MIL-OSI Export

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Rebecca Lynne Hendershott, Lecturer in Biological Anthropology, Australian National University

Hoppers is a deceptively simple story that opens up complex ethical and scientific questions.

Jerry (Jon Hamm), the mayor of Beaverton, has marked a forest glade for destruction, so commuters can save four minutes of drive time. The plan is environmentally assessed as feasible given no animals seem to live there.

But Mabel (Piper Curda) fights to save the glade, using the newest technology to put her mind into an animatronic beaver robot. This allows her to communicate with the animals and coordinate their collective action.

In classic Disney fashion, the town is saved, the mayor realises he was wrong, and everyone goes on to live in harmony.

It may seem like standard animated fare. But Hoppers reflects real scientific themes.

Understanding habitat rights

Infrastructure development can lead to habitat destruction, wildlife population declines, overcrowding and increased human-animal conflict.

Habitat rights can lead to complex debates between people living in close proximity to “pest” animals, conservationists, politicians and philosophers. These debates often expose human-centric biases: the assumption that human lives and concerns are more important than animal lives and concerns.

Some researchers argue animals have the right to their native habitat, akin to property rights – and humans have a responsibility to recognise those rights.

It becomes more complicated when we have to prioritise one species over another in terms of essential needs.

The glade animals accept species may have conflicting goals when it comes to survival. Prey species like beavers and fish must avoid being eaten, while carnivores need to eat. What does that mean for their right to a safe home?

Hoppers’ focus on an infrastructure project with trivial benefits for humans (shorter commutes) avoids diving into the very sticky issue of who has rights to the glade if it comes down to life or death.

Primates are rapidly losing habitat, often to growing demands for agriculture. Primates then raid the food-rich crops of their former home, and are considered pests. Farmers attempt to deter primates by trapping or killing them.

Anthropologists debate the ethics of animals versus human needs, ultimately concluding we need conservation that meets the needs of all species. In this crop-raiding example, human livelihoods are directly in conflict with animal livelihoods. Who deserves to eat?

Hoppers touches on the issue of habitat rights without asking the bigger questions about what would happen to the glade if it came down to human vs animal survival.

Animals and technology

While we can’t communicate directly with animals by placing our brains in animatronic beavers, scientists have used technology to make animal worlds accessible.

Researchers use GPS collars to monitor elephant ranging patterns; eye-tracking of primates to assess social cognition; and artificial intelligence analysis of vocalisations to decipher animal communication.

Scientists have used animatronic robotic animals to interact with other species. An infant gorilla robot was used to gain trust with a gorilla group. This enabled it to record gorillas’ singing and farting while eating for the first time.

Scientists are also exploring human-animal linguistic communication through technology. From recordings of wild dolphins, we have learnt individuals have specific whistles akin to names.

Apes can learn language using touch screens, with analysis revealing semantic and grammatical patterns. Computers can also translate English into the closest equivalent in the apes’ pictorial vocabulary, acting like the human-to-robot-to-animal earpiece in Hoppers.

Animal resistance

Hoppers taps into a trope that reoccurs in popular media: humans create a techno-scientific invention that inadvertently empowers animals to resist or retaliate against humans – often by turning humans’ own technology back on themselves.

Mabel uses the animatronic beaver to bring the animals together for collective action. Torturous ultrasonic sounds are used against the animals. The animals seek revenge by embodying an avatar of the mayor and attempting to turn the ultrasonic sounds on the people of Beaverton. The human-created technology leads to an animal revolution and a real threat to humanity.

In the Planet of the Apes (1968–2024) and Deep Blue Sea (1999), biomedical testing on animals leads to hyperintelligence and desire for revenge. The apes use human weapons against humans, ultimately subjugating them.

In The Zoo (2015–17), mutagenic animal feed leads to animals having a hivemind-level of communication and sense of solidarity – and an awareness of how to manipulate human technology to systematically kill humans.

In Sweet Tooth (2021–24), research into pandemics led to human-animal hybrids, which then raised questions of ethics and rights of these hybrids: can they be caged, hunted and experimented on?

Humans use animals to test pharmaceuticals, animal food is genetically modified, and there have been very real debates about the legal and moral place of animal-human hybrids.

This recurring cinematic trope addresses our anxieties about the role of technology in our interactions with animals. Will the very source of our greatness and species-defining trait – our technology – also be the source of our downfall?

Become a part of something big

Mabel struggles to maintain her motivation in standing up for animals in the face of apathetic and greedy people.

Fortunately, Mabel’s grandmother teaches her that when she feels angry at injustice, she can always retreat to the forest glade to calm herself.

By stopping, looking and listening, Mabel can start to feel a deep sense of connection to the natural world. It is a lesson we can all learn from.

If you – like me – left this film feeling like the world is unjust, might I pass forward Mabel’s lesson: “It’s hard to be mad when you feel like you’re part of something big”.

– ref. We can’t implant our brains in robot beavers – but Hoppers gets a lot right about animal science – https://theconversation.com/we-cant-implant-our-brains-in-robot-beavers-but-hoppers-gets-a-lot-right-about-animal-science-279651

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/04/02/we-cant-implant-our-brains-in-robot-beavers-but-hoppers-gets-a-lot-right-about-animal-science-279651/

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ellie McFarlane, PhD Candidate, School of Media & Communication, RMIT University

Whale Shark Jack is Stan’s heartfelt, kid-focused addition to the Australian wildlife movie canon.

Its brief run time and ambitious mix of genres means some elements are under-cooked. Nonetheless, the film shines as a love letter to Western Australia’s coastline and its community.

Girl meets whale shark

Whale Shark Jack begins on WA’s world-heritage listed Ningaloo Reef. The young Sarah (played by Alyla Browne as a 12-year-old, and by Emmi Williams as a younger child) lives on a boat with her parents, Nita (Abbie Cornish) and Marcus (Michael Dorman) – both of whom research whale sharks.

Sarah and her parents befriend and begin tracking a whale shark they call Jack. When Marcus is killed in a storm, Nita and Sarah return to the coastal town of Exmouth, where Sarah must attend school for the first time.

Sarah struggles to fit in at school, and tracks Jack against her mum’s wishes in the hope they can return to their life on the water. Along the way, she teams up with schoolmates E.J. and Ashleigh (newcomers Luca Miller and Giselle Philogene), and the three work together to find Jack when he might be in trouble.

One story – many genres

The film follows Sarah and Nita as they they move forward and build a community after tragic loss. It’s also a coming-of-age story about a tween girl finding her place in a new environment. It has drama, comedy, adventure and a clear environmental message. While the overall narrative is strong, some of the genre elements and tonal shifts work better than others.

Whale Shark Jack joins a well established canon of Australian wildlife films. With support from the Australian Children’s Television Foundation, it seems to mainly want to attract a younger audience.

In doing so, the film is sometimes overly sentimental and occasionally didactic, particularly in early scenes with the younger Sarah. Moments featuring Luca Miller’s straight-talking E.J. and Karen O’Leary’s quirky coast guard, Rosie, bring some much needed humour – but they are few and far between. The film’s sombre moments are compelling, and Alyla Browne carries its most emotional scenes.

At just 85 minutes, the story is engaging and doesn’t overstay its welcome, but it does miss an opportunity to develop Sarah’s relationship with her father. So viewers might struggle to really mourn his loss, except through Browne and Cornish’s performances.

Showcasing Ningaloo

The film mostly succeeds as a showcase for the landscapes, wildlife and marine life of Ningaloo and Exmouth.

The flat, red earth makes for a striking contrast to the bright, blue ocean. Shots of Sarah swimming with Jack are visually impressive and show off Browne’s diving skills (she trained for two years in preparation for the role). The production team uses spectacular puppetry and effects to create the whale sharks.

Whale sharks are considered endangered, and the filmmakers said they wanted to highlight the “fragile reality” these animals face due to “climate change, habitat loss, marine pollution, and unsustainable fishing practices”. Whale Shark Jack doesn’t dwell much on these threats, but it may still inspire curiosity and care in its audience.

It’s also a thoughtful celebration of the local Baiyungu language and culture. Screenwriter Kathryn Lefroy collaborated with associate producer and Baiyungu Traditional Owner Hazel Walgar to develop the characters of E.J. and his parents.

Walgar and her sister, Gwen Peck, composed a healing song for the film in the Baiyungu language. The piece is important to the film’s exploration of pain, grief and community, and the filmmakers proudly note this is the first time “Baiyungu language and song will be featured on the big screen”.

Whale Shark Jack showcases First Nations design in its costumes, which include Natalie Blacklock’s swimwear featuring First Nations art, and personal items from the cast themselves. These touches add richness and local specificity to the film.

Overall, it is a loving, kid-centred tribute to WA’s coastline and the people and creatures who call it home. What it lacks in depth, it makes up for in heart, spirit and spectacular landscapes.

It won’t leave your cheeks sore, but it might make you dream of Ningaloo’s colourful reef, white sand and awe-inspiring marine life.

Whale Shark Jack is on Stan from today.

– ref. New Stan film Whale Shark Jack is a kid-focused tribute to WA’s awe-inspiring coastline – https://theconversation.com/new-stan-film-whale-shark-jack-is-a-kid-focused-tribute-to-was-awe-inspiring-coastline-278892

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/04/02/new-stan-film-whale-shark-jack-is-a-kid-focused-tribute-to-was-awe-inspiring-coastline-278892/

By Ali Hashem in Tehran

This is a war of narratives with the United States administration trying to push forward its narrative of “victory” while the Iranian administration or establishment is trying to push its narrative of being suppressed and under attack.

The Iranian President, Masoud Pezeshkian, has clearly said in an open letter to the American people that Iran has never started a war, and that Iran has no hostility towards American citizens.

He invited the people of America to look beyond politics and rhetoric and reconsider the realities of the past and present.

He said that as the Iranian people harboured no enmity towards other nations, including the people of America, Europe, and neighboring countries, attacks on Iran’s infrastructure and the targeting of our people would have consequences beyond the country’s border.

“What we do in response is based on the legitimate right of self-defence, not an act of aggression,” he said.

So, given the fact that the Iranians have already denied that they’ve asked for a ceasefire, now we see the president is trying to present a narrative, a complete different narrative, and at the end, showing and preserving Iran’s right to defend itself.

President Pezeshkian urged a shift away from confrontation with Tehran, questioning both US policy priorities and the “machinery of misinformation” about his country.

“Is ‘America First’ truly among the priorities of the US government today?” Pezeshkian asked.

Judge Iran on experience
He also called on Americans to judge Iran by the experiences of those who had visited the nation of some 90 million people and the achievements of Iranian immigrants.

“Observe the many accomplished Iranian immigrants — educated in Iran — who now teach and conduct research at the world’s most prestigious universities, or contribute to the most advanced technology firms in the West.

“Do these realities align with the distortions you are being told about Iran and its people?,” he asked.

President Pezeshkian said “the world stands at crossroads”, and argued that continuing on a path of hostility toward Iran was “more costly and futile than ever before”.

He described the choice between confrontation and engagement as “both real and consequential,” warning that its outcome will “shape the future for generations to come”.

The Iranian president questioned whose interests were being served by US military action against Iran, framing it as costly for both Iranians and Americans.

“Was there any objective threat from Iran to justify such behaviour?” he asked.

[embedded content]
Iran President’s open letter to the American people          Video: Al Jazeera

“Does the massacre of innocent children, the destruction of cancer-treatment pharmaceutical facilities, or boasting about bombing a country ‘back to the Stone Age’ serve any purpose other than further damaging the United States’ global standing?”

President Pezeshkian also questioned the role of Israel in the war, asking, “Is it not also the case that America has entered this aggression as a proxy for Israel, influenced and manipulated by that regime?”

“Is it not evident that Israel now aims to fight Iran to the last American soldier and the last American taxpayer dollar — shifting the burden of its delusions onto Iran, the region, and the United States itself in pursuit of illegitimate interests?”

Ali Hashem reports for Al Jazeera.

The full open letter by Iran’s President Pezeshkian to the American people:
To the people of the United States of America, and to all those who, amid a flood of distortions and manufactured narratives, continue to seek the truth and aspire to a better life:

Iran — by this very name, character, and identity — is one of the oldest continuous civilisations in human history. Despite its historical and geographical advantages at various times, Iran has never, in its modern history, chosen the path of aggression, expansion, colonialism, or domination.

Even after enduring occupation, invasion, and sustained pressure from global powers — and despite possessing military superiority over many of its neighbors — Iran has never initiated a war.

Yet it has resolutely and bravely repelled those who have attacked it.

The Iranian people harbour no enmity toward other nations, including the people of America, Europe, or neighboring countries. Even in the face of repeated foreign interventions and pressures throughout their proud history, Iranians have consistently drawn a clear distinction between governments and the peoples they govern. This is a deeply rooted principle in Iranian culture and collective consciousness — not a temporary political stance.

For this reason, portraying Iran as a threat is neither consistent with historical reality nor with present-day observable facts. Such a perception is the product of political and economic whims of the powerful — the need to manufacture an enemy in order to justify pressure, maintain military dominance, sustain the arms industry, and control strategic markets. In such an environment, if a threat does not exist, it is invented.

Within this same framework, the United States has concentrated the largest number of its forces, bases, and military capabilities around Iran — a country that, at least since the founding of the United States, has never initiated a war. Recent American aggressions launched from these very bases have demonstrated how threatening such a military presence truly is. Naturally, no country confronted with such conditions would forgo strengthening its defensive capabilities. What Iran has done — and continues to do — is a measured response grounded in legitimate self-defence, and by no means an initiation of war or aggression.

Relations between Iran and the United States were not originally hostile, and early interactions between the Iranian and American people were not marred with hostility or tension. The turning point, however, was the 1953 coup d’état — an illegal American intervention aimed at preventing the nationalisation of Iran’s own resources. That coup disrupted Iran’s democratic process, reinstated dictatorship, and sowed deep distrust among Iranians toward US policies.

This distrust deepened further with America’s support for the Shah’s regime, its backing of Saddam Hussein during the imposed war of the 1980s, the imposition of the longest and most comprehensive sanctions in modern history, and ultimately, unprovoked military aggression — twice, in the midst of negotiations — against Iran.

Yet all these pressures have failed to weaken Iran. On the contrary, the country has grown stronger in many areas: literacy rates have tripled — from roughly 30 percent before the Islamic Revolution to over 90 percent today; higher education has expanded dramatically; significant advances have been achieved in modern technology; healthcare services have improved; and infrastructure has developed at a pace and scale incomparable to the past.

These are measurable, observable realities that stand independent of fabricated narratives.

At the same time, the destructive and inhumane impact of sanctions, war, and aggression on the lives of the resilient Iranian people must not be underestimated. The continuation of military aggression and recent bombings profoundly affect people’s lives, attitudes, and perspectives. This reflects a fundamental human truth: when war inflicts irreparable harm on lives, homes, cities, and futures, people will not remain indifferent toward those responsible.

This raises a fundamental question: Exactly which of the American people’s interests are truly being served by this war? Was there any objective threat from Iran to justify such behaviour? Does the massacre of innocent children, the destruction of cancer-treatment pharmaceutical facilities, or boasting about bombing a country “back to the stone ages” serve any purpose other than further damaging the United States’ global standing?

Iran pursued negotiations, reached an agreement, and fulfilled all its commitments. The decision to withdraw from that agreement, escalate toward confrontation, and launch two acts of aggression in the midst of negotiations were destructive choices made by the US government — choices that served the delusions of a foreign aggressor.

Attacking Iran’s vital infrastructure — including energy and industrial facilities — directly targets the Iranian people. Beyond constituting a war crime, such actions carry consequences that extend far beyond Iran’s borders. They generate instability, increase human and economic costs, and perpetuate cycles of tension, planting seeds of resentment that will endure for years. This is not a demonstration of strength; it is a sign of strategic bewilderment and an inability to achieve a sustainable solution.

Is it not also the case that America has entered this aggression as a proxy for Israel, influenced and manipulated by that regime? Is it not true that Israel, by manufacturing an Iranian threat, seeks to divert global attention away from its crimes toward the Palestinians?

Is it not evident that Israel now aims to fight Iran to the last American soldier and the last American taxpayer dollar — shifting the burden of its delusions onto Iran, the region, and the United States itself in pursuit of illegitimate interests?

Is “America First” truly among the priorities of the US government today?

I invite you to look beyond the machinery of misinformation — an integral part of this aggression — and instead speak with those who have visited Iran. Observe the many accomplished Iranian immigrants — educated in Iran — who now teach and conduct research at the world’s most prestigious universities, or contribute to the most advanced technology firms in the West. Do these realities align with the distortions you are being told about Iran and its people?

Today, the world stands at a crossroads. Continuing along the path of confrontation is more costly and futile than ever before. The choice between confrontation and engagement is both real and consequential; its outcome will shape the future for generations to come.

Throughout its millennia of proud history, Iran has outlasted many aggressors. All that remains of them are tarnished names in history, while Iran endures — resilient, dignified, and proud.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/04/02/iranian-president-calls-on-american-public-to-challenge-us-war-motives/

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Milad Haghani, Associate Professor and Principal Fellow in Urban Risk and Resilience, The University of Melbourne

Petrol prices in Australia have risen sharply over the past six weeks. In early February, prices in major cities were around 160–180 cents per litre. By mid-March, they had increased to approximately 230–240 cents per litre.

More recent reports indicate prices have risen further, exceeding $2.50 per litre on average, with some locations approaching $3 per litre. Despite the government cutting fuel excise and prices dropping slightly, petrol is still well above 200 cents a litre.

In response to rising prices , some states have introduced free public transport. From March 31 to April 30, travelling around Victoria will be free. Tasmania has similarly introduced free bus and ferry travel.

Queensland already operates heavily subsidised fares, with a flat 50-cent fare across its network introduced in 2024.

Other states, including New South Wales, have not introduced fare relief measures. NSW Premier Chris Minns has ruled it out, arguing the fiscal cost would be substantial if fuel prices remain elevated for an extended period, and that short-term fare relief is difficult to sustain.

But, to what extent do free or heavily discounted public transport fares change travel behaviour during this time? Do they reduce petrol demand? And how evenly are the cost-of-travel benefits distributed across the population?

Who’s getting on board?

The free public transport measures introduced by Victoria and Tasmania aim to achieve two outcomes.

The first is to reduce the cost of travel. The second is to reduce reliance on car travel and, in turn, demand for petrol during this period. The success of both depends on whether these measures lead to a shift away from driving.

Evidence consistently shows fare reductions increase public transport use. And larger fare reductions and longer periods produce larger increases in patronage.

Since the introduction of the 50-cent flat fare, public transport patronage in Queensland has increased by around 18% in the first six months and over 20% over first year.

But the source of that increase matters.

In Queensland, beyond anecdotal evidence, there is limited evidence on how much of this reflects a shift away from car travel.

Existing empirical evidence from overseas suggests additional demand does not come entirely from car users. A substantial share comes from existing public transport users travelling more often, as well as from shifts away from walking or cycling, with only a modest share coming from car users.

All about access

Free or heavily discounted public transport does not benefit all travellers equally. The ability to use the system depends on access to the network and the nature of the trip.

Those who live within walking distance of public transport, or who can reliably access park-and-ride facilities (car parks with connections to public transport), are best placed to benefit.

This is particularly the case for trips to central business districts, where services are more frequent and direct.

By contrast, travel between suburbs is often less well served, with lower frequencies, indirect routes, and longer travel times. In outer suburban and regional areas, public transport options may be limited.

Household travel patterns can further constrain switching. Trips that involve school drop-offs, childcare, or coordinating multiple destinations are often less compatible with public transport, particularly where timing and flexibility are critical.

Where public transport is not a viable option, travellers face fewer choices. They may reduce or cancel trips where possible, including working from home, or continue to rely on private cars despite higher fuel costs.

Lasting change?

Most of the existing evidence on fare-free or heavily subsidised public transport comes from periods when fuel prices were relatively stable. This limits how directly those findings can be applied to the current situation.

Even so, these measures are likely to reduce some pressure on petrol demand in the short term. The extent of that effect remains uncertain and will depend on how many travellers are able, and willing, to switch away from cars.

What makes the current setting different and unique is the combination of a sharp increase in the cost of driving and a temporary removal of public transport fares. This creates a stronger incentive to reconsider travel choices than price changes on either side alone.

This means there is also a potential for longer-term effects. Exposure to public transport among otherwise car users may reduce perceived barriers, improve familiarity with the system and lead to habit formation.

Behavioural evidence shows exposure can lead to habit formation, where behaviours persist even after the initial incentive is removed.

Evidence shows behaviour change is more likely when people alter their daily travel routines. Such habit disruptions can weaken car dependency and increase openness to alternatives.

Evidence from the London 2012 Olympic Games provides a clear example. A notable share of travellers altered their usual behaviour during the event, and some of these changes are understood to have persisted beyond the Games.

Similar patterns were also observed during the COVID period, where forced shifts to remote work resulted in some lingering changes in behaviour.

This suggests the current measures in Victoria and Tasmania may function as a unique natural experiment, with outcomes that could differ meaningfully from those observed in previous settings.

While past evidence points to modest shifts away from car travel, the present conditions create a stronger basis for behavioural change, at least for some segments of the population. The longer these schemes remain in place, and fuel prices remain elevated, the stronger these effects are likely to be.

– ref. Is free public transport a good idea? It depends on who gets on board – https://theconversation.com/is-free-public-transport-a-good-idea-it-depends-on-who-gets-on-board-279666

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/04/02/is-free-public-transport-a-good-idea-it-depends-on-who-gets-on-board-279666/

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Miki Perkins, Environment & Energy Editor, The Conversation

Ever wondered what it might feel like to spot giant spider crabs while you’re snorkelling? Or check plants for the circular holes that indicate native bees are collecting nest materials?

Citizen science relies on people like you – more than a million of them in Australia, actually – to collect and analyse valuable data about the world around us.

Here, we introduce five citizen science projects you can take part in. For most of them, all you need to get started is an app on your phone.

Science lives far beyond the lab, and it’s not just done by scientists.

In this series, we spotlight the world of citizen science – its benefits, discoveries and how you can participate.

Spider Crab Watch

Elodie Campresse, Honorary Fellow – School of Life and Environmental Sciences – Deakin University

Every winter in Port Phillip Bay in Naarm/Melbourne, tens of thousands of great spider crabs gather in shallow water to moult – shedding their shells and growing new ones that grow to about 16 centimetres. But scientists know surprisingly little about them. The gatherings can be unpredictable and short-lived, making them difficult for scientists to monitor alone.

Spider Crab Watch helps researchers fill these knowledge gaps. By bringing together observations from the public – including divers, snorkellers and fishers – scientists can better understand when and where gatherings occur, how long they last, and what environmental conditions might trigger them.

Citizen scientists have already logged hundreds of observations, helping researchers identify new gathering sites and better understand when aggregations occur. Participants can log when and where they see spider crabs – whether a single crab or a large group, in Port Phillip Bay or elsewhere. Photos are helpful but not essential. Empty shells washed up on beaches can also be logged.

NOBURN

Sam Van Holsbeeck, Research Fellow – Forest Research Institute – University of the Sunshine Coast

NOBURN (the National Bushfire Resilience Network) is a citizen science project aimed at improving our understanding of the role of vegetation in bushfire risk. Using an app, people around Australia can log their observations – including site photographs – to support research into fuel dynamics, fuel load and bushfire risk.

Guided by the app, participants assess vegetation at a site, noting factors such as shrub density and overall fuel hazard. Observations typically take 10–15 minutes and can be conducted by community members, landholders, students or land managers. To date, we have collected 154 verified site observations and more than 160 registered users.

Observations supplied by citizen scientists help researchers understand the structure, density and dryness of forest fuels. Combined with AI, this data allows for better prediction of the likelihood and severity of fires. While this data is not as detailed as a full expert assessment, they provide useful indicative information, particularly in areas where formal fuel monitoring is limited.

FrogID

Jodi Rowley, Curator – Amphibian & Reptile Conservation Biology – Australian Museum – UNSW Sydney

Australia’s frogs are in trouble. At least four species have been lost and dozens more are on the edge of extinction. Yet we lack the information needed to make informed decisions about how to conserve them. Frogs are very sensitive to environmental change. This makes them great indicators of environmental change (they’re often referred to as the “canary in the coal mine”). By monitoring them, we also gain insight into environmental health.

FrogID taps the keen eyes and ears of people across Australia to gather the data needed to help save Australia’s frogs.

Using our free app, people can record frogs wherever they hear them. The best time is after rain and in the first few hours after dark. Once submitted, Australian Museum frog experts listen to the recordings and identify species.

There are more than 100,000 registered users of FrogID who have together gathered almost 1.5 million records of frogs from across Australia. It’s safe to say this dataset has revolutionised our understanding of frogs in Australia – including finding 13 frog species new to science.

1 Million Turtles

James Van Dyke, Associate Professor in Biomedical Sciences – La Trobe University

Freshwater turtle numbers have fallen 60–90% across most of the rivers and wetlands of Australia, amid engineered flows and increasingly dry conditions. As turtles disappear, they leave a large gap. Turtles are the “vacuum cleaners” of the waterways, eating decaying organisms and vegetation and improving water quality.

The 1 Million Turtles project aims to increase survival rates of freshwater turtles and turtle nests, and increase Australia’s turtle population by at least one million animals.

People of all ages can download and record any turtles or turtle nests they see in Australia. They can also volunteer for other activities, such as nest protection, via our website.

To date, our citizen scientists have logged nearly 34,000 turtle records across the country. They have also saved more than 2,600 turtles from dangerous road crossings, and protected more than 1,940 turtle nests from invasive foxes and pigs.

Assuming each nest held an average of 15 eggs, and half of the turtles saved on roads were adult females of reproductive age, our program has given 400,000 turtles the chance of a future in just the past five years.

Data from this community conservation program has led to the conservation status of turtle species being upgraded to threatened or endangered. It has also prompted the development of state conservation programs for turtles in New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia.

Australian ‘leafcutter’ bees

Kit Prendergast, Research Fellow – School of Science – University of Southern Queensland

Native bee numbers are declining and we have limited information about them. There are more than 2,000 species of native bee, including the Megachile bee. Some species of Megachile bee use plant leaves or even petals to build their nests, giving them the common name of leafcutter bees.

We don’t yet know which plants these bee species rely on. This citizen science project allows the public to use an app to identify which plants the bees are relying on. By noting preferred plants, we’ll have a better idea of how to create habitats for these gorgeous native bees and pollinators.

Most native bees cannot be identified by citizens, due to the specialised skills required, and most diagnostic features being microscopic. But when it comes to plants, these are much better known among the public and can be identified easily by photos.

Members of the public can download the free iNaturalist app and when they see a plant that has distinctive discs cut out, or see a Megachile bee in action, they can take a photo of the leaf “damage”. Once completed, gardeners, land managers and farmers will be able to access an evidence-based list of which nesting plants should accompany food plants.

– ref. Want to be a citizen scientist? Here are 5 ways to get involved – https://theconversation.com/want-to-be-a-citizen-scientist-here-are-5-ways-to-get-involved-278096

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/04/02/want-to-be-a-citizen-scientist-here-are-5-ways-to-get-involved-278096/