Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-6grmk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-05T05:47:32.520Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Wetland restoration in an arid landscape: forging a scientific partnership founded on First Nations’ Custodianship and management

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 November 2026

Richard T. Kingsford Open the ORCID record for Richard T. Kingsford [Opens in a new window] ,
Jamie Woods ,
Rene Woods ,
Jana Stewart ,
Jose Ferrer-Paris ,
Roxane Francis ,
Thomas Mesaglio ,
Sylvia Hay ,
Kate Brandis  and
Ian Davidson
...Show all authors
Richard T. Kingsford*
Affiliation:
Centre for Ecosystem Science, UNSW Sydney , Australia
Jamie Woods
Affiliation:
Nari Nari Tribal Council, Australia
Rene Woods
Affiliation:
Nari Nari Tribal Council, Australia
Jana Stewart
Affiliation:
Centre for Ecosystem Science, UNSW Sydney , Australia
Jose Ferrer-Paris
Affiliation:
Centre for Ecosystem Science, UNSW Sydney , Australia
Roxane Francis
Affiliation:
Centre for Ecosystem Science, UNSW Sydney , Australia
Thomas Mesaglio
Affiliation:
Centre for Ecosystem Science, UNSW Sydney , Australia
Sylvia Hay
Affiliation:
Centre for Ecosystem Science, UNSW Sydney , Australia
Kate Brandis
Affiliation:
Centre for Ecosystem Science, UNSW Sydney , Australia
Ian Davidson
Affiliation:
Murray Darling Wetlands Working Group, Australia
David J. Eldridge
Affiliation:
Centre for Ecosystem Science, UNSW Sydney , Australia
*
Corresponding author: Richard Kingsford; Email: richard.kingsford@unsw.edu.au
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Content of image described in text.

The Gayini Wetlands are an extensive but highly degraded floodplain in the drylands of Australia, dependent on the Murrumbidgee River in the Murray-Darling Basin. The country was dispossessed from the Nari Nari Aboriginal peoples during colonisation. The wetland, its original floodplain and terrestrial areas (844.17 km2) are now back in Nari Nari custodianship. The Nari Nari Tribal Council are leading restoration of their ancient land by reconnecting the original floodplain to its water, partnering with conservationists and scientists. There is a strong focus on the drivers and indicators of the ecosystems and their functions, with rigorous science collecting and analysing data to inform effective adaptive management, with progress already made towards ecological and social attributes. It is the building of trusted relationships that drives collaboration, including two-way learning, with citizen science playing an increasingly important role. Ultimately the Gayini Wetlands depend on water from the Murrumbidgee River with considerable extraction pressures for people and irrigated agriculture, further reduced by a drying climate. Restoration of the Gayini Wetlands in Australia’s drylands exemplifies strong collaboration, with strong leadership by Aboriginal people, delivering for the environment, cultural values and economic independence.

Topics structure

Topic(s)

Biophysical threatsDryland ecosystemsLand use and managementSociety and drylands

Subtopic(s)

Aquatic, wetlands and coastalIndigenous knowledgeRehabilitation

Keywords

Gayini Wetlandsfloodplain wetlandsecosystem indicatorsadaptive managementMurrumbidgee RiverAboriginalAustralia

Information

Type
Perspective
Information
Cambridge Prisms: Drylands , Volume 3 , 2026 , e41
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution and reproduction, provided the original article is properly cited.
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2026. Published by Cambridge University Press

Impact statement

The world’s freshwater ecosystems are in decline, particularly in dryland regions where there is water scarcity, exacerbated by human demands. The Gayini Wetlands in the Murray-Darling Basin of southeastern Australia have more than a century of devastating impacts from reductions in flows and flooding regimes caused by diversion of water upstream and floodplain development. In 2019, ownership was returned to the First Nations Aboriginal Custodians, the Nari Nari Tribal Council. They have embarked on a large-scale restoration initiative over the Gayini Wetlands and nearby terrestrial areas (844.17 km2). Working with scientists and conservationists, they are restoring the original floodplain, allowing water to flood areas where it was once inundated. Change is tracked by ecological indicators, utilising scientific knowledge and expertise, citizen science and First Nations Aboriginal Knowledge. This is a strong partnership built on trust and proven delivery, fostering the development of adaptive management rigour with decisions informed by science.

Introduction

Drylands, which include arid and semiarid ecosystems, are one of the more extensive biomes on Earth. They support about 40% of the global human population, providing a wide range of critical ecosystem goods and services to biota, including people (Maestre et al., Reference McCartney, Rebelo, Sellamuttu, Finlayson, Horwitz and Weinstein2015). Drylands are intrinsically water- and nutrient-limited, with water availability driving ecosystem productivity and function (Maestre et al., 2016). Despite this dryness, drylands host extensive and diverse natural freshwater ecosystems (Grenfell et al., Reference Grenfell, Grenfell, Tooth, Mehl, O’Gorman, Ralph and Ellery2022): floodplains, rivers, lakes and seasonal floodplain forests. The natural ecosystems support a huge diversity of vertebrate species (e.g. waterbirds, fish, frogs, reptiles), invertebrates, flood-dependent vegetation and other biota, and provide important refugia for migratory species and fisheries. These freshwater ecosystems are critical for ecosystem functions and services, including provision of fresh water and habitat, carbon storage, long-term buffering against droughts and floods and human services (Kingsford et al., Reference Kingsford, Basset and Jackson2016; Moomaw et al., Reference Moomaw, Chmura, Davies, Finlayson, Middleton, Natali, Perry, Roulet and Sutton-Grier2018; Janse et al., Reference Janse, van Dam, Hes, de Klein, Finlayson, Janssen, van Wijk, Mooij and Verhoeven2019). Some of these services are also provided by human-constructed systems, such as dams and channels. Decline in wetland extent and quality presents enormous challenges for human and societal wellbeing, including social, cultural and economic significance for indigenous communities (McCartney et al., Reference McCartney, Rebelo, Sellamuttu, Finlayson, Horwitz and Weinstein2015). Indigenous communities have continued to be poorly served by policies and legislation (Tan and Jackson, Reference Tan and Jackson2013). Despite their importance, freshwater ecosystems are disappearing globally, particularly in drylands where there are greater pressures on water (Kingsford et al., Reference Kingsford, Lemly, Thompson and Kingsford2006; Lemly et al., Reference Lemly, Kingsford and Thompson2000; Kan et al., Reference Kan, Levy, Mazur, Samberg, Persson, Sloat, Segovia, Parente and Kastner2026).

Almost three-quarters of the Australian landmass is classified as dryland (i.e. an aridity index <0.65; Larkin et al., Reference Larkin, Ralph, Tooth, Fryirs and Carthey2020). Evaporation in Australia’s drylands exceeds rainfall, and its soils are ancient, extensively reorganised, nutrient-poor and high in pH, with signs of degradation from salinisation, due to historic land clearing and overgrazing (Eldridge and Delgado-Baquerizo, Reference Eldridge and Delgado-Baquerizo2017; Eldridge et al., Reference Eldridge, Maestre, Koen and Delgado-Baquerizo2018). Traversing this vast dry continent in the eastern region is Australia’s largest and longest river, the Murray River, with the Murrumbidgee River its largest tributary (Figure 1a). The Murrumbidgee River starts in the mesic upper catchment of the Great Dividing Range and flows west, supplying the once extensive wetlands of the Lower Murrumbidgee River floodplain (hereafter Lowbidgee Wetlands; Figure 1). The Lowbidgee Wetlands are the largest and most important wetland system in this river, once extending over an area of more than 3,000 km2 (Kingsford and Thomas, Reference Kingsford and Thomas2004, Figure 1).

Figure 1.

(a) Schematic showing the Gayini Wetlands, part of the southern Lowbidgee floodplain (inset red circle), fed by the Murrumbidgee River (blue line), within the Murray-Darling Basin in southeastern Australia (inset-top right), the traditional lands and waters of the Nari Nari Aboriginal peoples (green dashed line), with the Murrumbidgee River, and encompassing the original Lowbidgee Floodplain (dappled grey), with the remnant floodplain (dotted white), with the black lines indicating levee banks, breached to allow water to restore the original floodplain areas (blue arrows, show flood movement) and (b) the Murrumbidgee River (green circle), where floodwaters come from and (c) the Gayini Wetlands, showing the approximate location of one of the levee banks on an irrigation bay (orange circle), breached to allow water to inundate the original floodplain.

A three-panel graphic including a map of the Gayini Wetlands and two site photographs showing the Murrumbidgee River and a breached levee bank. See long description.
Figure 1. Long description

The graphic is divided into three panels labeled a, b, and c.

Panel a is a geographical map with a North arrow and a 10 kilometer scale bar. Two inset maps at the top right show the location within Australia and the Murray-Darling Basin. The main map is bounded by a green dashed line representing Nari Nari land and water. A large dappled grey area represents the original floodplain, while a smaller white dotted area in the center represents the remnant floodplain. A thick blue line, the Murrumbidgee River, flows from East to West through the dappled grey area. Black lines indicate levee banks, and four blue arrows point from the river and remnant areas into the original floodplain, indicating flood movement through breaches. A green dot marks the Murrumbidgee River and an orange dot marks a specific levee bank breach.

Panel b is a photograph showing a group of four people standing on a dirt bank under large eucalyptus trees, looking at a calm section of the Murrumbidgee River.

Panel c is an aerial photograph of the Gayini Wetlands showing a long, straight dirt levee bank cutting through a vast, flat landscape that is partially inundated with shallow water.

Exploitation of river water was the dominant development paradigm in Australia in the 20th century, driven by governments through dam construction and subsidies for irrigation (Wheeler et al., Reference Wheeler, Carmody, Grafton, Kingsford and Zuo2020). This exploitation also applied to large areas of the original Lowbidgee Wetlands, including the Gayini Wetlands, the land and water country of the Nari Nari (Figure 1). Much of this area no longer receives flooding, leaving remnant floodplain areas (Kingsford and Thomas, Reference Kingsford and Thomas2004, Figure 1). This was exacerbated in the 1990s, when large areas of natural floodplain vegetation (dominated by Duma florulenta) were cleared, soils levelled and channels, levee banks and “irrigation bays” constructed to support irrigated agriculture (Kingsford, Reference Kingsford2003, Figure 1). The large-scale loss of the original Lowbidgee floodplain, constricted by regulatory structures, had devastating ecological consequences (Kingsford and Thomas, Reference Kingsford and Thomas2004). The Lowbidgee Wetlands, predominantly the Gayini Wetlands, became severely degraded, largely due to river regulation, the building of irrigation bays and levee banks that altered natural flooding regimes and destroyed many culturally important sites. The cultural value of the Gayini Wetlands is significant, with more than 1,200 Cultural heritage sites remaining, including scar trees, middens, earth mounds, and burial sites, reflecting up to 50,000 years of continual indigenous occupation and use (Woods et al., Reference Woods, Woods and Fitzsimons2022). This and their ecological value make them critically important to Aboriginal people and a restoration priority.

After more than two centuries of exploitation, governments and the community came together to restore the Lowbidgee Floodplain ecosystem, including the Gayini Wetlands. In 2019, legal ownership and management of the Gayini Wetlands (844.17 km2), part of the Lowbidgee Wetlands, was returned to the First Nations Custodians, the Nari Nari Tribal Council, recognising their enduring connection to the land and water (Fitzsimons et al., Reference Fitzsimons, Woods, Woods, Woods, Ridge, Brettschneider, Perceval, Goodwin, Smillie, Elton and Kingsford2025). This recognised the fundamental importance of the waterways, where water is understood as “Country” and central to indigenous identity, Cultural heritage, food, ceremony and wellbeing (Woods et al., Reference Woods, Woods and Fitzsimons2022). An extensive multifaceted endeavour is restoring some of the original Gayini floodplain (Figure 1). The Nari Nari Tribal Council’s vision captures this and the importance of First Nations management of country: “Nature at Gayini thrives, and the First Nations peoples of Gayini heal its land and waters.”

In this perspective, we describe the collaborative efforts of the indigenous custodians, the Nari Nari Tribal Council, conservation organisations and ecosystem scientists to restore the Gayini Wetlands, one of Australia’s largest wetland restoration initiatives in the drylands of eastern Australia. The Gayini Wetlands provide considerable opportunities for biodiversity recovery from degradation, as well as empowerment and opportunities for “closing the gap” (Australian Government, 2020) for the Nari Nari First Nations Custodians. Aboriginal custodianship and management of land and water is fundamental. We examine the role of ecosystem science in diagnosing threats, identifying indicators and informing ecological management. Finally, we focus on the environmental management challenges and opportunities within an adaptive management framework.

Ecosystem management of the Gayini Wetlands

Fourteen ecosystem functional groups sensu (Keith et al., Reference Keith, Ferrer-Paris, Nicholson, Bishop, Polidoro, Ramirez-Llodra, Tozer, Nel, Mac Nally, Gregr, Watermeyer, Essl, Faber-Langendoen, Franklin, Lehmann, Etter, Roux, Stark, Rowland, Brummitt, Fernandez-Arcaya, Suthers, Wiser, Donohue, Jackson, Pennington, Iliffe, Gerovasileiou, Giller, Robson, Pettorelli, Andrade, Lindgaard, Tahvanainen, Terauds, Chadwick, Murray, Moat, Pliscoff, Zager and Kingsford2022) comprise the Gayini Wetlands (Figure 2). These include groups from the terrestrial, freshwater and transition realms, with some groups recognised as “anthropogenic” (Figure 2). These functional groups have been mapped using rule-set approaches to combine vegetation maps, land cover and land use classifications and remote sensing data (Keith and Simpson, Reference Keith and Simpson2010; NSW, 2017; Macfarlane et al., Reference Macfarlane, Cox, Francis, Jordan, Keith, Kingsford, Liu, Newnham, Nicholson, Prober, Richards, Tetreault Campbell, Trebilco and Schmidt2024; Francis et al., Reference Francis, Grantham, Keith, Ferrer-Paris and and Kingsford2025). Given the dynamic nature of the Gayini Wetlands, mapping its ecosystems is challenging, with ongoing human-induced changes (transformation, degradation, restoration) and complex interactions between water and native biota in dryland environments, characterised by large interannual variability (Maestre et al., Reference McCartney, Rebelo, Sellamuttu, Finlayson, Horwitz and Weinstein2015).

Figure 2.

Initial assessment of the ecosystem functional groups present in the Gayini Wetlands, classified according to the Global Ecosystem Typology (Keith et al., Reference Keith, Ferrer-Paris, Nicholson, Bishop, Polidoro, Ramirez-Llodra, Tozer, Nel, Mac Nally, Gregr, Watermeyer, Essl, Faber-Langendoen, Franklin, Lehmann, Etter, Roux, Stark, Rowland, Brummitt, Fernandez-Arcaya, Suthers, Wiser, Donohue, Jackson, Pennington, Iliffe, Gerovasileiou, Giller, Robson, Pettorelli, Andrade, Lindgaard, Tahvanainen, Terauds, Chadwick, Murray, Moat, Pliscoff, Zager and Kingsford2022). These include ecosystems from freshwater and terrestrial realms, including anthropogenic ecosystems (see methods in Francis et al., Reference Francis, Grantham, Keith, Ferrer-Paris and and Kingsford2025). Data were compiled from the NEAP project (based on national layers (Macfarlane et al. Reference Macfarlane, Cox, Francis, Jordan, Keith, Kingsford, Liu, Newnham, Nicholson, Prober, Richards, Tetreault Campbell, Trebilco and Schmidt2024)), New South Wales state vegetation maps (Keith Reference Keith2004, Keith and Simpson Reference Keith and Simpson2010, Roff et al. Reference Roff, Day, Thonell and Denholm2022) and Digital Earth Australia. Black dotted sites are culturally important sites recorded on the Aboriginal Heritage Information Management System (https://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/awssapp/Login.aspx?ReturnUrl=%2fawssapp). Dashed rectangles (1, 2) identify highlighted areas (see Figure 3), restored by increased flooding.

A color-coded ecological map of Gayini Wetlands showing palustrine, terrestrial, and freshwater functional groups with cultural sites and restoration zones. See long description.
Figure 2. Long description

A geographical map of the Gayini Wetlands categorized by ecosystem functional groups.

Legend Categories:

* Palustrine wetlands: T F 1.2 Subtropical or temperate forested wetlands (light green), T F 1.3 Permanent marshes (yellow), T F 1.4 Seasonal floodplain marshes (lime green), T F 1.5 Episodic arid floodplains (olive green).

* Terrestrial: T 4.5 Temperate subhumid grasslands (pale yellow), T 5.1 Semi-desert steppe (orange), T 5.6 Semi-arid woodlands (dark orange), T 7.1 Annual croplands (light gray), T 7.2 Sown pastures and fields (white).

* Freshwater: F 1.2 Permanent lowland rivers (dark blue), F 1.6 Episodic arid rivers (dark teal), F 2.3 Seasonal freshwater lakes (cyan), F 2.5 Ephemeral freshwater lakes (medium blue), F 2.7 Ephemeral salt lakes (teal), F 3.2 Constructed lacustrine wetlands (gray).

Map Distribution:

* North: The Murrumbidgee River flows along the northern boundary, surrounded by T F 1.5 episodic arid floodplains and scattered black dots representing A H I M S cultural sites.

* Central: A large horizontal band of T 7.1 annual croplands and T 7.2 sown pastures dominates the mid-section, interspersed with Pollen Creek.

* South and Southwest: Features Kia Lake (cyan) in the far Southwest and Nimmie Crapke Lake. The area is a dense mix of T F 1.5 floodplains and T 5.6 semi-arid woodlands.

* East: Uara Creek flows through the eastern section.

* Highlighted Zones: Two dashed black rectangles labeled 1 and 2 are positioned in the Southeast and South-Central regions respectively, indicating areas restored by flooding.

* Scale and Orientation: A 10 kilometer scale bar is located at the bottom right next to a North-pointing arrow.

The Lowbidgee Floodplain, including the Gayini Wetlands, have had natural flows reduced by 43% (Kreibich et al., Reference Kreibich, Bino, Zheng, Chiew, Glamore, Woods and Kingsford2024), destroying much of its extensive floodplain (Kingsford, Reference Kingsford2003; Kingsford and Thomas, Reference Kingsford and Thomas2004). Ecological science was fundamental in alerting communities and governments to the extent of wetland degradation and its causes (Kingsford and Thomas, Reference Kingsford and Thomas2004). This provided some of the impetus for large-scale restoration on the Lowbidgee floodplain broadly with a focus on the Gayini Wetlands driven by a consortium of partners (Nari Nari Tribal Council and partners, New South Wales and Australian Governments). Previous landholders using irrigation in the area formed a coalition of willing sellers of land and water and approached the Australian Government, under the programme to restore the rivers of the Murray-Darling Basin, through an investment of >$AUD 13 billion. The Australian Government decided to buy the land (844.17 km2) and its water (supplementary Water Entitlements (a long-term average yield of 173,000 ML yr−1)) for $AUD 180.1 million (Australian National Audit Office, 2015). This was a demonstration of a large area of floodplain and its water being returned to the environment. The ownership of the land was subsequently transferred to the Nari Nari Tribal Council in 2019. The water was called water savings and was transferred to the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder to manage. Water supplied by the Australian Government and environmental flows, managed by the Nari Nari Tribal Council, aim to restore the functionality of the wetlands by breaching levee banks, allowing water to flood original parts of the floodplain (Figures 1a,c and 3). The area is also grazed by cattle, an important income source for the Nari Nari Tribal Council. Tracking the effects of environmental flows and different levels of livestock grazing (cattle, Bos taurus) is important for transparent reporting to track the progress towards restoration. This requires identification and measurement of ecosystem indicators and drivers. Funding for the project comes from a range of sources, principally philanthropic initially, but from state and federal government programmes (e.g. Aboriginal ranger programmes, restoration of vegetation, water management) and research programmes (e.g. grazing study).

Figure 3.

Landsat satellite imagery showing two areas of restoration in the Gayini Wetlands (see Figure 2), during the 2010 and 2022 large floods, showing extensive extra flooding occurring in 2022, compared to 2010, because of the breaches (red circles) of levee banks, allowing water to flood and restore the original floodplain (see Figure 1), whereas flooding in 2010 is constrained (red straight lines) by continuous levees.

Four-panel satellite map comparing flood extent in Gayini Wetlands between 2010 and 2022 across two sections. See long description.
Figure 3. Long description

A multi-panel satellite comparison divided into four quadrants. A green arrow in the center points from the left panels to the right panels. A scale bar at the bottom indicates 0 to 2 k m.

Top-Left Panel: Section 1 - 2010. Blue floodwater is confined to the North by a continuous red line representing a levee bank. The land to the South of the line is dry brown and green terrain.

Top-Right Panel: Section 1 - 2022. The same area shows blue floodwater breaching the red line at three points marked by red circles. Significant flooding has spread Southward into the previously dry floodplain.

Bottom-Left Panel: Section 2 - 2010. Blue floodwater is restricted to the West and a small channel in the North-East, bounded by straight red levee lines. The central and Southern areas remain dry.

Bottom-Right Panel: Section 2 - 2022. The red levee lines are now marked with five red circles indicating breaches. Blue floodwater has moved through these breaches, covering almost the entire Southern and Eastern portions of the panel, restoring the original floodplain.

Ecosystem indicators of wetland and dryland function

Environmental water delivery and natural flooding are essential for the health of the Gayini Wetlands, their biota and the Indigenous community. Flows that mimic natural events are particularly important (Poff et al., Reference Poff, Allan, Bain, Karr, Prestegaard, Richter, Sparks and Stromberg1997; Arthington et al., Reference Arthington, Bunn, Poff and Naiman2006), providing connectivity among different dependent ecosystems (channels, drylands, wetlands). Indicators of wetland health include the amount, timing, frequency, and duration of flows (Poff et al., Reference Poff, Allan, Bain, Karr, Prestegaard, Richter, Sparks and Stromberg1997; Dudgeon et al., Reference Dudgeon, Arthington, Gessner, Kawabata, Knowler, Lévêque, Naiman, Prieur-Richard, Soto, Stiassny and Sullivan2006), including flooding extent (Figure 3). Satellite imagery and remote sensing tools (Thomas et al., Reference Thomas, Kingsford, Lu, Cox, Sims and Hunter2015) are being used to detect these indicators and track functional changes in wetland ecosystems, including transitions between dryland and wetland ecosystems (Francis et al., Reference Francis, Grantham, Keith, Ferrer-Paris and and Kingsford2025). Daily flow gauge data measure flow in the Murrumbidgee River and its flooding of the Gayini Wetlands (Ren and Kingsford, Reference Ren and Kingsford2014; Kreibich et al., Reference Kreibich, Bino, Zheng, Chiew, Glamore, Woods and Kingsford2024).

Indicators of freshwater biota include waterbirds (Kingsford et al., Reference Kingsford, Porter, Brandis and Ryall2020), with fish and turtles tracked regularly as part of a monitoring, evaluation and research programme (Bino et al., Reference Bino, Wassens, Kingsford, Thomas and Spencer2018; Ocock et al., Reference Ocock, Bino, Wassens, Spencer, Thomas and Kingsford2018). Waterbird groups and species can reflect the range of ecosystem characteristics, including water quality and availability, condition of food resources and the provision of nesting and roosting habitat (Kushlan, Reference Kushlan1993; Frederick et al., Reference Frederick, Gawlik, Ogden, Cook and Lusk2009). The Lowbidgee Floodplain, including the Gayini Wetlands, is critically important for waterbirds, providing a large mosaic of wetland habitats that attract diverse and abundant resident and migratory species (Kingsford and Thomas, Reference Kingsford and Thomas2004). These include the threatened freckled duck (Stictonetta naevosa), blue-billed duck (Oxyura australis) and Australian painted-snipe (Rostratula australis). Some of these species are also culturally significant, such as the Australian painted-snipe and black swans (Cygnus atratus). The Gayini Wetlands are one of the few wetland areas in Australia that regularly support large (>50,000 nests) rookeries for group-nesting waterbirds, such as ibis and pelicans (Brandis et al., Reference Brandis, Smith, Stewart, Juilliard, McEvoy and Francis2023). Waterbird indicators were critical in diagnosing long-term degradation of the Lowbidgee ecosystems (Kingsford and Thomas, Reference Kingsford and Thomas2004), using annual aerial bird surveys (Kingsford et al., Reference Kingsford, Porter, Brandis and Ryall2020). Annual waterbird ground surveys provide data on wetlands (Wassens et al., Reference Wassens, Michael, Spencer, Thiem, Wright, Thomas, Kobayashi, Whiterod, Wright, Turner, Bino, Turner, Heath and Hall2022), with rookery size and reproductive success monitored regularly since 2010 (Francis and Brandis, Reference Francis and Brandis2022; Brandis et al., Reference Brandis, Smith, Stewart, Juilliard, McEvoy and Francis2023).

Native fish species are also important indicators of ecosystem state, with poor water quality significantly harmful to fish populations (Parker et al., Reference Parker, Epifanio, Casper and Cao2016; Stocks et al., Reference Stocks, Ellis, van der Meulen, Doyle and Cheshire2021). Fish populations are monitored at Gayini Wetlands, with diversity and abundance reflecting river flows and floodplain inundation (Bino et al., Reference Bino, Wassens, Kingsford, Thomas and Spencer2018). The mosaic of habitats in the Gayini Wetlands supports fish species diversity and key life history stages such as spawning and recruitment, particularly during low flow periods (Wassens et al., Reference Wassens, Michael, Spencer, Thiem, Wright, Thomas, Kobayashi, Whiterod, Wright, Turner, Bino, Turner, Heath and Hall2022). Spawning of golden perch (Macquaria ambigua), silver perch (Bidyanus bidyanus) and Murray cod (Maccullochella peelii) is closely linked to water temperature and flows in spring and summer (King et al., Reference King, Tonkin and Mahoney2009). Connectivity between watercourses and floodplain wetlands is also essential for fish passage and access to habitats (Rolls, Reference Rolls2011; Martino et al., Reference Martino, Suthers, Kingsford, Doyle, Baumgartner and Felder2025).

Tracking of vegetation indicators can reflect the effects of flooding on restoration and impacts of livestock grazing on the wetlands, including exotic plant species. The Gayini Wetlands have areas with different levels of grazing. These include three treatments, with vegetation monitored across different paddocks, stratified by vegetation community: (i) no grazing; (ii) grazing for only 14 days and (iii) continuous (year-long) grazing. Testing the effects of these different grazing levels (none, low, continuous) is important to understand whether some level of grazing is consistent with conservation outcomes and their interactions with flooding. Vegetation surveys in the Gayini Wetlands focus on large plots (20 × 50 m), within which all plant and soil functional measures of the effects of grazing and flooding are measured. Dung mass and livestock pathways are used as proxies of recent and historic grazing (Travers et al., Reference Travers, Eldridge, Koen, Val and Oliver2020), consistent with global protocols. Detailed plot-level measurements include an assessment of plant cover, composition, herbaceous productivity (Eldridge et al., Reference Eldridge, Delgado-Baquerizo, Travers, Val and Oliver2017), the structure of trees and shrubs, the morphology of the soil surface (a proxy of soil multifunctionality; Eldridge et al., Reference Eldridge, Delgado-Baquerizo, Quero, Ochoa, Gozalo, García-Palacios, Escolar, García-Gómez, Prina, Bowker, Bran, Castro, Cea, Derak, Espinosa, Florentino, Gaitán, Gatica, Gómez-González, Ghiloufi, Gutierrez, Gusmán-Montalván, Hernández, Hughes, Muiño, Monerris, Ospina, Ramírez, Ribas-Fernández, Romão, Torres-Díaz, Koen and Maestre2020) and the nutritional status of surface soils (carbon, nitrogen). Ground surveys of vegetation in Gayini Wetlands are also collected as part of ongoing monitoring tracking the effects of environmental flows (Wassens et al., Reference Wassens, Michael, Spencer, Thiem, Wright, Thomas, Kobayashi, Whiterod, Wright, Turner, Bino, Turner, Heath and Hall2022).

These data will be combined with remotely sensed data (Francis et al., Reference Francis, Grantham, Keith, Ferrer-Paris and and Kingsford2025) to examine landscape effects of grazing and flooding, extending understanding at relatively low cost and time compared to ground surveys. Such landscape ecosystem approaches track the responses of vegetation, including diversity (Rossi et al., Reference Rossi, Kneubühler, Schütz, Schaepman, Haller and Risch2022), to changing climates (Francis et al., Reference Francis, Kingsford, Moseby, Read, Pedler, Fisher, McCann and West2024) and physiological stress. Multispectral cameras mounted on drones can track vegetation indices, including the normalised difference vegetation index, particularly useful in drylands for separating actively growing vegetation from bare soil and even lichen and moss communities (Huang et al., Reference Huang, Tang, Hupy, Wang and Shao2021; Stewart et al., Reference Stewart, Francis, Eldridge, Kingsford and De Lima2025). Combined with machine learning algorithms, remotely sensed data provide powerful landscape vegetation indicators, particularly when trained with ground survey data, for extensive landscape assessment of environmental change, including restoration (Fisher et al., Reference Fisher, Danaher and Gill2017; Francis et al., Reference Francis, Kingsford, Moseby, Read, Pedler, Fisher, McCann and West2024).

Citizen science, with Nari Nari Tribal Council Rangers, is also supplementing other data collection. Mobile phone apps (e.g., covram.com.au, iNaturalist) are used during routine activities, improving understanding of biodiversity and effectiveness of ecosystem management. The flexible digital infrastructure and an online community of contributors and curators provided by iNaturalist (iNaturalist.org), one of the world’s largest biodiversity citizen science platforms, contribute to several objectives. First, it is used to build up a database of species occurrences that fills knowledge gaps in areas underrepresented in natural history collections (Seltzer, Reference Seltzer2019). Second, it is helping to build capability among Indigenous rangers and organisational capacity within the Nari Nari Tribal Council to organise biodiversity knowledge. And third, the Nari Nari Tribal Council staff are connected to ecological experts around the world, sharing their local biodiversity knowledge.

Currently the Gayini Wetlands resource base has more than 986 observation records uploaded by 34 contributors and includes more than 320 species identified with the help of more than 290 iNaturalist users, including expert curators (see https://www.inaturalist.org/projects/gayini-wetlands for updated statistics). A “living” digital field guide and dynamic photographic reference library has also been established, supplementing manual identification resources such as field guides and keys. The localised place-based identification library helps rangers to identify groups of plants and invertebrates (Mesaglio et al., Reference Mesaglio, Kar, Sauquet and Cornwell2025). Opportunistic records of threatened and locally rare species can also focus monitoring to better understand status and distribution (Oliver et al., Reference Oliver, Davie-Rieck, Ramdani, Dashper, Kusuma, Lee, Rittmeyer, Clancy, Hamidy, Thompson, Fouquet, Ferreira and Richards2025). Records of invasive species can also complement survey records, helping staff to target areas that need treatment (Potgieter et al., Reference Potgieter, ter Huurne and Richardson2024).

We took a simple approach and applied our individual judgement (depending on expertise and background) to assess progress on ecological and social attributes, reflected in the respective Ecological Recovery and Social Benefits Wheels (Gann et al., Reference Gann, McDonald, Walder, Aronson, Nelson, Jonson, Hallett, Eisenberg, Guariguata, Liu, Hua, Echeverria, Gonzales, Shaw, Decleer and Dixon2019). This showed significant progress since 2019, when Nari Nari Tribal Council took over the wetlands, when the area was primarily an irrigation area, with considerable opportunity for further social-ecological recovery of the Gayini Wetlands (Figure 4). In 2019, many ecological and social attributes, particularly in relation to First Nations peoples, were low. The production of irrigation crops was also significantly destructive of ecosystem attributes (Kingsford and Thomas, Reference Kingsford and Thomas2004). Ecosystem function, species diversity and physical conditions were best restored, with absence of threats, structural diversity and external exchanges less restored (Figure 4a). On the social dimension, stakeholder engagement was best developed, followed by benefits distribution, knowledge enrichment and natural capital, with sustainable economies and community wellbeing least developed (Figure 4b). The restoration of social and ecological dimensions remains at the core of the project, including building on different types of knowledges.

Figure 4.

Progress in restoration of Gayini Wetlands, based on author assessments using the major attributes (0–5, with mean assessments provided), reflected in (a) an Ecological Recovery Wheel (authors – JW, RTK, ID, KB, RF, DJE, JS) and (b) a Social Benefits Wheel (authors – JW, RTK, ID, KB, RF) (Gann et al., Reference Gann, McDonald, Walder, Aronson, Nelson, Jonson, Hallett, Eisenberg, Guariguata, Liu, Hua, Echeverria, Gonzales, Shaw, Decleer and Dixon2019).

Two radial diagrams comparing ecological and social restoration progress in Gayini Wetlands using a 5 point scale. See long description.
Figure 4. Long description

Two radial diagrams, labeled a and b, use concentric color-coded rings to represent progress levels: red (1), orange (2), yellow (3), light green (4), and dark green (5).

Panel a, Ecological attributes, features six segments with the following mean scores:

- Absence Of Threats: 3.12

- Physical Conditions: 3.38

- Species Composition: 3.38

- Structural Diversity: 3.12

- Ecosystem Function: 3.62

- External Exchanges: 3.00

The data visualization shows a yellow core extending slightly into the light green level for most attributes.

Panel b, Social attributes, features six segments with the following mean scores:

- Stakeholder Engagement: 4.00

- Benefits Distribution: 3.60

- Knowledge Enrichment: 3.20

- Natural Capital: 3.20

- Sustainable Economies: 3.00

- Community Wellbeing: 2.80

The visualization shows Stakeholder Engagement reaching the light green level 4, while Community Wellbeing is the lowest, remaining in the yellow level 3.

Strong relationships between Aboriginal Custodians and ecosystem scientists are supporting two-way learning at Gayini. Nari Nari knowledge of Country and water provides important context for interpreting ecological patterns and the effects of restoration, including local observations of how changes in water management influence inundation across the floodplain. Scientific monitoring provides complementary quantitative evidence to evaluate restoration outcomes and provide data essential for informed management and reporting. These exchanges also build trust, an important but less readily quantified outcome that strengthens ongoing collaboration and adaptive management for effective restoration.

A strong commitment to adaptive management at Gayini

There is a strong commitment to adaptive management, learning by doing, focused on restoration of the Gayini Wetlands by Nari Nari Tribal Council and their consortium partners. This requires the setting of transparent objectives and tracking actions and their effectiveness for reporting (Kingsford et al., Reference Kingsford, West, Pedler, Keith, Moseby, Read, Letnic and Leggett2021; Roux et al., Reference Roux, Kingsford and Cockburn2025). This is particularly important for justifying effective management and reporting to funding bodies. The hierarchy of objectives spans ecological and social dimensions of restoration management including management of environmental flows and grazing, protection of cultural sites, and the continuity of cultural practice. Objectives include the conservation of more than 1,200 cultural sites and the continuity of connection. In practice, this means ensuring there is sufficient funding to fence vulnerable sites from livestock, legal recognition of cultural values, obtaining permissions to continue practices such as bark collection for canoe-making, and support for Cultural camps, teaching, and traditional harvesting (Fitzsimons et al., Reference Fitzsimons, Woods, Woods, Woods, Ridge, Brettschneider, Perceval, Goodwin, Smillie, Elton and Kingsford2025). Such Indigenous land management combines Cultural heritage protection and ecosystem management. Increasingly, there is a need to manage such complex environments with systems to gather, store and use big data for reporting and decision-making (Hampton et al., Reference Hampton, Strasser, Tewksbury, Gram, Budden, Batcheller, Duke and Porter2013; Farley et al., Reference Farley, Dawson, Goring and Williams2018).

The strategic adaptive management approach for Gayini is focused on five high-level areas of focus (cultural; biodiversity; environmental water; partnerships; legislation, governance and planning), which cascade hierarchically to more specific objectives. Cultural objectives include providing employment, health, education and reconnection opportunities to country; protecting cultural heritage assets and values and protection and sustainability of landscapes for nature conservation, through First Nations management. Biodiversity objectives include protecting, maintaining and enhancing important natural habitats (including for threatened species); conserving ecosystems and their native species and processes and protecting the long-term integrity of natural areas and processes for future generations. Environmental water objectives include maintenance and restoration of Gayini’s culture and environment through the delivery of environmental and cultural flows. Partnership objectives include integrating all forms of knowledge and experience through co-learning with First Nations Custodians at the centre, supported by different partners. Legislation, governance and planning objectives include recognising the importance of the land and water for environment, culture and economic outcomes, including potential future opportunities for increased conservation recognition. Each of these high-level objectives has more focused low-level objectives providing actions, timelines, responsibilities and indicators, including for ecosystems. This ultimately supports a co-management model, generally poorly implemented for Australian rivers (Tan and Jackson, Reference Tan and Jackson2013), particularly regulated rivers such as the Murrumbidgee River.

Environmental data comes from different organisations and disciplines, including ecological and Cultural surveys, hydrological studies, remote sensing and management records. A Gayini Data Hub (https://doi.org/10.3565/6n8z-rb07) is currently being developed in partnership with the Australian Research Data Commons and others, to provide a dedicated Trusted Environmental Data and Information Supply Chain for the Gayini Wetlands. This will allow diverse stakeholders to use environmental and cultural data to support research, environmental monitoring, and management. The data hub aims to provide a federated technical infrastructure for users to discover, access, visualise and integrate environmental and cultural datasets through a web-based data catalogue and spatial visualisation tools (see https://ardc.edu.au/project/gayini-data-hub/). Importantly, the infrastructure improves visibility of available datasets, reduces duplication of data collection, and supports adaptive management by providing timely access to fit-for-purpose data for monitoring ecosystem change and evaluating management interventions and reporting.

Conclusions

Most large environmental challenges have complex social and ecological dimensions (Ostrom, Reference Ostrom2007), requiring problem diagnosis and solutions. This is particularly true of the world’s diminishing freshwater ecosystems, which are increasingly degraded from overexploitation and development (Nilsson et al., Reference Nilsson, Reidy, Dynesius and Revenga2005), resulting in declining freshwater biodiversity and ecosystem services (Dudgeon et al., Reference Dudgeon, Arthington, Gessner, Kawabata, Knowler, Lévêque, Naiman, Prieur-Richard, Soto, Stiassny and Sullivan2006; Kingsford et al., Reference Kingsford, Basset and Jackson2016; Sayer et al., Reference Sayer, Fernando, Jimenez, Macfarlane, Rapacciuolo, Böhm, Brooks, Contreras-MacBeath, Cox, Harrison, Hoffmann, Jenkins, Smith, Vié, Abbott, Allen, Allen, Barrios, Boudot, Carrizo, Charvet, Clausnitzer, Congiu, Crandall, Cumberlidge, Cuttelod, Dalton, Daniels, de Grave, de Knijf, Dijkstra, Dow, Freyhof, García, Gessner, Getahun, Gibson, Gollock, Grant, Groom, Hammer, Hammerson, Hilton-Taylor, Hodgkinson, Holland, Jabado, Juffe Bignoli, Kalkman, Karimov, Kipping, Kottelat, Lalèyè, Larson, Lintermans, Lozano, Ludwig, Lyons, Máiz-Tomé, Molur, Ng, Numa, Palmer-Newton, Pike, Pippard, Polaz, Pollock, Raghavan, Rand, Ravelomanana, Reis, Rigby, Scott, Skelton, Sloat, Snoeks, Stiassny, Tan, Taniguchi, Thorstad, Tognelli, Torres, Torres, Tweddle, Watanabe, Westrip, Wright, Zhang and Darwall2025). Climate change and drying will continue to do this. The same threats have degraded the Lowbidgee Floodplain, including the Gayini Wetlands. Water resource developments upstream have taken the life-giving water from the Gayini Wetlands and its people since European colonisation, more than 200 years ago.

The Gayini Wetlands are now a notable example of restoration in action, where First Nations Custodians are in charge, supported by conservation organisations, governments and scientists. First Nations Custodianship of land, continued cultural practice, responsibility for managing water, and a strong commitment to partnerships are fundamentally important. Returning more water to the Gayini Wetlands from consumptive upstream use, particularly irrigated agriculture, would deliver more cultural and environmental benefits. The strong collaboration on the Gayini Wetlands between the Indigenous Nari Nari Tribal Council, conservation organisations and scientists is helping guide and measure restoration improvements in biodiversity, including vegetation communities, potentially improving positive ecosystem services such as carbon sequestration.

The Gayini Wetlands also provide a model for Other Effective Area-based Conservation Measures (OECMs) under the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, which emphasises the importance of conserving effectively and equitably managed, ecologically representative, and well-connected systems of protected areas and OECMs, including full participation of Indigenous peoples and respecting their rights over First Nations territories. Application of an ecosystem approach also allows improved definition of the management challenges in drylands, identifying the most effective indicators to allow effective and timely management with transparent reporting, supported by evidence delivered by rigorous science and effective data management. The Aboriginal leadership of the Nari Nari Tribal Council is delivering conservation at scale by taking care of the country and its land and water.

Open peer review

For open peer review materials, please visit https://doi.org/10.1017/dry.2026.10053

Acknowledgements

We acknowledge the partnership and assistance of the Nari Nari Tribal Council and other Gayini Consortium partners, including The Nature Conservancy and Murray Darling Wetlands Working Group.

Author contributions

Conceptualisation: R.T.K., D.J.E.; Input: J.W., R.W., J.S., J.F.-P., R.F., T.M., S.H., K.B., I.D; Original draft preparation: R.T.K., D.J.E.; Review and editing: R.T.K., J.W., R.W., J.S., J.F.-P., R.F., T.M., S.H., K.B., I.D., D.J.E.; Structure: R.T.K.

Declaration of interest

The authors declare no competing interests.

Data availability statement

This manuscript has no associated data.

Funding statement

Nari Nari Tribal Council provided support to Jamie Woods and Rene Woods; Ian Potter Foundation provided financial support to Roxane Francis; Australian Research Data Commons to Sylvia Hay; the Australian Research Council Laureate Project (IL240100030) to Jose Ferrer Paris and the New South Wales Biodiversity Conservation Trust to Jana Stewart.

Positionality statement

Jamie Woods is a Nari Nari man and the Chair of the Nari Nari Tribal Council and Gayini Land Manager. Rene Woods is a Nari Nari man with strong experience and knowledge of land and water management. Richard Kingsford, Jana Stewart, Jose Ferrer-Paris, Roxane Francis, Thomas Mesaglio, Sylvia Hay, Kate Brandis and David Eldridge are scientists in the Centre for Ecosystem Science. Ian Davidson is involved in independent research on landscapes and habitat condition, with strong knowledge of Gayini Wetlands.

References

Arthington, AH, Bunn, SE, Poff, NL and Naiman, RJ (2006) The challenge of providing environmental flow rules to Sustain river ecosystems. Ecological Applications 16(4), 1311–1318. https://doi.org/10.1890/1051-0761(2006)016[1311:TCOPEF]2.0.CO;2.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Australian Government (2020) Closing the Gap Report 2020. Commonwealth of Australia, Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet.Google Scholar
Australian National Audit Office (2015) Funding and Management of the Nimmie-Caira System Enhanced Environmental Water Delivery Project. Department of Environment. The Auditor-General ANAO Report No. 29 2014–2015 Performance Audit. Commonwealth of Australia.Google Scholar
Bino, G, Wassens, S, Kingsford, RT, Thomas, RF and Spencer, J (2018) Floodplain ecosystem dynamics under extreme dry and wet phases in semi-arid Australia. Freshwater Biology 63(2), 224–241. https://doi.org/10.1111/fwb.13056.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brandis, KJ, Smith, M, Stewart, J, Juilliard, L, McEvoy, T and Francis, RJ (2023) Gayini Breeding Waterbirds Reproductive Success Monitoring 2022–23 (Final report to the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder). Centre for Ecosystem Science, UNSW.Google Scholar
Dudgeon, D, Arthington, AH, Gessner, MO, Kawabata, Z-I, Knowler, DJ, Lévêque, C, Naiman, RJ, Prieur-Richard, A-H, Soto, D, Stiassny, MLJ and Sullivan, CA (2006) Freshwater biodiversity: Importance, threats, status and conservation challenges. Biological Reviews 81(2), 163–182. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1464793105006950.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Eldridge, DJ and Delgado-Baquerizo, M (2017) Continental-scale impacts of livestock grazing on ecosystem supporting and regulating services. Land Degradation & Development 28(4), 1473–1481. https://doi.org/10.1002/ldr.2668.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eldridge, DJ, Delgado-Baquerizo, M, Quero, JL, Ochoa, V, Gozalo, B, García-Palacios, P, Escolar, C, García-Gómez, M, Prina, A, Bowker, MA, Bran, DE, Castro, I, Cea, A, Derak, M, Espinosa, CI, Florentino, A, Gaitán, JJ, Gatica, G, Gómez-González, S, Ghiloufi, W, Gutierrez, JR, Gusmán-Montalván, E, Hernández, RM, Hughes, FM, Muiño, W, Monerris, J, Ospina, A, Ramírez, DA, Ribas-Fernández, YA, Romão, RL, Torres-Díaz, C, Koen, TB and Maestre, FT (2020) Surface indicators are correlated with soil multifunctionality in global drylands. Journal of Applied Ecology 57(2), 424–435. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.13540.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eldridge, DJ, Delgado-Baquerizo, M, Travers, SK, Val, J and Oliver, I (2017) Do grazing intensity and herbivore type affect soil health? Insights from a semi-arid productivity gradient. Journal of Applied Ecology 54(3), 976–985. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.12834.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eldridge, DJ, Maestre, FT, Koen, TB and Delgado-Baquerizo, M (2018) Australian dryland soils are acidic and nutrient-depleted, and have unique microbial communities compared with other drylands. Journal of Biogeography 45(12), 2803–2814. https://doi.org/10.1111/jbi.13456.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Farley, SS, Dawson, A, Goring, SJ and Williams, JW (2018) Situating ecology as a big-data science: Current advances, challenges, and solutions. Bioscience 68(8), 563–576. https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biy068.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fisher, A, Danaher, T and Gill, T (2017) Mapping trees in high resolution imagery across large areas using locally variable thresholds guided by medium resolution tree maps. International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation 58, 86–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jag.2017.02.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fitzsimons, JA, Woods, R, Woods, J, Woods, I, Ridge, K, Brettschneider, M, Perceval, C, Goodwin, A, Smillie, K, Elton, P and Kingsford, RT (2025) Establishing large, permanent protection outcomes on indigenous-owned private land: Innovations at Gayini, Australia. Conservation Science and Practice 7(6), e70055. https://doi.org/10.1111/csp2.70055.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Francis, RJ and Brandis, KJ (2022) Colony Drone Surveys over Lowbidgee Wetlands – Kieeta, Tori, and Fairfax. New South Wales Department of Planning and Environment, Environment and Heritage Group, Sydney.Google Scholar
Francis, RJ, Grantham, HS, Keith, DA, Ferrer-Paris, JR and and Kingsford, RT (2025) Automated mapping of the freshwater ecosystem functional groups of the International Union for conservation of nature global ecosystem typology in a large region of arid Australia. Remote Sensing 17(9), 1488. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs17091488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Francis, RJ, Kingsford, RT, Moseby, K, Read, J, Pedler, R, Fisher, A, McCann, J and West, R (2024) Tracking landscape scale vegetation change in the arid zone by integrating ground, drone and satellite data. Remote Sensing in Ecology and Conservation 10(3), 374–387. https://doi.org/10.1002/rse2.375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frederick, P, Gawlik, DE, Ogden, JC, Cook, MI and Lusk, M (2009) The White Ibis and Wood Stork as indicators for restoration of the everglades ecosystem. Ecological Indicators 9(6), S83–S95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2008.10.012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gann, GD, McDonald, T, Walder, B, Aronson, J, Nelson, CR, Jonson, J, Hallett, JG, Eisenberg, C, Guariguata, MR, Liu, JG, Hua, FY, Echeverria, C, Gonzales, E, Shaw, N, Decleer, K and Dixon, KW (2019) International principles and standards for the practice of ecological restoration second edition. Restoration Ecology 27(S1), S3–S46. https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.13035.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grenfell, S, Grenfell, M, Tooth, S, Mehl, A, O’Gorman, E, Ralph, T and Ellery, W (2022) Wetlands in drylands: Diverse perspectives for dynamic landscapes. Wetlands Ecology and Management 30(4), 607–622. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11273-022-09887-z.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hampton, SE, Strasser, CA, Tewksbury, JJ, Gram, WK, Budden, AE, Batcheller, AL, Duke, CS and Porter, JH (2013) Big data and the future of ecology. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 11(3), 156–162. https://doi.org/10.1890/120103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huang, S, Tang, L, Hupy, JP, Wang, Y and Shao, G (2021) A commentary review on the use of normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI) in the era of popular remote sensing. Journal of Forestry Research 32(1), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11676-020-01155-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Janse, JH, van Dam, AA, Hes, EMA, de Klein, JJM, Finlayson, CM, Janssen, ABG, van Wijk, D, Mooij, WM and Verhoeven, JTA (2019) Towards a global model for wetlands ecosystem services. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 36, 11–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2018.09.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kan, S, Levy, SA, Mazur, E, Samberg, L, Persson, UM, Sloat, L, Segovia, ALR, Parente, L and Kastner, T (2026) Overlooked and overexploited: Extensive conversion of grasslands and wetlands driven by global food, feed, and bioenergy demand. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 123(9), e2521183123. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2521183123.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Keith, DA (2004) Ocean Shores to Desert Dunes: The Native Vegetation of New South Wales and the ACT. Sydney: Department of Environment and Conservation.Google Scholar
Keith, DA, Ferrer-Paris, JR, Nicholson, E, Bishop, MJ, Polidoro, BA, Ramirez-Llodra, E, Tozer, MG, Nel, JL, Mac Nally, R, Gregr, EJ, Watermeyer, KE, Essl, F, Faber-Langendoen, D, Franklin, J, Lehmann, CER, Etter, A, Roux, DJ, Stark, JS, Rowland, JA, Brummitt, NA, Fernandez-Arcaya, UC, Suthers, IM, Wiser, SK, Donohue, I, Jackson, LJ, Pennington, RT, Iliffe, TM, Gerovasileiou, V, Giller, P, Robson, BJ, Pettorelli, N, Andrade, A, Lindgaard, A, Tahvanainen, T, Terauds, A, Chadwick, MA, Murray, NJ, Moat, J, Pliscoff, P, Zager, I and Kingsford, RT (2022) A function-based typology for earth’s ecosystems. Nature 610(7932), 513–518. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-022-05318-4.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Keith, DA and Simpson, CC (2010) Vegetation Formations of NSW (version 3.0): A seamless map for modelling fire spread and behaviour. Report to the Rural Fire Service, October. NSW Department of Environment and Climate Change.Google Scholar
King, AJ, Tonkin, Z and Mahoney, J (2009) Environmental flow enhances native fish spawning and recruitment in the Murray River, Australia. River Research and Applications 25(10), 1205–1218. https://doi.org/10.1002/rra.1209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kingsford, RT (2003) Ecological impacts and institutional and economic drivers for water resource development-a case study of the Murrumbidgee River, Australia. Aquatic Ecosystem Health & Management 6(1), 69–79. https://doi.org/10.1080/14634980301480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kingsford, RT, Basset, A and Jackson, L (2016) Wetlands: Conservation’s poor cousins. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 26(5), 892–916. https://doi.org/10.1002/aqc.2709.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kingsford, RT, Lemly, AD and Thompson, JR (2006) Impacts of dams, river management and diversions on desert rivers. In Kingsford, RT (ed.), Ecology of Desert Rivers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 203–247.Google Scholar
Kingsford, RT, Porter, JL, Brandis, KJ and Ryall, S (2020) Aerial surveys of waterbirds in Australia. Scientific Data 7(1), 172. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-020-0512-9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kingsford, RT and Thomas, RF (2004) Destruction of wetlands and waterbird populations by dams and irrigation on the Murrumbidgee River in Arid Australia. Environmental Management 34(3), 383–396. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-004-0250-3.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kingsford, RT, West, RS, Pedler, RD, Keith, DA, Moseby, KE, Read, JL, Letnic, M, Leggett, KEA and Ryall (2021) Strategic adaptive management planning—Restoring a desert ecosystem by managing introduced species and native herbivores and reintroducing mammals. Conservation Science and Practice 3(2), e268. https://doi.org/10.1111/csp2.268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kreibich, J, Bino, G, Zheng, H, Chiew, F, Glamore, W, Woods, J and Kingsford, RT (2024) River regulation and climate change reduce river flows to major Australian floodplain wetland. Journal of Environmental Management 370, 122962. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2024.122962.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kushlan, JA (1993) Colonial waterbirds as bioindicators of environmental change. Colonial Waterbirds 16(2), 223–251. https://doi.org/10.2307/1521444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Larkin, ZT, Ralph, TJ, Tooth, S, Fryirs, KA and Carthey, AJR (2020) Identifying threshold responses of Australian dryland rivers to future hydroclimatic change. Scientific Reports 10(1), 6653. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-63622-3.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lemly, AD, Kingsford, RT and Thompson, JR (2000) Irrigated agriculture and wildlife conservation: Conflict on a global scale. Environmental Management 25(5), 485–512.https://doi.org/10.1007/s002679910039; Available at https://research.fs.usda.gov/treesearch/1618.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Macfarlane, C, Cox, S, Francis, R, Jordan, R, Keith, D, Kingsford, R, Liu, N, Newnham, G, Nicholson, E, Prober, S, Richards, A, Tetreault Campbell, S, Trebilco, R and Schmidt, B (2024) Methods for Developing Spatial Extent Of IUCN Ecosystem Functional Groups at 250 m Resolution for Freshwater, Terrestrial, Marine and Transitional Realms for Australia: Pre-1750, 2010–11, 2015–16 and 2020–21 (csiro:EP2024-5047). Canberra: CSIRO. https://doi.org/10.25919/13nv-pm70Google Scholar
Maestre, FT, Eldridge, DJ, Soliveres, S, Kéfi, S, Delgado-Baquerizo, M, Bowker, MA, García-Palacios, P, Gaitán, J, Gallardo, A, Lázaro, R and Berdugo, M (2016) Structure and functioning of dryland ecosystems in a changing world. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics 47(1), 215–237. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-ecolsys-121415-032311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maestre, FT, Benito, BM, Berdugo, M, Concostrina-Zubiri, L, Delgado-Baquerizo, M, Eldridge, DJ, Guirado, E, Gross, N, Kéfi, S, Le Bagousse-Pinguet, Y, Ochoa-Hueso, R and Soliveres, S (2021) Biogeography of global drylands. New Phytologist 231(2), 540–558. https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.17395.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Martino, JC, Suthers, IM, Kingsford, RT, Doyle, KE, Baumgartner, LJ and Felder, S (2025) Pipe fishways: Opportunities and challenges for effective fish passage. Environmental Technology Reviews 14(1), 471–487. https://doi.org/10.1080/21622515.2025.2505246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCartney, MP, Rebelo, L.-M. and Sellamuttu, S (2015) Wetlands, livelihoods and human health. In Finlayson, CM, Horwitz, P and Weinstein, P (eds.), Wetlands and Human Health. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands, pp. 123–148. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-9609-5_7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mesaglio, T, Kar, F, Sauquet, H and Cornwell, WK (2025) infinitylists: A shiny application and R package for rapid generation of place-based species checklists. Applications in Plant Sciences 13(3), e70012. https://doi.org/10.1002/aps3.70012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moomaw, WR, Chmura, GL, Davies, GT, Finlayson, CM, Middleton, BA, Natali, SM, Perry, JE, Roulet, N and Sutton-Grier, AE (2018) Wetlands in a changing climate: Science, policy and management. Wetlands 38(2), 183–205. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13157-018-1023-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nilsson, C, Reidy, CA, Dynesius, M and Revenga, C (2005) Fragmentation and flow regulation of the world’s large river systems. Science 308(5720), 405–408. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1107887.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ocock, JF, Bino, G, Wassens, S, Spencer, J, Thomas, RF and Kingsford, RT (2018) Identifying critical habitat for Australian freshwater turtles in a large regulated floodplain: Implications for environmental water management. Environmental Management 61(3), 375–389. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-017-0837-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oliver, PM, Davie-Rieck, A, Ramdani, MI, Dashper, J, Kusuma, KI, Lee, CC, Rittmeyer, E, Clancy, MJ, Hamidy, A, Thompson, JC, Fouquet, A, Ferreira, F and Richards, SJ (2025) Can citizen science fill knowledge gaps for the world’s most speciose and poorly-known insular amphibian fauna? Pacific Conservation Biology 31(1), PC24063. https://doi.org/10.1071/PC24063.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ostrom, E (2007) A diagnostic approach for going beyond panaceas. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 104(39), 15181–15187. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0702288104.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Parker, J, Epifanio, J, Casper, A and Cao, Y (2016) The effects of improved water quality on fish assemblages in a heavily modified large river system. River Research and Applications 32(5), 992–1007. https://doi.org/10.1002/rra.2917.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poff, NL, Allan, JD, Bain, MB, Karr, JR, Prestegaard, KL, Richter, BD, Sparks, RE and Stromberg, JC (1997) The natural flow regime. Bioscience 47(11), 769–784. https://doi.org/10.2307/1313099.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Potgieter, LJ, ter Huurne, MB and Richardson, DM (2024) Community science can inform invasive species management: Melaleuca (Myrtaceae) in South Africa. Ecological Solutions and Evidence 5(4), e12391. https://doi.org/10.1002/2688-8319.12391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ren, S and Kingsford, RT (2014) Modelling impacts of regulation on flows to the Lowbidgee floodplain of the Murrumbidgee River, Australia. Journal of Hydrology 519, 1660–1667. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2014.09.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roff, A, Day, M, Thonell, J and Denholm, B (2022) NSW State Vegetation Type Map: Technical Notes. Parramatta: NSW Department of Planning and Environment.Google Scholar
Rolls, RJ (2011) The role of life-history and location of barriers to migration in the spatial distribution and conservation of fish assemblages in a coastal river system. Biological Conservation 144(1), 339–349. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2010.09.011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rossi, C, Kneubühler, M, Schütz, M, Schaepman, ME, Haller, RM and Risch, AC (2022) Spatial resolution, spectral metrics and biomass are key aspects in estimating plant species richness from spectral diversity in species-rich grasslands. Remote Sensing in Ecology and Conservation 8(3), 297–314. https://doi.org/10.1002/rse2.244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roux, DJ, Kingsford, RT and Cockburn, J (2025) Strategic adaptive management for transparency, accountability and learning: Insights from more than a quarter century of practice. Environmental Management 75(10), 2521–2539. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-025-02272-5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sayer, CA, Fernando, E, Jimenez, RR, Macfarlane, NB, Rapacciuolo, G, Böhm, M, Brooks, TM, Contreras-MacBeath, T, Cox, NA, Harrison, I, Hoffmann, M, Jenkins, R, Smith, KG, Vié, JC, Abbott, JC, Allen, DJ, Allen, GR, Barrios, V, Boudot, JP, Carrizo, SF, Charvet, P, Clausnitzer, V, Congiu, L, Crandall, KA, Cumberlidge, N, Cuttelod, A, Dalton, J, Daniels, AG, de Grave, S, de Knijf, G, Dijkstra, KDB, Dow, RA, Freyhof, J, García, N, Gessner, J, Getahun, A, Gibson, C, Gollock, MJ, Grant, MI, Groom, AER, Hammer, MP, Hammerson, GA, Hilton-Taylor, C, Hodgkinson, L, Holland, RA, Jabado, RW, Juffe Bignoli, D, Kalkman, VJ, Karimov, BK, Kipping, J, Kottelat, M, Lalèyè, PA, Larson, HK, Lintermans, M, Lozano, F, Ludwig, A, Lyons, TJ, Máiz-Tomé, L, Molur, S, Ng, HH, Numa, C, Palmer-Newton, AF, Pike, C, Pippard, HE, Polaz, CNM, Pollock, CM, Raghavan, R, Rand, PS, Ravelomanana, T, Reis, RE, Rigby, CL, Scott, JA, Skelton, PH, Sloat, MR, Snoeks, J, Stiassny, MLJ, Tan, HH, Taniguchi, Y, Thorstad, EB, Tognelli, MF, Torres, AG, Torres, Y, Tweddle, D, Watanabe, K, Westrip, JRS, Wright, EGE, Zhang, E and Darwall, WRT (2025) One-quarter of freshwater fauna threatened with extinction. Nature 638(8049), 138–145. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-024-08375-z.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Seltzer, C (2019) Making biodiversity data social, shareable, and scalable: Reflections on iNaturalist & amp; citizen science. Biodiversity Information Science and Standards, 3, e46670. https://doi.org/10.3897/biss.3.46670.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stewart, J, Francis, RJ, Eldridge, DJ, Kingsford, RT and De Lima, NM (2025) Advancing remote sensing of biocrusts with drone imagery and machine learning. Geoderma 458, 117315. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2025.117315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stocks, JR, Ellis, IM, van der Meulen, DE, Doyle, JI and Cheshire, KJM (2021) Kills in the Darling: Assessing the impact of the 2018–20 mass fish kills on the fish communities of the lower Darling–Baaka River, a large lowland river of south-eastern Australia. Marine & Freshwater Research 73(2), 159–177. https://doi.org/10.1071/MF20340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tan, P-L and Jackson, S (2013) Impossible dreaming-does Australia’s water law and policy fulfil indigenous aspirations? Environmental and Planning Law Journal 30, 132–149..Google Scholar
Thomas, RF, Kingsford, RT, Lu, Y, Cox, SJ, Sims, NC and Hunter, SJ (2015) Mapping inundation in the heterogeneous floodplain wetlands of the Macquarie marshes, using Landsat thematic mapper. Journal of Hydrology 524, 194–213. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2015.02.029.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Travers, SK, Eldridge, DJ, Koen, TB, Val, J and Oliver, I (2020) Livestock and kangaroo grazing have little effect on biomass and fuel hazard in semi-arid woodlands. Forest Ecology and Management 467, 118165. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2020.118165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wassens, S, Michael, D, Spencer, J, Thiem, J, Wright, D, Thomas, R, Kobayashi, T, Whiterod, NS, Wright, D, Turner, J, Bino, G, Turner, A, Heath, J and Hall, A (2022) Commonwealth Environmental Water Office Monitoring, Research and Evaluation Program Mrumbidgee River System Selected Area Summary Report 2014–21. Commonwealth of Australia.Google Scholar
Wheeler, SA, Carmody, E, Grafton, RQ, Kingsford, RT and Zuo, A (2020) The rebound effect on water extraction from subsidising irrigation infrastructure in Australia. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 159, 104755. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2020.104755.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woods, R, Woods, I and Fitzsimons, JA (2022) Water and land justice for indigenous communities in the Lowbidgee floodplain of the Murray–Darling basin, Australia. International Journal of Water Resources Development 38(1), 64–79. https://doi.org/10.1080/07900627.2020.1867520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Figure 0

Figure 1. (a) Schematic showing the Gayini Wetlands, part of the southern Lowbidgee floodplain (inset red circle), fed by the Murrumbidgee River (blue line), within the Murray-Darling Basin in southeastern Australia (inset-top right), the traditional lands and waters of the Nari Nari Aboriginal peoples (green dashed line), with the Murrumbidgee River, and encompassing the original Lowbidgee Floodplain (dappled grey), with the remnant floodplain (dotted white), with the black lines indicating levee banks, breached to allow water to restore the original floodplain areas (blue arrows, show flood movement) and (b) the Murrumbidgee River (green circle), where floodwaters come from and (c) the Gayini Wetlands, showing the approximate location of one of the levee banks on an irrigation bay (orange circle), breached to allow water to inundate the original floodplain.Figure 1. Long description.

Figure 1

Figure 2. Initial assessment of the ecosystem functional groups present in the Gayini Wetlands, classified according to the Global Ecosystem Typology (Keith et al., 2022). These include ecosystems from freshwater and terrestrial realms, including anthropogenic ecosystems (see methods in Francis et al., 2025). Data were compiled from the NEAP project (based on national layers (Macfarlane et al. 2024)), New South Wales state vegetation maps (Keith 2004, Keith and Simpson 2010, Roff et al. 2022) and Digital Earth Australia. Black dotted sites are culturally important sites recorded on the Aboriginal Heritage Information Management System (https://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/awssapp/Login.aspx?ReturnUrl=%2fawssapp). Dashed rectangles (1, 2) identify highlighted areas (see Figure 3), restored by increased flooding.Figure 2. Long description.

Figure 2

Figure 3. Landsat satellite imagery showing two areas of restoration in the Gayini Wetlands (see Figure 2), during the 2010 and 2022 large floods, showing extensive extra flooding occurring in 2022, compared to 2010, because of the breaches (red circles) of levee banks, allowing water to flood and restore the original floodplain (see Figure 1), whereas flooding in 2010 is constrained (red straight lines) by continuous levees.Figure 3. Long description.

Figure 3

Figure 4. Progress in restoration of Gayini Wetlands, based on author assessments using the major attributes (0–5, with mean assessments provided), reflected in (a) an Ecological Recovery Wheel (authors – JW, RTK, ID, KB, RF, DJE, JS) and (b) a Social Benefits Wheel (authors – JW, RTK, ID, KB, RF) (Gann et al., 2019).Figure 4. Long description.