Read et al. (2015) suggest that trapping rates are greatest when moon illumination is <40%, although research in WA found no influence of moonlight (Riley, unpublished data).\n\nCamera trapping is considered the most effective method of surveying Sandhill dunnart populations. Any surveys that do not include a camera trapping component should be considered insufficient. Pitfall traps should be at least 500–700 mm deep (Churchill 2001b; McLean 2015; Read et al. 2015; Chapman 2016) and recent work recommends a minimum of 650 mm deep (Turpin and Lloyd 2014, Turpin and Riley 2017, Riley 2020). Other recommendations include trapping at multiple sites using six deep pitfall traps, for at least four nights at new moon and in each fire-age or land-use class (Read et al. 2015), although Riley 2020 (unpublished data) found no difference in trapping rates relating to moon phase. Riley (2020) found camera traps to be effective for detecting Sandhill dunnarts, and GHD (2020) recommend the use of camera traps (see GHD 2020).\n\nEven targeted surveys that meet the above criteria indicate that non-detection is not evidence of absence. It is possible that some suitable habitat is used only transiently, so non-detection does not mean the area is not important for the species. Superior methods for determining presence and to undertake monitoring would be valuable, and mixed methods should be employed to maximise the likelihood of detection. Riley et al (2020) recommend the use of additional survey methods in combination with motion camera traps, including conservation detection dogs, nocturnal infrared cameras and environmental DNA analysis to improve detection (Claridge et al. 2005, Long et al. 2007, Taberlet et al. 2012; Riley 2020). An action is included in Section 3.4: Recovery actions to meet the objectives to explore new methods of surveying and monitoring Sandhill dunnart.\n\n## 4.2 Management practices\n\nThe broader management practices, policies, and investments which are important for the maintenance of Sandhill dunnart habitat and populations include:\n\n- implementation of park management plans;\n- fire management which considers the needs of Sandhill dunnarts;\n- fire management which ensures that burning is within the tolerable fire intervals for the habitat needed to maintain habitat across the range of Sandhill dunnarts;\n- control of cats and foxes and other pest management strategies to achieve sustainable and long term benefits;\n- adaptive management and surveillance of buffel grass including Biosecurity protocols for preventing spread;\n- control of excessive grazing by herbivores to achieve sustained long term benefits;\n- maintenance of connected habitat;\n robust conservation management plans that require reporting and regularly review, including clear decision triggers for action if objectives are not met; and\n expert review of proposed activities to ensure the species is not adversely impacted.\n\nManagement practices to be avoided, which are likely to degrade Sandhill dunnart habitat or have harmful effects on Sandhill Dunnart populations, include:\n\n- clearing or altering areas where important sub-populations are found, especially on Eyre Peninsula;\n - Species and ecological communities that are listed as threatened under the EPBC Act are protected as a matter of national environmental significance. This means that any action that has, will have, or is likely to have a significant impact on a listed threatened species or ecological community must be referred to the Australian Government Minister for the Environment and Water and undergo an environmental assessment and approval process.\n- overgrazing of known habitat;\n- any development or industry activities that affect known habitat or populations;\n- structural impacts to dune systems with habitat capable of supporting Sandhill dunnart;\n- other disturbances (for example, frequent burning or burning undertaken during the breeding season).\n\n \n\n# References\n\nAdair, RJ and Groves, RH 1998, Impact of Environmental Weeds on Biodiversity: a Review and Development of a Methodology, Environment Australia, Canberra.\n\nAitken, PF 1971, ‘Rediscovery of the Large Desert Sminthopsis (Sminthopsis psammophila Spencer) on Eyre Peninsula, South Australia’, Victorian Naturalist, vol. 88, pp. 103-111.\n\nArcher, M 1981, ‘Systematic Revision of the Marsupial Dasyurid Genus Sminthopsis Thomas’, Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History, vol. 168, pp 61-224.\n\nArmstrong, G 2015, ‘Alinytijara Wilurara NRM Fire Management Strategy Review’, unpublished internal report, Department of Environment, Water, and Natural Resources, South Australia.\n\nAtlas of Living Australia (2025), Sminthopsis psammophila : Sandhill Dunnart. Accessed 13 October 2025.\n\nAustralian Bureau of Meteorology 2025, Bureau of Meteorology Forecast, Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water, accessed 13 October 2025.\n\nAustralian Government 2011, Survey guidelines for Australia’s threatened mammals. Guidelines for detecting mammals listed as threatened under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, Canberra.\n\nAustralian Government 2015, Threatened Species Strategy – tackling feral cats, Department of the Environment, Canberra.\n\nAustralian Government 2022, Threatened Species Action Plan 2022-2032, Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water, Canberra.\n\nBaynes, A 1987, ‘The original mammal fauna of the Nullarbor and southern peripheral regions’, McKenzie, NL and Robinson, AC (Eds.), A Biological Survey of the Nullarbor region, South and Western Australia, pp. 139-152, Government Printer, Adelaide.\n\nBeard, JS 1974, ‘Great Victoria Desert: the vegetation of the Great Victoria Desert area’, 1:1,000,000 vegetation series, Explanatory Notes to sheet 3, University of Western Australia Press, Nedlands, WA.\n\nBell, K (2022) Fauna survey of the Gawler Ranges (2022) Searching for the sandhill dunnart in Gawler Ranges National Park and Conservation Park. Report for SA Arid Lands Landscape Board.\n\nBrandle, Robert and Department for Environment and Heritage. 2010. A biological survey of the Eyre Peninsula, South Australia / \\[edited by\\] R Brandle. Science Resource Centre, Information, Science and Technology Directorate, Dept. for Environment and Heritage, South Australia, Adelaide.\n\nBiosecurity SA 2012, South Australia Buffel Grass Strategic Plan 2012-2017, Government of South Australia, Adelaide.\n\nBoulton, J and Foulkes, J 2000, ‘Predator scat analysis for the Sandhill Dunnart Project’, Report to the Wildlife Conservation Fund, Department for Environment and Heritage, Adelaide.\n\nBurbidge, AA and McKenzie, NL 1989, ‘Patterns in the modern decline of Western Australia’s vertebrate fauna: causes and conservation implications’, Biological Conservation, vol. 50, pp. 143-198.\n\nBurbidge, AA, McKenzie, NL, Brennan, KEC, Woinarski, JCZ, Dickman, CR, Baynes, A, Gordon, G, Menkhorst, PW and Robinson, AC 2009, ‘Conservation status and biogeography of Australia's terrestrial mammals’, Australian Journal of Zoology, vol. 56, pp. 411–422.\n\nBurrows, ND, Burbidge, AA, Fuller, PJ and Behn, G 2006, ‘Evidence of altered fire regimes in the Western Desert region of Australia’, Conservation Science Western Australia, vol. 5(3), pp. 272–284.\n\nCatling, PC 1988, ‘Similarities and contrasts in the diets of foxes, Vulpes vulpes, and cats, Felis catus, relative to fluctuating prey populations and drought’, Australian Wildlife Restoration, vol. 15, pp. 307–317.\n\nChapman (2016) Survey and monitoring guidelines for the Sandhill Dunnart (Sminthopsis psammophila) in Western Australia. Department of Parks and Wildlife for the Great Victoria Desert Biodiversity Trust, Kensington WA.\n\nChapman (2016) Defining a baseline survey design for the Sandhill Dunnart (Sminthopsis psammophila) in the Great Victoria Desert of Western Australia. Department of Parks and Wildlife for the Great Victoria Desert Biodiversity Trust, Kensington WA.\n\nChurchill, S 2001a, Recovery Plan for the Sandhill Dunnart (Sminthopsis psammophila), Department for Environment and Heritage, Adelaide.\n\nChurchill, S 2001b, Survey and ecological study of the Sandhill Dunnart, Sminthopsis psammophila at Eyre Peninsula and the Great Victoria Desert, Department for Environment and Heritage, Adelaide.\n\nChurchill, S, 2010, Fauna Trapping Survey – Middleback Range, Unpublished survey data.\n\nClarke, MF, Avitabile, SC, Brown, L, Callister, KE, Haslem, A, Holland, GJ, Kelly, LT, Kenny, SA, Nimmo, DG, Spence-Bailey, LM, Taylor, RS, Watson, SJ and Bennett, AF 2010, ‘Ageing mallee eucalypt vegetation after fire: insights for successional trajectories in semi–arid mallee ecosystems’, Australian Journal of Botany, vol. 58, pp. 363–372.\n\nClarke, PJ, Latz, PK and Albrecht, DE 2005, ‘Long-term changes in semi-arid vegetation: Invasion of an exotic perennial grass has larger effects than rainfall variability’, Journal of Vegetation Science, vol. 16, pp. 237–248.\n\nCopley, P 1999, ‘Natural histories of Australia’s stick-nets rats, genus Leporillus (Rodentia: Muridae)’, Wildlife Research, vol. 26, pp. 513–539.\n\nCopley, PB and Kemper, CM (Eds.) 1992, A Biological Survey of the Yellabinna Region, South Australia, in October 1987, National Parks and Wildlife Service, Department of Environment and Land Management, Government Printer, Adelaide.\n\nCopley, P, Williams, S, Stelmann, J and Allen, R 1999, Ecological Restoration of Northern Eyre, Report for \"Ark on Eyre\" to the National Parks and Wildlife, SA.\n\nDAWE 2022, Fire regimes that cause declines in biodiversity as a key threatening process, Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment, Canberra.\n\nDCCEEW 2024, Threat abatement plan for predation by feral cats 2024, Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water, Canberra.\n\nDepartment of Parks and Wildlife 2016, Defining a Baseline Survey Design for the Sandhill Dunnart (Sminthopsis psammophila) in the Great Victoria Desert of Western Australia, Western Australia.\n\nDepartment of Parks and Wildlife 2016, Survey and Monitoring Guidelines for the Sandhill Dunnart in Western Australia, Western Australia.\n\nDEH 2000, Owens, H (eds), Guidelines for vertebrate surveys in South Australia using the biological survey of South Australia.\n\nDENR 2012, Ecological fire management strategy for the Sandhill Dunnart (Sminthopsis psammophila), Department of Environment and Natural Resources.\n\nDEWHA 2008, Threat abatement plan for predation by the European red fox, Department of Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts, Canberra.\n\nDEWNR 2014a, ‘Report card: 2014 Regional Snapshot for the Eyre Peninsula NRM region’, Are the extent and connectivity of our native vegetation improving?, Government of South Australia, accessed 2 January 2023.\n\nDEWNR 2014b, Central Eyre Peninsula Fire Management Plan, Government of South Australia, through Department of Environment, Water and Natural Resources, Adelaide.\n\nDEWNR 2014c, Fire management strategy 2014, Natural Resources Alinytjara Wilurara. Government of South Australia, through the Department of Environment, Water and Natural Resources, Adelaide.\n\nDoherty, TS, Davis, RA, van Etten, EJB, Algar, D, Collier, N, Dickman, CR, Edwards, G, Masters, P, Palmer, R and Robinson, S 2015, ‘A continental-scale analysis of feral cat diet in Australia’, Journal of Biogeography, vol. 42, pp. 964–975.\n\nEBS 2007, ‘Jacinth–Ambrosia Mineral Sands Project, Eucla Basin’, Threatened Species Management Plan October 2007, prepared by Environmental and Biodiversity Services for Iluka Resources Limited, South Australia.\n\nEBS 2009, Sandhill Dunnart Survey, Barton Regional Exploration Program, prepared by Environmental and Biodiversity Services for Iluka Resources Limited, South Australia.\n\nTropicana Joint Venture 2010, ‘Tropicana Gold Project – public environmental review: response to submissions’, no. 1745, EPBC 2008/4270, AngloGold Ashanti Australia and Independence Group NL.\n\nEPA 2010, Report and Recommendations 1361 of the Environment Protection Authority, Perth, Western Australia.\n\nEyre Peninsula Project Group 1973, Lake Gilles Conservation Park Survey, unpublished report by the Nature Conservation Society of South Australia, Adelaide.\n\nFerguson, J 2008, Husbandry Manual for the Sandhill Dunnart (Sminthopsis psammophila) (Mammalia: DASYURIDAE), Box Hill Institute of TAFE for Perth Zoo.\n\nGaikhorst, G and Lambert, C 2002, Fauna Trapping Survey – Great Victoria Desert (October 2001), unpublished report to the Department of Conservation and Land Management, Western Australia.\n\nGaikhorst, G and Lambert, C 2006, Fauna Trapping Survey – Great Victoria Desert (March and October 2005), unpublished report to the Department of Conservation and Land Management, Western Australia.\n\nGaikhorst, G and Lambert, C 2007, Fauna Trapping Survey – Great Victoria Desert (April 2006), unpublished report to the Department of Conservation and Land Management, Western Australia.\n\nGaikhorst, G. and Lambert, C. 2008. Fauna Trapping Survey – Great Victoria Desert (April 2007). Unpublished report to the Department of Conservation and Land Management, Western Australia.\n\nGaikhorst, G. and Lambert, C. 2009. Fauna Trapping Survey – Great Victoria Desert (March, May and October 2008). Unpublished report to the Department of Conservation and Land Management, Western Australia.\n\nGaikhorst, G and Lambert, C 2014, Sandhill Dunnart – a species review and where this elusive little beast lives in Western Australia, Goldfields Environmental Management Group Workshop proceedings.\n\nGaikhorst, G, Lambert, C, Adams, M, Churchill, S and Spencer, PBS, ‘Sandhill dunnarts (Sminthopsis psammophila) show little differentiation between populations from South Australia and Western Australia,’ Australian Mammalogy, note.\n\nGHD 2020, Gaikhorst, G (eds), Survey and Monitoring Guidelines for the Sandhill Dunnart in Western Australia, prepared for Great Victoria Desert Biodiversity Trust.\n\nGreat Victoria Desert Biodiversity Trust 2016, Sandhill Dunnart Research and Adaptive Management Plan Western Australia (PDF: 1.65MB).\n\nGreat Victoria Desert Biodiversity Trust 2017, ‘Part A – Strategic Plan’, Great Victoria Desert Adaptive Management Implementation Plan, pp. 59.\n\nGreat Victoria Desert Biodiversity Trust 2017, ‘Part B – Work Plan’, Great Victoria Desert Adaptive Management Implementation Plan, pp. 50.\n\nGreening Australia 2019, Great Victoria Desert Targeted Sandhill Dunnart and Malleefowl Survey 2018 Final report, prepared for the Great Victoria Desert Biodiversity Trust.\n\nHart, RP and Kitchener, DJ 1986, ‘First record of Sminthopsis psammophila (Marsupialia: Dasyuridae) from Western Australia’, Records of the West Australian Museum, vol. 13, pp. 139–144.\n\nHateley, RF and Hateley, R 2010, ‘Fire–stick farming in Victorian forests’, The Victorian bush: its 'original and natural' condition, Polybractea Press, South Melbourne.\n\nHolden, C and Mutze, G 2002, ‘Impact of rabbit haemorrhagic disease on introduced predators in the Flinders Ranges, South Australia’, Wildlife Research, vol. 29, pp. 615–626.\n\nHow, T and Bignall, J 2009, ‘EBS Sandhill dunnart survey’, Barton Regional Exploration Program, unpublished report to Iluka Resources Ltd.\n\nHumphries, SE, Groves, RH and Mitchell, DS 1991, Plant invasions of Australian ecosystems: a status review and management directions, CSIRO, Canberra.\n\nHumphries, SE, Groves, RH and Mitchell, DS 1993, ‘Plant Invasions: homogenizing Australian ecosystems’, Conservation Biology in Australia and Oceania, Surrey Beatty and Sons, Chipping Norton, pp. 149–170.\n\nIUCN 2001, International Union for the Conservation of Nature: Red List categories, IUCN Species Survival Commission, Gland, Switzerland.\n\nJohnson, CN and Isaac, JL 2009, ‘Body mass and extinction in Australian marsupials: The ‘Critical Weight Range’ revisited’, Austral Ecology, vol. 34, pp. 35–40.\n\nLambert, C, Gaikhorst, G and Matson, P 2011, ‘Captive breeding of the sandhill dunnart, Sminthopsis psammophila (Marsupialia, Dasyuridae): Reproduction, Husbandry and Growth and Development’, Australian Mammalogy, vol. 33, no. 1, pp. 21–27.\n\nLandscape South Australia Alinytjara Wilurara 2025, Buffel grass. Accessed 13 October 2025.\n\nLatz, P 1995, Bushfires and Bushtucker, Aboriginal plant use in Central Australia, IAD Press, Alice Springs.\n\nLawson, BE, Bryant, MJ and Franks, AJ 2004, ‘Assessing the potential distribution of buffel grass (Cenchrus ciliaris L) in Australia using a climate-soil model’, Plant Protection Quarterly, vol. 19, pp. 155–163.\n\nMarshall, V, Lewis, M and Ostendorf B 2012, ‘Buffel grass (Cenchrus ciliaris) as an invader and threat to biodiversity in arid environments: A review’, Journal of Arid Environments, vol. 78, pp. 1–12.\n\nMcGregor, H, Legge, S, Jones, ME and Johnson, CN 2015, ‘Feral cats are better killers in open habitats, revealed by animal-borne video’, PLoS One, vol. 10, no. 8, pp. 12.\n\nMcLean, A 2012, Conservation and management of an endangered marsupial, the Sandhill Dunnart Sminthopsis psammophila in a semi-arid environment, final report for a 2011 Lirabenda Endowment Fund Grant, University of Adelaide.\n\nMcLean, A 2015, Conservation biology of an endangered semi–arid marsupial, the Sandhill Dunnart (Sminthopsis psammophila), Ph.D. thesis, School of Biological Sciences, The University of Adelaide.\n\nMcLean, AL, Cooper, SJB, Lancaster, ML, Gaikhorst, G, Lambert, C, Moseby, K, Read, J, Ward, M and Carthew, SM 2019, ‘Small marsupial, big dispersal? Broad– and fine–scale genetic structure of an endangered marsupial from the Australian arid zone,’ Australian Journal of Zoology, vol. 66, pp. 214–227.\n\nMiddleback Alliance 2015, Ecological Horizons Initiatives Middleback Alliance, accessed 23 December 2022.\n\nMorelli, J 1992, Fire Management in the Great Victoria Desert, South Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service.\n\nMoseby, KE and Hill, BM 2011, ‘The use of poison baits to control feral cats and red foxes in arid South Australia 1. Aerial baiting trials,’ Wildlife Research, vol. 38, pp. 338–349.\n\nMoseby, KE (Ecological Horizons) and Lynch, CM (2020) Sandhill Dunnart Surveys. Pinkawillinie Conservation Park and Gawler Ranges National Park. Report for SA Arid Lands Landscape Board.\n\nMoseby, KE, Nano, T and Southgate, R 2009, Tales in the Sand: A guide to identifying arid zone fauna using spoor and other sign, Ecological Horizons, South Australia.\n\nMoseby, K, Read, J, McLean, A, Ward, M and Rogers, DJ 2016, ‘How high is your hummock? The importance of Triodia height as a habitat predictor for an endangered marsupial in a fire-prone environment,’ Austral Ecology, vol. 41, no. 4, pp. 382–395.\n\nAlinytjara Wilurara Landscape Board 2015, Sandhill dunnart recovery program, accessed 2 January 2023.\n\nNCSSA 1967, Survey of Hambidge Wilderness Protection Area, unpublished report, Nature Conservation Society of South Australia.\n\nPaltridge, R 2002, ‘The diets of cats, foxes and dingoes in relation to prey availability in the Tanami Desert, Northern Territory’, Wildlife Research, vol. 29, pp. 389–403.\n\nPaltridge, R, Gibson, D and Edwards, G 1997, ‘Diet of the feral cat (Felis catus) in Central Australia’, Wildlife Research, vol. 24, pp. 67–76.\n\nPaltridge, R, Latz, P, Pickburn, A and Eldridge, S 2009, Management Plan for Rare and Threatened Flora in the Anangu Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara Lands of South Australia, Department for Environment and Heritage, South Australia.\n\nParker, SA 1973, ‘An annotated checklist of the native land mammals of the Northern Territory’, Records of the South Australian Museum, vol. 16, pp. 1–57.\n\nPearson, DJ and Churchill, S 2008, ‘Sandhill Dunnart, Sminthopsis psammophila’, Van Dyck, S and Strahan, R (eds), The Mammals of Australia, Reed New Holland, Sydney, pp 156–158.\n\nPearson, DJ and Robinson, AC 1989, ‘New records of the Sandhill Dunnart, Sminthopsis psammophila (Marsupialia: Dasyuridae) in South and Western Australia’, Australian Mammalogy, vol. 13, pp. 57–59.\n\nPhilp, B 2011, Foraging behaviour and habitat use of the sandhill dunnart (Sminthopsis psammophila), The University of Adelaide, South Australia.\n\nPrice, OF, Penman, TD, Bradstock, RA, Boer, MM and Clark, H 2015, ‘Biogeographical variation in the potential effectiveness of prescribed fire in south–eastern Australia’, Journal of Biogeography, pp. 1–12.\n\nRead, JL and Bowen, Z 2001, ‘Population dynamics, diet and aspects of the biology of feral cats and foxes in arid South Australia’, Wildlife Research, vol. 28, pp. 195−203.\n\nRead, J and Moseby, K 2009, Monitoring Sandhill Dunnarts in the Great Victoria Desert, unpublished survey data, Department for Environment and Heritage, Adelaide.\n\nRead, John L, Ward, Matthew J and Moseby, Katherine E 2015, ‘Factors that influence trap success of sandhill dunnarts (Sminthopsis psammophila) and other small mammals in Triodia dunefields of South Australia’, Australian Mammalogy, vol. 37, pp. 212–218.\n\nRFLG 2015, Guiding principles for fire management in the WA rangelands, The Rangelands Fire Leadership Group, Department of Parks and Wildlife, Western Australia.\n\nRiley, JL 2020, Spatial ecology and conservation management of the endangered Sandhill Dunnart, Sminthopsis psammophila, doctoral dissertation, University of Bristol.\n\nRiley, J, Turpin, JM, Zeale, MR, Jayatilaka, B and Jones, G, 2021a, ‘Diurnal sheltering preferences and associated conservation management for the endangered sandhill dunnart, Sminthopsis psammophila’, Journal of Mammalogy, vol. 102, pp. 588-602.\n\nRiley, J, Zeale, MRK, Razgour, O, Turpin, J and Jones, G 2021b, ‘Predicting the past, present and future distributions of an endangered marsupial in a semi-arid environment’, Animal Conservation, vol. 24, pp. 890-903.\n\nRiley, J, Heterick, B, Zeale, MR, Turpin, JM, Jayatilaka, B and Jones, G 2022. ‘The ranging, habitat selection, and foraging ecology of an endangered small desert mammal, the sandhill dunnart Sminthopsis psammophila,’ Journal of Mammalogy, vol. 103, pp. 1141-1152.\n\nRobinson, T, Gaikhorst, G, Pearson, D and Copley, P 2008, ‘Sminthopsis psammophila’, IUCN Red List of Threatened Species, ver. 2015.2, accessed on 13 August 2015.\n\nRaymond, OL, Liu, SF, Kilgour, P, Retter, AJ, Stewart, AJ and Stewart, G 2007, Surface geology of Australia 1: 1,000,000 scale (2nd Ed), Geoscience Australia, Canberra.\n\nRuscalleda-Alvarez, J, Moro, D and Van Dongen, R 2021, ‘A multi-scale assessment of fire scar mapping in the Great Victoria Desert of Western Australia’, International Journal of Wildland Fire.\n\nSandhill Dunnart Workshop 2014, Sandhill Dunnart Workshop Talk Book, accessed 5th August 2015.\n\nSpencer, WB 1896 (Eds), Report on the work of the Horn Scientific Expedition to Central Australia, part 1, pp. 84, Melville, Mullen and Slade, Melbourne.\n\nThe Great Victoria Desert Biodiversity Trust 2016, Sandhill Dunnart – research and adaptive management plan, Great Victoria Biodiversity Trust, Western Australia.\n\nThe Great Victoria Desert Biodiversity Trust 2015a, Expression of Interest: Sandhill Dunnart – defining a baseline survey design in the Great Victoria Desert, due 31 July 2015.\n\nThe Great Victoria Desert Biodiversity Trust 2015b, Expression of Interest: Sandhill Dunnart survey and monitoring protocol, due 31 July 2015.\n\nTSSC (Threatened Species Scientific Committee) 2013, Listing advice on the Key threatening process Novel biota and their impact on biodiversity, Department of the Environment, Canberra.\n\nTSSC (Threatened Species Scientific Committee) 2015, Conservation advice Sminthopsis psammophila (Sandhill dunnart), Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water, Canberra.\n\nTurpin, JM and Johnstone, RE 2017, ‘An isolated population of the southern scrub-robin (Drymodes brunneopygia) in the Great Victoria Desert’, Pacific Conservation Biology, vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 95-106.\n\nTurpin, J and Lloyd, R 2014, Sunrise Dam – Tropicana infrastructure corridor fauna survey, Kingfisher Environmental Consulting for AngloGold Ashanti Australia, Perth, Western Australia.\n\nTurpin, J and Riley, JL 2017, Sandhill dunnart monitoring, Kingfisher Environmental Consulting for AngloGold Ashanti Australia, Perth, Western Australia.\n\nTurpin, J and Riley, JL 2021, Sandhill dunnart monitoring, Kingfisher Environmental Consulting for AngloGold Ashanti Australia, Perth, Western Australia.\n\nVan Dyck, S, Gynther, I and Baker, A 2013, Field companion to the mammals of Australia, New Holland Publishers.\n\nWard, MJ (unpublished), Sandhill Dunnart monitoring data collected in South Australia from 2007 to 2010, Department of Environment, Water and Natural Resources, South Australia.\n\nWard, MJ 2009, Sandhill dunnart Sminthopsis psammophila monitoring and survey in the Great Victoria Desert, South Australia, 2008–2009. Department for Environment and Heritage, Adelaide.\n\nWard, MJ, Read, J and Moseby, K 2008, Monitoring Sandhill Dunnarts, Sminthopsis psammophila, in the Great Victorian Desert, Wildlife Conservation Fund, Department for Environment and Heritage, Adelaide.\n\nWarland, I and Mills, R 2011, Dozer / roller track creation procedure (unpublished report), Iluka Resources Limited, Australia.\n\nWaudby, H, How, T, Frazer, D and Obst, C 2007, South Australian Recovery Plan Review 2007: Findings, Patterns, and Recommendations, Federal Department for Environment and Heritage, Canberra.\n\nWay, S 2008, Sandhill Dunnart (Sminthopsis psammophila) surveys on eastern Eyre Peninsula, SA, Department for Environment and Heritage, South Australia.\n\nWoinarski, JCZ and Burbidge, AA 2016, ‘Sminthopsis psammophila’, The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2016.\n\nWoinarski, JCZ, Burbidge, AA and Harrison, PL 2014, The action plan for Australian mammals 2012, CSIRO Publishing, Collingwood.\n\nWoinarski, JC, Burbidge, AA and Harrison, PL 2015, ‘Ongoing unravelling of a continental fauna: Decline and extinction of Australian mammals since European settlement’, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 112, no. 15, pp. 4531–4540.\n\nWoolley, LA, Geyle, HM, Murphy, BP, Legge, SM, Palmer, R, Dickman, CR, Augusteyn, J, Comer, S, Doherty, TS, Eager, C and Edwards, G 2019. ‘Introduced cats Felis catus eating a continental fauna: inventory and traits of Australian mammal species killed,’ Mammal Review, vol. 49, no. 4, pp. 354-368.\n\nZichy-Woinarski, JC, Traill, B, and Booth, C 2014, The Modern Outback: Nature, people and the future of remote Australia.","sortOrder":44},{"sectionNumber":"4.1","sectionType":"part","heading":"Survey design","content":"## 4.1 Survey design\n\nEarly Sandhill dunnart specimens were collected in a variety of ways; one specimen was hit with a thrown boot (Spencer 1896); another was caught under a hat, and several were caught by hand as they fled from smouldering spinifex (Aitken 1971). Since then, pitfall traps and Elliott traps have most often been used for capturing Sandhill dunnarts, although baited motion sensing camera traps are now also proving a much more useful survey tool (Riley et al. 2021b).\n\nPitfall trap rates are low, and the species has been known to escape pitfall traps (Read et al. 2015). Recent survey work found that Sandhill dunnarts are more readily captured in wide, deep pitfall traps (600–700 mm deep) (Read et al. 2015; Riley and Turpin pers comms). Elliot traps are not recommended due to low capture rates (Read et al 2015). Biological surveys conducted within the range of the Sandhill dunnart in SA, up until about 2000, consistently used shallower pitfall traps (455 mm deep) (DEH 2000), which may explain low numbers of Sandhill dunnarts captured during those surveys. Most sites sampled on the Eyre Peninsula by the Biological Survey were done after 2000 and included larger deeper pits targeting deeper sand country with Triodia, specifically to include Sandhill dunnart in the sampling (Brandle 2010). However no new populations were detected during that survey (Brandle 2010). Sandhill dunnarts were trapped on what is now Iron Stone Hill Conservation Park in 2009 using these larger pits. More recent surveys using baited camera traps 2020 to 2022 have proved useful.\n\nSpecific survey guidelines have been developed for the GVDBT by WA Parks and Wildlife Department in 2016 and revised by GHD in 2020 (GHD 2020). From these guidelines it appears likely that a minimum depth is important, but diameter also appears to be highly significant for a multitude of species in recent studies, and it seems likely this also applies to Sandhill dunnarts.\n\nTraditional trapping has low power regardless of method. The Great Victoria Desert Targeted Sandhill Dunnart and Malleefowl Survey 2018 (PDF: 3.8MB) (Greening Australia 2019) highlighted that trap success for the Sandhill dunnart was low, accounting for 0.5 % of all captures (3 out of 565 individuals) at only two survey sites, while its presence was detected by camera at four sites (10/64 cameras), revealing the relative effectiveness of the survey techniques employed. One camera installed at a pitfall trap location detected individuals moving along pitfall fence lines, indicating that the fence line height (30 cm) was adequate to influence the species’ movements. GHD (2020) have prepared updated Sandhill dunnart survey guidelines to include information on how to use camera traps in such surveys.\n\nSearches for small mammal tracks as an indicator of the presence of Sandhill dunnarts relies heavily on personal skills and experience, as the quadruped gait of Sandhill dunnarts is similar to other dunnarts and hopping mice. Moseby et al. (2009) provide guidelines for undertaking mammal track searches in the Australian arid zone, which include two-hectare searches and recording the co-occurrence of all species. Suspected tracks should be confirmed with adequate camera or pitfall trapping.\n\nIn the past 20 years, several mammal surveys have been conducted in specific areas of central Australia. However, few of these surveys have focused on Sandhill dunnarts, and many areas that appear to be suitable habitat for this species have yet to be examined. To improve management efforts, further surveys are needed to locate new populations and monitor existing ones, utilizing the best available techniques.\n\nThe lack of Sandhill dunnart captures over large areas of their potential range is likely due to:\n\n- Lack of survey efforts and/or surveys conducted in unsuitable habitats;\n- Surveys carried out using inappropriate-sized pitfalls (less than 500 mm deep);\n- Surveys conducted during poor seasons. McLean (2015) found significantly lower capture rates during a lower rainfall year compared to a higher rainfall year, possibly due to a reduction in food resources, decreased survival rate, and decreased reproduction;\n- Surveys conducted at inappropriate times of year, although these specific periods have not been defined. Churchill (2001a) found Sandhill dunnarts to be most easily trapped in March and September; however, Read and Moseby (2009) caught dispersing juveniles in the Middleback dunefields in summer;\n- Surveys conducted during nights of high moon illumination. Read et al. (2015) suggest that trapping rates are greatest when moon illumination is <40%, although research in WA found no influence of moonlight (Riley, unpublished data).\n\nCamera trapping is considered the most effective method of surveying Sandhill dunnart populations. Any surveys that do not include a camera trapping component should be considered insufficient. Pitfall traps should be at least 500–700 mm deep (Churchill 2001b; McLean 2015; Read et al. 2015; Chapman 2016) and recent work recommends a minimum of 650 mm deep (Turpin and Lloyd 2014, Turpin and Riley 2017, Riley 2020). Other recommendations include trapping at multiple sites using six deep pitfall traps, for at least four nights at new moon and in each fire-age or land-use class (Read et al. 2015), although Riley 2020 (unpublished data) found no difference in trapping rates relating to moon phase. Riley (2020) found camera traps to be effective for detecting Sandhill dunnarts, and GHD (2020) recommend the use of camera traps (see GHD 2020).\n\nEven targeted surveys that meet the above criteria indicate that non-detection is not evidence of absence. It is possible that some suitable habitat is used only transiently, so non-detection does not mean the area is not important for the species. Superior methods for determining presence and to undertake monitoring would be valuable, and mixed methods should be employed to maximise the likelihood of detection. Riley et al (2020) recommend the use of additional survey methods in combination with motion camera traps, including conservation detection dogs, nocturnal infrared cameras and environmental DNA analysis to improve detection (Claridge et al. 2005, Long et al. 2007, Taberlet et al. 2012; Riley 2020). An action is included in Section 3.4: Recovery actions to meet the objectives to explore new methods of surveying and monitoring Sandhill dunnart.","sortOrder":45},{"sectionNumber":"4.2","sectionType":"part","heading":"Management practices","content":"## 4.2 Management practices\n\nThe broader management practices, policies, and investments which are important for the maintenance of Sandhill dunnart habitat and populations include:\n\n- implementation of park management plans;\n- fire management which considers the needs of Sandhill dunnarts;\n- fire management which ensures that burning is within the tolerable fire intervals for the habitat needed to maintain habitat across the range of Sandhill dunnarts;\n- control of cats and foxes and other pest management strategies to achieve sustainable and long term benefits;\n- adaptive management and surveillance of buffel grass including Biosecurity protocols for preventing spread;\n- control of excessive grazing by herbivores to achieve sustained long term benefits;\n- maintenance of connected habitat;\n robust conservation management plans that require reporting and regularly review, including clear decision triggers for action if objectives are not met; and\n expert review of proposed activities to ensure the species is not adversely impacted.\n\nManagement practices to be avoided, which are likely to degrade Sandhill dunnart habitat or have harmful effects on Sandhill Dunnart populations, include:\n\n- clearing or altering areas where important sub-populations are found, especially on Eyre Peninsula;\n - Species and ecological communities that are listed as threatened under the EPBC Act are protected as a matter of national environmental significance. This means that any action that has, will have, or is likely to have a significant impact on a listed threatened species or ecological community must be referred to the Australian Government Minister for the Environment and Water and undergo an environmental assessment and approval process.\n- overgrazing of known habitat;\n- any development or industry activities that affect known habitat or populations;\n- structural impacts to dune systems with habitat capable of supporting Sandhill dunnart;\n- other disturbances (for example, frequent burning or burning undertaken during the breeding season).","sortOrder":46},{"sectionNumber":"References","sectionType":"part","heading":"References","content":"# References\n\nAdair, RJ and Groves, RH 1998, Impact of Environmental Weeds on Biodiversity: a Review and Development of a Methodology, Environment Australia, Canberra.\n\nAitken, PF 1971, ‘Rediscovery of the Large Desert Sminthopsis (Sminthopsis psammophila Spencer) on Eyre Peninsula, South Australia’, Victorian Naturalist, vol. 88, pp. 103-111.\n\nArcher, M 1981, ‘Systematic Revision of the Marsupial Dasyurid Genus Sminthopsis Thomas’, Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History, vol. 168, pp 61-224.\n\nArmstrong, G 2015, ‘Alinytijara Wilurara NRM Fire Management Strategy Review’, unpublished internal report, Department of Environment, Water, and Natural Resources, South Australia.\n\nAtlas of Living Australia (2025), Sminthopsis psammophila : Sandhill Dunnart. Accessed 13 October 2025.\n\nAustralian Bureau of Meteorology 2025, Bureau of Meteorology Forecast, Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water, accessed 13 October 2025.\n\nAustralian Government 2011, Survey guidelines for Australia’s threatened mammals. Guidelines for detecting mammals listed as threatened under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, Canberra.\n\nAustralian Government 2015, Threatened Species Strategy – tackling feral cats, Department of the Environment, Canberra.\n\nAustralian Government 2022, Threatened Species Action Plan 2022-2032, Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water, Canberra.\n\nBaynes, A 1987, ‘The original mammal fauna of the Nullarbor and southern peripheral regions’, McKenzie, NL and Robinson, AC (Eds.), A Biological Survey of the Nullarbor region, South and Western Australia, pp. 139-152, Government Printer, Adelaide.\n\nBeard, JS 1974, ‘Great Victoria Desert: the vegetation of the Great Victoria Desert area’, 1:1,000,000 vegetation series, Explanatory Notes to sheet 3, University of Western Australia Press, Nedlands, WA.\n\nBell, K (2022) Fauna survey of the Gawler Ranges (2022) Searching for the sandhill dunnart in Gawler Ranges National Park and Conservation Park. Report for SA Arid Lands Landscape Board.\n\nBrandle, Robert and Department for Environment and Heritage. 2010. A biological survey of the Eyre Peninsula, South Australia / \\[edited by\\] R Brandle. Science Resource Centre, Information, Science and Technology Directorate, Dept. for Environment and Heritage, South Australia, Adelaide.\n\nBiosecurity SA 2012, South Australia Buffel Grass Strategic Plan 2012-2017, Government of South Australia, Adelaide.\n\nBoulton, J and Foulkes, J 2000, ‘Predator scat analysis for the Sandhill Dunnart Project’, Report to the Wildlife Conservation Fund, Department for Environment and Heritage, Adelaide.\n\nBurbidge, AA and McKenzie, NL 1989, ‘Patterns in the modern decline of Western Australia’s vertebrate fauna: causes and conservation implications’, Biological Conservation, vol. 50, pp. 143-198.\n\nBurbidge, AA, McKenzie, NL, Brennan, KEC, Woinarski, JCZ, Dickman, CR, Baynes, A, Gordon, G, Menkhorst, PW and Robinson, AC 2009, ‘Conservation status and biogeography of Australia's terrestrial mammals’, Australian Journal of Zoology, vol. 56, pp. 411–422.\n\nBurrows, ND, Burbidge, AA, Fuller, PJ and Behn, G 2006, ‘Evidence of altered fire regimes in the Western Desert region of Australia’, Conservation Science Western Australia, vol. 5(3), pp. 272–284.\n\nCatling, PC 1988, ‘Similarities and contrasts in the diets of foxes, Vulpes vulpes, and cats, Felis catus, relative to fluctuating prey populations and drought’, Australian Wildlife Restoration, vol. 15, pp. 307–317.\n\nChapman (2016) Survey and monitoring guidelines for the Sandhill Dunnart (Sminthopsis psammophila) in Western Australia. Department of Parks and Wildlife for the Great Victoria Desert Biodiversity Trust, Kensington WA.\n\nChapman (2016) Defining a baseline survey design for the Sandhill Dunnart (Sminthopsis psammophila) in the Great Victoria Desert of Western Australia. Department of Parks and Wildlife for the Great Victoria Desert Biodiversity Trust, Kensington WA.\n\nChurchill, S 2001a, Recovery Plan for the Sandhill Dunnart (Sminthopsis psammophila), Department for Environment and Heritage, Adelaide.\n\nChurchill, S 2001b, Survey and ecological study of the Sandhill Dunnart, Sminthopsis psammophila at Eyre Peninsula and the Great Victoria Desert, Department for Environment and Heritage, Adelaide.\n\nChurchill, S, 2010, Fauna Trapping Survey – Middleback Range, Unpublished survey data.\n\nClarke, MF, Avitabile, SC, Brown, L, Callister, KE, Haslem, A, Holland, GJ, Kelly, LT, Kenny, SA, Nimmo, DG, Spence-Bailey, LM, Taylor, RS, Watson, SJ and Bennett, AF 2010, ‘Ageing mallee eucalypt vegetation after fire: insights for successional trajectories in semi–arid mallee ecosystems’, Australian Journal of Botany, vol. 58, pp. 363–372.\n\nClarke, PJ, Latz, PK and Albrecht, DE 2005, ‘Long-term changes in semi-arid vegetation: Invasion of an exotic perennial grass has larger effects than rainfall variability’, Journal of Vegetation Science, vol. 16, pp. 237–248.\n\nCopley, P 1999, ‘Natural histories of Australia’s stick-nets rats, genus Leporillus (Rodentia: Muridae)’, Wildlife Research, vol. 26, pp. 513–539.\n\nCopley, PB and Kemper, CM (Eds.) 1992, A Biological Survey of the Yellabinna Region, South Australia, in October 1987, National Parks and Wildlife Service, Department of Environment and Land Management, Government Printer, Adelaide.\n\nCopley, P, Williams, S, Stelmann, J and Allen, R 1999, Ecological Restoration of Northern Eyre, Report for \"Ark on Eyre\" to the National Parks and Wildlife, SA.\n\nDAWE 2022, Fire regimes that cause declines in biodiversity as a key threatening process, Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment, Canberra.\n\nDCCEEW 2024, Threat abatement plan for predation by feral cats 2024, Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water, Canberra.\n\nDepartment of Parks and Wildlife 2016, Defining a Baseline Survey Design for the Sandhill Dunnart (Sminthopsis psammophila) in the Great Victoria Desert of Western Australia, Western Australia.\n\nDepartment of Parks and Wildlife 2016, Survey and Monitoring Guidelines for the Sandhill Dunnart in Western Australia, Western Australia.\n\nDEH 2000, Owens, H (eds), Guidelines for vertebrate surveys in South Australia using the biological survey of South Australia.\n\nDENR 2012, Ecological fire management strategy for the Sandhill Dunnart (Sminthopsis psammophila), Department of Environment and Natural Resources.\n\nDEWHA 2008, Threat abatement plan for predation by the European red fox, Department of Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts, Canberra.\n\nDEWNR 2014a, ‘Report card: 2014 Regional Snapshot for the Eyre Peninsula NRM region’, Are the extent and connectivity of our native vegetation improving?, Government of South Australia, accessed 2 January 2023.\n\nDEWNR 2014b, Central Eyre Peninsula Fire Management Plan, Government of South Australia, through Department of Environment, Water and Natural Resources, Adelaide.\n\nDEWNR 2014c, Fire management strategy 2014, Natural Resources Alinytjara Wilurara. Government of South Australia, through the Department of Environment, Water and Natural Resources, Adelaide.\n\nDoherty, TS, Davis, RA, van Etten, EJB, Algar, D, Collier, N, Dickman, CR, Edwards, G, Masters, P, Palmer, R and Robinson, S 2015, ‘A continental-scale analysis of feral cat diet in Australia’, Journal of Biogeography, vol. 42, pp. 964–975.\n\nEBS 2007, ‘Jacinth–Ambrosia Mineral Sands Project, Eucla Basin’, Threatened Species Management Plan October 2007, prepared by Environmental and Biodiversity Services for Iluka Resources Limited, South Australia.\n\nEBS 2009, Sandhill Dunnart Survey, Barton Regional Exploration Program, prepared by Environmental and Biodiversity Services for Iluka Resources Limited, South Australia.\n\nTropicana Joint Venture 2010, ‘Tropicana Gold Project – public environmental review: response to submissions’, no. 1745, EPBC 2008/4270, AngloGold Ashanti Australia and Independence Group NL.\n\nEPA 2010, Report and Recommendations 1361 of the Environment Protection Authority, Perth, Western Australia.\n\nEyre Peninsula Project Group 1973, Lake Gilles Conservation Park Survey, unpublished report by the Nature Conservation Society of South Australia, Adelaide.\n\nFerguson, J 2008, Husbandry Manual for the Sandhill Dunnart (Sminthopsis psammophila) (Mammalia: DASYURIDAE), Box Hill Institute of TAFE for Perth Zoo.\n\nGaikhorst, G and Lambert, C 2002, Fauna Trapping Survey – Great Victoria Desert (October 2001), unpublished report to the Department of Conservation and Land Management, Western Australia.\n\nGaikhorst, G and Lambert, C 2006, Fauna Trapping Survey – Great Victoria Desert (March and October 2005), unpublished report to the Department of Conservation and Land Management, Western Australia.\n\nGaikhorst, G and Lambert, C 2007, Fauna Trapping Survey – Great Victoria Desert (April 2006), unpublished report to the Department of Conservation and Land Management, Western Australia.\n\nGaikhorst, G. and Lambert, C. 2008. Fauna Trapping Survey – Great Victoria Desert (April 2007). Unpublished report to the Department of Conservation and Land Management, Western Australia.\n\nGaikhorst, G. and Lambert, C. 2009. Fauna Trapping Survey – Great Victoria Desert (March, May and October 2008). Unpublished report to the Department of Conservation and Land Management, Western Australia.\n\nGaikhorst, G and Lambert, C 2014, Sandhill Dunnart – a species review and where this elusive little beast lives in Western Australia, Goldfields Environmental Management Group Workshop proceedings.\n\nGaikhorst, G, Lambert, C, Adams, M, Churchill, S and Spencer, PBS, ‘Sandhill dunnarts (Sminthopsis psammophila) show little differentiation between populations from South Australia and Western Australia,’ Australian Mammalogy, note.\n\nGHD 2020, Gaikhorst, G (eds), Survey and Monitoring Guidelines for the Sandhill Dunnart in Western Australia, prepared for Great Victoria Desert Biodiversity Trust.\n\nGreat Victoria Desert Biodiversity Trust 2016, Sandhill Dunnart Research and Adaptive Management Plan Western Australia (PDF: 1.65MB).\n\nGreat Victoria Desert Biodiversity Trust 2017, ‘Part A – Strategic Plan’, Great Victoria Desert Adaptive Management Implementation Plan, pp. 59.\n\nGreat Victoria Desert Biodiversity Trust 2017, ‘Part B – Work Plan’, Great Victoria Desert Adaptive Management Implementation Plan, pp. 50.\n\nGreening Australia 2019, Great Victoria Desert Targeted Sandhill Dunnart and Malleefowl Survey 2018 Final report, prepared for the Great Victoria Desert Biodiversity Trust.\n\nHart, RP and Kitchener, DJ 1986, ‘First record of Sminthopsis psammophila (Marsupialia: Dasyuridae) from Western Australia’, Records of the West Australian Museum, vol. 13, pp. 139–144.\n\nHateley, RF and Hateley, R 2010, ‘Fire–stick farming in Victorian forests’, The Victorian bush: its 'original and natural' condition, Polybractea Press, South Melbourne.\n\nHolden, C and Mutze, G 2002, ‘Impact of rabbit haemorrhagic disease on introduced predators in the Flinders Ranges, South Australia’, Wildlife Research, vol. 29, pp. 615–626.\n\nHow, T and Bignall, J 2009, ‘EBS Sandhill dunnart survey’, Barton Regional Exploration Program, unpublished report to Iluka Resources Ltd.\n\nHumphries, SE, Groves, RH and Mitchell, DS 1991, Plant invasions of Australian ecosystems: a status review and management directions, CSIRO, Canberra.\n\nHumphries, SE, Groves, RH and Mitchell, DS 1993, ‘Plant Invasions: homogenizing Australian ecosystems’, Conservation Biology in Australia and Oceania, Surrey Beatty and Sons, Chipping Norton, pp. 149–170.\n\nIUCN 2001, International Union for the Conservation of Nature: Red List categories, IUCN Species Survival Commission, Gland, Switzerland.\n\nJohnson, CN and Isaac, JL 2009, ‘Body mass and extinction in Australian marsupials: The ‘Critical Weight Range’ revisited’, Austral Ecology, vol. 34, pp. 35–40.\n\nLambert, C, Gaikhorst, G and Matson, P 2011, ‘Captive breeding of the sandhill dunnart, Sminthopsis psammophila (Marsupialia, Dasyuridae): Reproduction, Husbandry and Growth and Development’, Australian Mammalogy, vol. 33, no. 1, pp. 21–27.\n\nLandscape South Australia Alinytjara Wilurara 2025, Buffel grass. Accessed 13 October 2025.\n\nLatz, P 1995, Bushfires and Bushtucker, Aboriginal plant use in Central Australia, IAD Press, Alice Springs.\n\nLawson, BE, Bryant, MJ and Franks, AJ 2004, ‘Assessing the potential distribution of buffel grass (Cenchrus ciliaris L) in Australia using a climate-soil model’, Plant Protection Quarterly, vol. 19, pp. 155–163.\n\nMarshall, V, Lewis, M and Ostendorf B 2012, ‘Buffel grass (Cenchrus ciliaris) as an invader and threat to biodiversity in arid environments: A review’, Journal of Arid Environments, vol. 78, pp. 1–12.\n\nMcGregor, H, Legge, S, Jones, ME and Johnson, CN 2015, ‘Feral cats are better killers in open habitats, revealed by animal-borne video’, PLoS One, vol. 10, no. 8, pp. 12.\n\nMcLean, A 2012, Conservation and management of an endangered marsupial, the Sandhill Dunnart Sminthopsis psammophila in a semi-arid environment, final report for a 2011 Lirabenda Endowment Fund Grant, University of Adelaide.\n\nMcLean, A 2015, Conservation biology of an endangered semi–arid marsupial, the Sandhill Dunnart (Sminthopsis psammophila), Ph.D. thesis, School of Biological Sciences, The University of Adelaide.\n\nMcLean, AL, Cooper, SJB, Lancaster, ML, Gaikhorst, G, Lambert, C, Moseby, K, Read, J, Ward, M and Carthew, SM 2019, ‘Small marsupial, big dispersal? Broad– and fine–scale genetic structure of an endangered marsupial from the Australian arid zone,’ Australian Journal of Zoology, vol. 66, pp. 214–227.\n\nMiddleback Alliance 2015, Ecological Horizons Initiatives Middleback Alliance, accessed 23 December 2022.\n\nMorelli, J 1992, Fire Management in the Great Victoria Desert, South Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service.\n\nMoseby, KE and Hill, BM 2011, ‘The use of poison baits to control feral cats and red foxes in arid South Australia 1. Aerial baiting trials,’ Wildlife Research, vol. 38, pp. 338–349.\n\nMoseby, KE (Ecological Horizons) and Lynch, CM (2020) Sandhill Dunnart Surveys. Pinkawillinie Conservation Park and Gawler Ranges National Park. Report for SA Arid Lands Landscape Board.\n\nMoseby, KE, Nano, T and Southgate, R 2009, Tales in the Sand: A guide to identifying arid zone fauna using spoor and other sign, Ecological Horizons, South Australia.\n\nMoseby, K, Read, J, McLean, A, Ward, M and Rogers, DJ 2016, ‘How high is your hummock? The importance of Triodia height as a habitat predictor for an endangered marsupial in a fire-prone environment,’ Austral Ecology, vol. 41, no. 4, pp. 382–395.\n\nAlinytjara Wilurara Landscape Board 2015, Sandhill dunnart recovery program, accessed 2 January 2023.\n\nNCSSA 1967, Survey of Hambidge Wilderness Protection Area, unpublished report, Nature Conservation Society of South Australia.\n\nPaltridge, R 2002, ‘The diets of cats, foxes and dingoes in relation to prey availability in the Tanami Desert, Northern Territory’, Wildlife Research, vol. 29, pp. 389–403.\n\nPaltridge, R, Gibson, D and Edwards, G 1997, ‘Diet of the feral cat (Felis catus) in Central Australia’, Wildlife Research, vol. 24, pp. 67–76.\n\nPaltridge, R, Latz, P, Pickburn, A and Eldridge, S 2009, Management Plan for Rare and Threatened Flora in the Anangu Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara Lands of South Australia, Department for Environment and Heritage, South Australia.\n\nParker, SA 1973, ‘An annotated checklist of the native land mammals of the Northern Territory’, Records of the South Australian Museum, vol. 16, pp. 1–57.\n\nPearson, DJ and Churchill, S 2008, ‘Sandhill Dunnart, Sminthopsis psammophila’, Van Dyck, S and Strahan, R (eds), The Mammals of Australia, Reed New Holland, Sydney, pp 156–158.\n\nPearson, DJ and Robinson, AC 1989, ‘New records of the Sandhill Dunnart, Sminthopsis psammophila (Marsupialia: Dasyuridae) in South and Western Australia’, Australian Mammalogy, vol. 13, pp. 57–59.\n\nPhilp, B 2011, Foraging behaviour and habitat use of the sandhill dunnart (Sminthopsis psammophila), The University of Adelaide, South Australia.\n\nPrice, OF, Penman, TD, Bradstock, RA, Boer, MM and Clark, H 2015, ‘Biogeographical variation in the potential effectiveness of prescribed fire in south–eastern Australia’, Journal of Biogeography, pp. 1–12.\n\nRead, JL and Bowen, Z 2001, ‘Population dynamics, diet and aspects of the biology of feral cats and foxes in arid South Australia’, Wildlife Research, vol. 28, pp. 195−203.\n\nRead, J and Moseby, K 2009, Monitoring Sandhill Dunnarts in the Great Victoria Desert, unpublished survey data, Department for Environment and Heritage, Adelaide.\n\nRead, John L, Ward, Matthew J and Moseby, Katherine E 2015, ‘Factors that influence trap success of sandhill dunnarts (Sminthopsis psammophila) and other small mammals in Triodia dunefields of South Australia’, Australian Mammalogy, vol. 37, pp. 212–218.\n\nRFLG 2015, Guiding principles for fire management in the WA rangelands, The Rangelands Fire Leadership Group, Department of Parks and Wildlife, Western Australia.\n\nRiley, JL 2020, Spatial ecology and conservation management of the endangered Sandhill Dunnart, Sminthopsis psammophila, doctoral dissertation, University of Bristol.\n\nRiley, J, Turpin, JM, Zeale, MR, Jayatilaka, B and Jones, G, 2021a, ‘Diurnal sheltering preferences and associated conservation management for the endangered sandhill dunnart, Sminthopsis psammophila’, Journal of Mammalogy, vol. 102, pp. 588-602.\n\nRiley, J, Zeale, MRK, Razgour, O, Turpin, J and Jones, G 2021b, ‘Predicting the past, present and future distributions of an endangered marsupial in a semi-arid environment’, Animal Conservation, vol. 24, pp. 890-903.\n\nRiley, J, Heterick, B, Zeale, MR, Turpin, JM, Jayatilaka, B and Jones, G 2022. ‘The ranging, habitat selection, and foraging ecology of an endangered small desert mammal, the sandhill dunnart Sminthopsis psammophila,’ Journal of Mammalogy, vol. 103, pp. 1141-1152.\n\nRobinson, T, Gaikhorst, G, Pearson, D and Copley, P 2008, ‘Sminthopsis psammophila’, IUCN Red List of Threatened Species, ver. 2015.2, accessed on 13 August 2015.\n\nRaymond, OL, Liu, SF, Kilgour, P, Retter, AJ, Stewart, AJ and Stewart, G 2007, Surface geology of Australia 1: 1,000,000 scale (2nd Ed), Geoscience Australia, Canberra.\n\nRuscalleda-Alvarez, J, Moro, D and Van Dongen, R 2021, ‘A multi-scale assessment of fire scar mapping in the Great Victoria Desert of Western Australia’, International Journal of Wildland Fire.\n\nSandhill Dunnart Workshop 2014, Sandhill Dunnart Workshop Talk Book, accessed 5th August 2015.\n\nSpencer, WB 1896 (Eds), Report on the work of the Horn Scientific Expedition to Central Australia, part 1, pp. 84, Melville, Mullen and Slade, Melbourne.\n\nThe Great Victoria Desert Biodiversity Trust 2016, Sandhill Dunnart – research and adaptive management plan, Great Victoria Biodiversity Trust, Western Australia.\n\nThe Great Victoria Desert Biodiversity Trust 2015a, Expression of Interest: Sandhill Dunnart – defining a baseline survey design in the Great Victoria Desert, due 31 July 2015.\n\nThe Great Victoria Desert Biodiversity Trust 2015b, Expression of Interest: Sandhill Dunnart survey and monitoring protocol, due 31 July 2015.\n\nTSSC (Threatened Species Scientific Committee) 2013, Listing advice on the Key threatening process Novel biota and their impact on biodiversity, Department of the Environment, Canberra.\n\nTSSC (Threatened Species Scientific Committee) 2015, Conservation advice Sminthopsis psammophila (Sandhill dunnart), Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water, Canberra.\n\nTurpin, JM and Johnstone, RE 2017, ‘An isolated population of the southern scrub-robin (Drymodes brunneopygia) in the Great Victoria Desert’, Pacific Conservation Biology, vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 95-106.\n\nTurpin, J and Lloyd, R 2014, Sunrise Dam – Tropicana infrastructure corridor fauna survey, Kingfisher Environmental Consulting for AngloGold Ashanti Australia, Perth, Western Australia.\n\nTurpin, J and Riley, JL 2017, Sandhill dunnart monitoring, Kingfisher Environmental Consulting for AngloGold Ashanti Australia, Perth, Western Australia.\n\nTurpin, J and Riley, JL 2021, Sandhill dunnart monitoring, Kingfisher Environmental Consulting for AngloGold Ashanti Australia, Perth, Western Australia.\n\nVan Dyck, S, Gynther, I and Baker, A 2013, Field companion to the mammals of Australia, New Holland Publishers.\n\nWard, MJ (unpublished), Sandhill Dunnart monitoring data collected in South Australia from 2007 to 2010, Department of Environment, Water and Natural Resources, South Australia.\n\nWard, MJ 2009, Sandhill dunnart Sminthopsis psammophila monitoring and survey in the Great Victoria Desert, South Australia, 2008–2009. Department for Environment and Heritage, Adelaide.\n\nWard, MJ, Read, J and Moseby, K 2008, Monitoring Sandhill Dunnarts, Sminthopsis psammophila, in the Great Victorian Desert, Wildlife Conservation Fund, Department for Environment and Heritage, Adelaide.\n\nWarland, I and Mills, R 2011, Dozer / roller track creation procedure (unpublished report), Iluka Resources Limited, Australia.\n\nWaudby, H, How, T, Frazer, D and Obst, C 2007, South Australian Recovery Plan Review 2007: Findings, Patterns, and Recommendations, Federal Department for Environment and Heritage, Canberra.\n\nWay, S 2008, Sandhill Dunnart (Sminthopsis psammophila) surveys on eastern Eyre Peninsula, SA, Department for Environment and Heritage, South Australia.\n\nWoinarski, JCZ and Burbidge, AA 2016, ‘Sminthopsis psammophila’, The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2016.\n\nWoinarski, JCZ, Burbidge, AA and Harrison, PL 2014, The action plan for Australian mammals 2012, CSIRO Publishing, Collingwood.\n\nWoinarski, JC, Burbidge, AA and Harrison, PL 2015, ‘Ongoing unravelling of a continental fauna: Decline and extinction of Australian mammals since European settlement’, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 112, no. 15, pp. 4531–4540.\n\nWoolley, LA, Geyle, HM, Murphy, BP, Legge, SM, Palmer, R, Dickman, CR, Augusteyn, J, Comer, S, Doherty, TS, Eager, C and Edwards, G 2019. ‘Introduced cats Felis catus eating a continental fauna: inventory and traits of Australian mammal species killed,’ Mammal Review, vol. 49, no. 4, pp. 354-368.\n\nZichy-Woinarski, JC, Traill, B, and Booth, C 2014, The Modern Outback: Nature, people and the future of remote Australia.","sortOrder":47}],"analysis":{"flash_summary_failed":{"failed":true,"reason":"A positive credit balance is required for all requests, including BYOK, so fallback providers remain available. Add credits at https://vercel.com/d?to=%2F%5Bteam%5D%2F%7E%2Fai%3Fmodal%3Dtop-up to continue.","source":"analysis-cron"},"summary":{"complexity_score":6,"scope_assessment":{"changed":false,"description":"This instrument is clearly and consistently focused on a single purpose: the national recovery of the Sandhill dunnart (Sminthopsis psammophila) as required under Part 13 of the EPBC Act. It does not expand beyond that mandate. While it is broad in its coverage of threats, ecology, survey methodology, and stakeholder engagement, all of that content directly serves the core species recovery objective. The scope is consistent with what a National Recovery Plan under the EPBC Act is designed to achieve, and there is no evidence that it has grown beyond its original intent. This appears to be a first-generation plan for this species replacing an earlier 2001 draft plan, and the expansion of content reflects updated scientific knowledge rather than scope creep."},"complexity_factors":["Extensive cross-referencing to multiple external legislative instruments across three jurisdictions (EPBC Act Cth, BC Act WA, NPW Act SA, TPWC Act NT) and international frameworks (CITES, IUCN criteria)","Large volume of specialist ecological and scientific content requiring domain expertise to interpret (fire ecology, population genetics, species distribution modelling, critical weight range theory)","Recovery action table contains heavily conditional performance criteria — many criteria specify different timelines (1 year, 3 years, 5 years, 10 years) and conditional triggers ('within X years of the recovery plan coming into effect', 'if required', 'where supported by Traditional Custodians')","30+ acronyms defined in a dedicated table, reflecting high institutional complexity spanning multiple government agencies, research bodies, Indigenous organisations, and industry groups","Threat assessment framework uses a two-dimensional risk matrix (likelihood x consequence) with five categories each, creating 25-cell conditional logic requiring interpretation","Significant document-level structural duplication — entire sections appear to be repeated verbatim multiple times (an apparent formatting/rendering error in the source document), adding substantial reading burden without adding information","Geographic complexity spanning three states/territories and multiple land tenure types (Crown land, conservation reserves, Indigenous Protected Areas, pastoral leases, defence land, mining tenements)","Interplay between the plan's non-binding guidance status and the legally binding EPBC Act referral requirements creates an implicit but unexplained conditional regulatory layer"],"plain_english_summary":"This National Recovery Plan for the Sandhill Dunnart is a legally binding roadmap under the EPBC Act to halt decline and recover a tiny, threatened marsupial (5,000–10,000 individuals) across arid Australia. It directs governments, funds research, sets expectations for industry and land managers, and places Traditional Custodians at the centre of actions to tackle the worst threats (inappropriate fire, feral predators, invasive buffel grass, habitat loss and climate change). It’s the first coordinated national effort to prevent extinction and restore habitat."},"flash_summary":{"complexity_score":7,"scope_assessment":{"changed":true,"description":"Compared with earlier recovery material (for example, the 2001 draft recovery plan referenced in the acknowledgements), this instrument broadens scope in several concrete ways: it (a) formalises a large suite of site‑specific, measurable recovery actions with performance criteria (Table 3) rather than high‑level recommendations; (b) explicitly integrates climate change adaptation (feasibility studies for assisted movement/translocation and refugia identification – Action 1.5); (c) elevates biosecurity and active control of buffel grass and predator management as region‑wide priorities with operational guidance (Actions 1.3–1.4); (d) requires modern survey technologies and genomic/biobanking actions (Actions 3.1, 3.5); and (e) places greater emphasis on co‑design and implementation with Traditional Custodians and on multi‑partner governance (Actions 1.1, 4.1–4.2). Together these expand the plan from primarily survey and passive protection into a multi‑component, interventionist recovery programme with operational, regulatory and funding implications."},"complexity_factors":["Very long instrument (comprehensive multi‑part recovery plan with extensive background, ecology, threats, actions and references)","Multiple defined acronyms and stakeholders (Table of Acronyms; multi‑jurisdictional partners across Commonwealth, states, Traditional Owners, industry)","Table 3: many recovery actions each with nested sub‑actions, performance criteria, partners and priority ratings (structured but multilayered)","Cross-references between sections (threats → actions → monitoring → management advice) requiring synthesis to apply on the ground","Conditional and staged measures (feasibility studies → trials → full implementation; e.g. translocation feasibility → trial planning → approvals)","Technical survey and monitoring requirements with field method conditions (pitfall depths, camera use, seasonality) and detection uncertainty (Sections 4.1, 3.3)","Multiple exceptions and site‑specific prescriptions (different fire recommendations for eastern GVD vs other areas; variable post‑fire age guidance)","High number of cited external scientific sources and data layers (genetics, SDMs, fire mapping) that implementers must integrate","Operational dependencies on funding, interagency coordination and Traditional Owner consent (adds governance complexity)","Adaptive management design that requires repeated data flows, decision triggers and periodic review (five‑year reviews specified)"],"plain_english_summary":"**What this instrument is and does**\n\nThis document is a National Recovery Plan for the Sandhill dunnart (Sminthopsis psammophila). It is produced under the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) to guide conservation across the species' range. Mechanically it: \n\n- describes the species' biology, distribution and threats (Sections 1–2); \n- sets a recovery vision and four clear objectives (Section 3.1–3.2); and \n- lists a structured set of recovery actions, with performance criteria, partners and priorities, intended to be adopted by government agencies, Traditional Custodians, land managers and other stakeholders (Section 3.3, Table 3). \n\nThe plan is an operational roadmap: it does not itself create new criminal offences or land‑use permissions, but it sets expectations, targets and guidance that will inform statutory approvals, on‑ground management, funding decisions and state/industry practice (Background; Section 3.3).\n\n**Who this affects**\n\n- Government land managers and agencies at Commonwealth, state and territory level (listed in Key Partners). \n- Traditional Owners and Indigenous ranger groups, who are named as principal partners and co‑designers for many actions (Cultural significance; Actions 1.1, 1.2, 3.4, 4.1). \n- Conservation NGOs, research institutions and recovery teams that will carry out surveys, monitoring and research (Actions 3.1–3.3). \n- Resource industries and proponents (mining, exploration, infrastructure) operating in or near the Great Victoria Desert and Eyre Peninsula: the plan identifies habitat features and buffers that should be avoided and recommends how impacts should be assessed and mitigated (Section 2.3; Action 2.1; Management practices to be avoided). \n- Local communities and landholders who manage grazing, fire or access tracks that intersect potential habitat (Key Partners; Actions 1.4, 2.1).\n\n**Why it matters (practical consequences)**\n\n- Sets conservation priorities and measurable targets: e.g. habitat management plans for each sub‑population, spatially explicit fire management, predator control trials, buffel‑grass biosecurity and monitoring programs (Section 3.3, Actions 1.1–1.6, 2.1, 3.1–3.3). \n- Directs where public and grant funding, scientific effort and on‑ground management should be focused by naming high‑priority actions and performance criteria (Table 3). \n- Influences statutory decisions: the plan will be a primary source of “best available information” about the species for environmental assessments and offsets under the EPBC Act, and for state planning processes (Background; Management practices). \n\n**How it works mechanically (decision and incentive structure)**\n\n- The plan assigns responsibilities to a wide set of partners (Commonwealth departments, state DEWs, DBCA, landscape boards, Traditional Custodians, NGOs, industry) and ranks actions by priority so funding/effort can be triaged (Table 3). \n- It uses performance criteria and timescales (for example: habitat management plans prepared and implementation commenced within 3 years; feasibility study for translocations within 5 years) so agencies can be held to concrete milestones (Action 1.1, 1.5, 3.1). \n- The plan relies heavily on adaptive management: monitoring results are the intended trigger to review and update actions (Action 3.2; Adaptive elements across Table 3). \n\n**Costs, trade‑offs and implementation risks**\n\n- Concentrated benefits / diffuse costs: most benefits (reduced extinction risk) are ecological/public goods; costs are concentrated on parties doing on‑ground work (government agencies, Indigenous ranger programs, regional NRM bodies, and sometimes industry when their operations are near habitat) because the plan expects activity (burning, baiting, buffers, biosecurity) and monitoring to be delivered locally (Actions 1.2–1.4, 2.1). \n- Implementation burden: the plan requires multi‑jurisdictional coordination, long‑term monitoring, and sustained funding to meet performance criteria (Table 3). Success depends on securing recurrent funding and co‑operation between Commonwealth, states and Traditional Owners (Key partners; Actions 4.1–4.2). \n- Scientific uncertainty and detection limits: the species is hard to detect. The plan therefore proposes new survey technologies and repeated monitoring; non‑detection is explicitly not treated as proof of absence (Section 4.1; Actions 3.1, 3.5). This raises the practical risk that investment continues in uncertain areas without clear returns. \n- Trade‑offs in threat management: predator control, fire mosaics and buffel‑grass control interact. For example, prescribed burns intended to sustain habitat age classes may temporarily increase predation risk and require simultaneous predator control — the plan recognises this and prescribes integrated responses but these are operationally complex (Action 1.2 and 1.3). \n- Regulatory and permitting path dependency: some actions (translocations, controlled relocations, trials) will require statutory approvals under state and Commonwealth laws; planning and pre‑approvals are proposed in the plan to reduce delay (Action 1.2, 1.5). \n\n**Effects on private enterprise, land use and planning**\n\n- Mining, exploration and infrastructure proponents operating in the GVD and Eyre Peninsula are identified as stakeholders; the plan flags high‑value habitat and recommends avoidance, buffers, and careful rehabilitation (Section 1.2.5; Action 2.1). That creates potential additional mitigation costs in environmental approvals and project design. \n- Some proposed on‑ground measures (predator control, buffel‑grass prevention, limits on track creation) will increase compliance and operational costs for private land managers and proponents active in or near habitat (Actions 1.3–1.4, Management practices). \n\n**Implementation risk and uncertainty**\n\n- Success depends on securing multi‑year funding, coordinated governance across jurisdictions, and engagement of Traditional Custodians (Actions 4.1–4.2). \n- Several high‑priority actions rest on uncertain science (cause of Triodia die‑offs, exact habitat connectivity and undetected populations) and therefore require research components before large scale interventions are undertaken (Actions 1.6, 3.1–3.3). \n\n**Summary — who pays, who decides, what behaviour changes**\n\n- Who pays: mainly public agencies and programme funders (Commonwealth/state grants, landscape boards) and partnered NGOs; industry may also bear mitigation costs through environmental conditions attached to approvals. \n- Who decides: the plan assigns decision roles to state and Commonwealth departments, Traditional Custodians and local managers, with options for a national recovery team to coordinate (Action 4.2). \n- Behaviour changes signalled: more systematic surveys and monitoring, adoption of fire mosaics and biosecurity to prevent buffel grass spread, predator management integrated with fire, and greater involvement of Traditional Custodians in on‑ground management (Sections 3.3, 4.1, Table 3). \n\nIf you want, I can extract the plan's top 10 actions with their deadlines and the agencies named as leads, or produce a short briefing note for an industry proponent describing practical compliance and mitigation steps they should expect when operating near identified habitat."},"kimi_summary":{"_metrics":{"completionTokens":807},"content_quality":"ok","complexity_score":6,"scope_assessment":{"changed":false,"description":"This is a species-specific recovery plan made under Part 13 of the EPBC Act. The scope remains focused on conservation of the Sandhill dunnart across its known range, with appropriate coverage of ecological, threat, and management factors. No evidence of scope creep beyond the original purpose."},"complexity_factors":["Multiple overlapping legislative frameworks (EPBC Act, WA BC Act, SA NPW Act, NT TPWC Act, CITES)","Extensive cross-referencing to scientific literature and prior recovery plans","Detailed threat assessment with risk matrix using IUCN criteria and likelihood/consequence categories","Multiple habitat classifications and fire-age thresholds varying by region (WA vs SA)","Genetic and ecological complexity requiring nuanced management (e.g., boom-bust population dynamics, sex-specific ranging behaviour)","Numerous acronyms and defined terms (47+ acronyms in dedicated table)","Conditional management recommendations (e.g., prescribed burning recommended except in eastern GVD)","Integration with Indigenous Protected Areas and native title arrangements"],"plain_english_summary":"This is a **National Recovery Plan** for the **Sandhill dunnart** (*Sminthopsis psammophila*), a small marsupial listed as **Endangered** under Commonwealth law. The plan sets out how to stop the species from declining and help it recover.\n\n**What is a Sandhill dunnart?**\n- A nocturnal, insect-eating marsupial about the size of a mouse (25–55 grams)\n- Lives in arid and semi-arid regions of Australia, primarily in **spinifex grasslands** on sandy soils\n- Needs **long-unburnt habitat** (ideally 10–30+ years without fire) with dense spinifex hummocks for shelter\n- Found in three main areas: southwestern **Great Victoria Desert (WA)**, **Yellabinna Regional Reserve (SA)**, and **Eyre Peninsula (SA)**\n\n**Why is it threatened?**\n- **Inappropriate fire regimes**: Large wildfires destroy mature spinifex habitat; the species needs patches of old, unburnt vegetation\n- **Habitat loss and fragmentation**: 54% of Eyre Peninsula cleared for agriculture; remaining habitat is isolated\n- **Predation by feral cats and foxes**: These introduced predators are present across the range\n- **Climate change**: Rising temperatures, more frequent wildfires, and drought are shrinking suitable habitat north-to-south\n- **Buffel grass invasion**: This weed increases fire intensity and outcompetes native spinifex\n- **Mining and exploration**: Disturbs habitat and spreads weeds\n\n**What does this plan do?**\n- Establishes **four recovery objectives**: manage threats, protect and connect habitat, improve scientific understanding, and empower Traditional Custodians to lead conservation\n- Identifies **five sub-populations** that need protection\n- Recommends **prescribed burning** to create habitat mosaics (but not in eastern Great Victoria Desert)\n- Calls for **surveys and monitoring** to find new populations and track existing ones\n- Emphasises partnership with **Traditional Owners**, whose land management (including cultural burning) is critical to the species' survival\n- Notes that **translocations** to fenced reserves may be needed as climate change makes northern habitats unsuitable\n\n**Who is involved?**\n- Commonwealth and state environment departments\n- Traditional Custodians (Mirning, Anangu, Maralinga, Spinifex Peoples, and others)\n- Mining companies (as part of environmental offsets)\n- Research institutions and community groups\n\nThe plan is made under **Part 13 of the EPBC Act** (the Commonwealth's main environment law) and operates across **Western Australia, South Australia, and the Northern Territory**."}},"importantCases":[],"_links":{"self":"/api/acts/environment-protection-and-biodiversity-conservation-national-recovery-plan-for-the-sandhill-dunnart","history":"/api/acts/environment-protection-and-biodiversity-conservation-national-recovery-plan-for-the-sandhill-dunnart/history","analysis":"/api/acts/environment-protection-and-biodiversity-conservation-national-recovery-plan-for-the-sandhill-dunnart/analysis","conflicts":"/api/acts/environment-protection-and-biodiversity-conservation-national-recovery-plan-for-the-sandhill-dunnart/conflicts","importantCases":"/api/acts/environment-protection-and-biodiversity-conservation-national-recovery-plan-for-the-sandhill-dunnart/important-cases","documents":"/api/acts/environment-protection-and-biodiversity-conservation-national-recovery-plan-for-the-sandhill-dunnart/documents"}}