Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (National Recovery Plan for Greater Gliders, Petauroides minor (northern), Petauroides volans (southern and central)) Instrument 2026

Contents

1 Name #

This instrument is the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (National Recovery Plan for Greater Gliders, Petauroides minor (northern), Petauroides volans (southern and central)) Instrument 2026.

2 Commencement #

This instrument commences on the day after it is registered.

3 Authority #

This instrument is made under subsection 269A(3) of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999.

4 Jointly made recovery plan #

The National Recovery Plan for Greater Gliders, Petauroides minor (northern), Petauroides volans (southern and central) in this instrument is jointly made with New South Wales and the Australian Capital Territory as agreed by the following State and Territory Ministers:

Ownership of intellectual property rights

Unless otherwise noted, copyright (and any other intellectual property rights) in this publication is owned by the Commonwealth of Australia (referred to as the Commonwealth).

Creative Commons licence

All material in this publication is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-No Derivatives 4.0 International License except content supplied by third parties, logos and the Commonwealth Coat of Arms. Content published on the department website, including recovery plans, are subject to the copyright terms. Contact us to request permission to use material for purposes outside the terms stated on the website or on the material.

Cataloguing data

This publication (and any material sourced from it) should be attributed as: DCCEEW 2026, National Recovery Plan for Greater Gliders (Petauroides volans and Petauroides minor), Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water, Canberra. CC BY-NC-ND 4.0.

This publication is available at dcceew.gov.au/publications.

Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water

GPO Box 3090 Canberra ACT 2601

Telephone 1800 920 528

Web dcceew.gov.au

Disclaimer

The Australian Government acting through the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water has exercised due care and skill in preparing and compiling the information and data in this publication. Notwithstanding, the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water, its employees and advisers disclaim all liability, including liability for negligence and for any loss, damage, injury, expense or cost incurred by any person as a result of accessing, using or relying on any of the information or data in this publication to the maximum extent permitted by law.

Acknowledgements

This plan represents the combined efforts of many people, including those who have directly contributed to the preparation of the plan, those who have contributed site and management action information, and those who have built the knowledge and understanding on which this plan relies.

Acknowledgement of Country

We acknowledge the Traditional Owners of Country throughout Australia and recognise their continuing connection to land, waters and culture. We pay our respects to their Elders past and present.

Image credits

Cover page: Greater glider with joey (© Copyright, [Sam Horton, DCCEEW])

Tables

Table 1. Commonwealth and state/territory conservation status of both listed greater glider species 2

Table 2. Population density estimates across different forest ecosystems................13

Table 3. Glide distances for greater gliders, for given canopy heights...................15

Table 4. National distribution (%) by jurisdiction and land tenures.....................18

Table 5. Summary of other threats to greater gliders...............................31

Figures

Figure 1. Phenotypic differences across glider species, a) P. minor, b) possibly P. volans, c) P. volans. 3

Figure 2. P. volans grey/white colour morph......................................7

Figure 3. Greater glider den hollows in E. pilularis identified at Seven Mile Beach National Park.9

Figure 4. Conceptual diagram from Hofman et al. (2023) representing a ‘standard hollow’.....9

Figure 5. Petauroides volans with pure white pelage...............................17

Figure 6. Indicative distribution of Petauroides minor in north-east Queensland...........19

Figure 7. Indicative distribution of Petauroides volans across the east coast of Australia......20

Figure 8. Drivers, threats and impacts to both greater glider species, P. volans and P. minor...22

Acronym	Name
CSIRO	Commonwealth Scientific and Industry Research Organisation
DBH	Diameter at breast height
EPBC Act	Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation At 1999 (Cth)
IUCN	Internation Union for Conservation of Nature
LLS	Local Land Services (NSW)
NGO	Non-government Organisation
NP	National Park
NRM	Natural Resource Management
OTU	Operational Taxonomic Unit
SFB	Strategic Fuel Break
SMBNP	Seven Mile Beach National Park
TSM	Toxic secondary metabolites

The National Recovery Plan for Greater Gliders covers two species of greater glider listed under the EPBC Act, Petauroides minor - Greater Glider (northern) and Petauroides volans - Greater Glider (southern and central). Throughout this document the common name ‘greater gliders’ refers to the genus Petauroides. For brevity, scientific names (rather than common names) are used throughout this recovery plan.

Greater gliders are flagship species for forest ecosystems. These arboreal marsupials occur in eucalypt forests and woodlands along the Great Dividing Range from northern Queensland to southern Victoria (Lindenmayer et al. 2011), extending east into coastal forests with subtropical to temperate eucalypt communities. Well-connected and contiguous forest communities with old trees (>100 years old) and stands of successive age classes that contain abundant and developing hollows are essential habitat attributes for greater glider reproduction and foraging. These intact ecosystems also play a crucial role in mitigating and adapting to a changing climate, providing species like the greater glider with refuge sites.

Greater gliders are sensitive to habitat loss and disturbance due to their specialised diet of eucalypt leaves and obligate dependence on mature trees with large hollows for shelter, making populations more vulnerable to decline and increased risk of mortality (Jackson 2023). Both listed Petauroides species are subject to similar threatening processes. The main drivers of population decline relate to fire events, and activities associated with primary industry, climate change and energy development.

In 2019-20 Australia experienced an unprecedented bush fire season (Black Summer bushfires), one of the worst in the nation’s history. It is estimated that 19 million hectares were burnt during a period of record-breaking temperatures and extremely low rainfall. This equated to approximately 28% of the greater gliders’ geographic range (Ward et al. 2020). Following this catastrophic event, greater gliders underwent substantial population declines due to a significant loss and fragmentation of habitat. This prompted a reassessment of the conservation status of these highly dependent forest dwellers.

This recovery plan establishes a national framework to secure the long-term survival of greater gliders by 2050. Its vision is for populations to be increasing, genetically diverse, and resilient, supported by healthy, connected, high-quality habitats that includes climate refugia. To achieve this, the plan focuses on securing and enhancing habitat by protecting critical foraging, denning, and dispersal areas, restoring degraded landscapes, and improving connectivity, while also establishing a monitoring program to track population trends and support measurable recovery.

The plan outlines research actions across the species’ range to guide recovery. These actions will address key knowledge gaps, inform conservation planning, and facilitate adaptive management, providing the best chance to protect and manage greater glider populations. Engagement with land managers and other relevant stakeholders operating within the greater gliders’ distribution will play a critical role in the species’ long-term recovery, including collaborations with Traditional Owners. Developing and implementing fire management practices that incorporate Traditional Owners knowledge of cultural burning could also support ecosystem health and species recovery.

Petauroides volans was initially listed as Vulnerable under national environment law (the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 - EPBC Act) in May 2016 and then uplisted to Endangered in 2022. P. volans was assessed by the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species in 2024 listed as Endangered under criteria A2abc+4abc.

In 2022, Petauroides minor was listed as Vulnerable under the EPBC Act. P. minor was assessed by the IUCN Red List in 2014 and listed as Vulnerable under criteria A2bc+3bc+4bc. Table 1 outlines the current listing status for each of these species under Commonwealth, state and territory environmental law.

Table 1. Commonwealth and state/territory conservation status of both listed greater glider species

Legislation	Conservation status
P. volans	P. minor
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999	Endangered	Vulnerable
Nature Conservation (Animals) Regulation 2020 (Queensland)	Endangered	Vulnerable
Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 (New South Wales)	Endangered	N/A^*
Nature Conservation Act 2014 (Australian Capital Territory)	Endangered	N/A
Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988 (Victoria)	Endangered	N/A

^* P. minor is not distributed in jurisdictions with N/A

Greater gliders occur in the Greater Blue Mountains, Gondwana Rainforests of Australia, and Wet Tropics of Queensland World Heritage Areas (World Heritage Convention, 1972).

This recovery plan is consistent with the aims and recommendations of the Convention on Biological Diversity, which has been ratified by Australia, and will assist in meeting Australia’s responsibilities under that convention.

Greater gliders are hollow-dependant arboreal marsupials that are predominantly nocturnal, occurring in the Eucalyptus forests of eastern Australia (Norman and Mackey 2023). Greater gliders are cryptic and distinguished from other gliders by the fold of connecting skin (i.e., the patagium) that is attached at the elbow of the forearm to the outer digit of the tarsus (Harris and Maloney 2010). The long, furred tail, which is not prehensile, is used as a rudder (Nowak 2018). Pelage colour varies between individual greater gliders more than in any other marsupial. The very long, dense fur is typically brownish-black but can range from pure black with a creamy underside, to dusky browns and greys, cinnamon, red, yellow, and completely white (McKay 1989).

Petauroides volans is typically larger in size than P. minor with combined head and body lengths ranging from 35-46 cm, tails can be 45-60 cm long, and average weight is between 0.9-1.7 kg (Jackson 2023). Head and body lengths of P. minor range from 30-40 cm, tail lengths between

40-48 cm, and an average weight between 0.7-0.9 kg (Comport et al. 1996; Jackson 2023). P. minor has a more slender body shape with smaller ears and tail than P. volans (Comport et al. 1996). The dorsal pelage is typically a dusky brown, often with a darker mid-dorsal stripe, and lighter or whitish underbelly (Jackson 2023). Figures 1, 2 and 5 show the variability in phenotypes for greater gliders across the range.

Figure 1. Phenotypic differences across glider species, a) P. minor, b) possibly P. volans, c) P. volans. Source: Eyre et al. 2022.

The significance of greater gliders to First Nations peoples is not well documented. As the distribution of greater gliders is widespread, they are likely known by many different names. As recorded by Fleay (1947), the Yarra Yarra tribe (in Victoria) knew the greater glider as ‘Poong-goong’, while in the Lake Tyers region (Victoria) they were known as ‘Warnda’.

Kerle (2001) reported that possums and gliders play an extremely important part of the interwoven spiritual and physical lives of First Nations people. For example, some communities consider their “spirit” as being extremely curious and often mischievous, but also kind and very active (Kerle 2001). Greater gliders may feature in dreaming stories similar to the sugar glider, which are said to glide down from the sky with messages from the ancestors. English ornithologist John Gould (1804-81) described the value of greater gliders and other possum species as a source of protein, with hunters locating gliders by detecting hairs caught on bark around tree hollows or from bark scratchings (Kerle 2001). It is likely that they also provided other resources including clothing, fur, string and artifacts to local peoples.

Greater gliders are the only extant members of the genus Petauroides (Thomas, 1888). Historically, the genus was considered to contain a single species, P. volans (Kerr, 1792) with two subspecies, P. volans volans ranging from Victoria to around Rockhampton (Qld), and P. volans minor (Collett, 1887) found north of Rockhampton (ABRS 2021). Recent genetic analysis has provided evidence to support three operational taxonomic units (OTUs) representing northern, central and southern groups, which are supported by morphological differences (Jackson and Groves 2015; McGregor et al. 2020; McGregor et al. 2023). However, more work is needed to determine whether there are two or three taxa and whether they should be treated as distinct species or subspecies. Research is currently underway to resolve the problem. The Australian Faunal Directory (AFD) treats P. volans and P. minor as distinct species but retains P. volans armillatus as a junior synonym of P. volans. By contrast, the Australasian Mammal Taxonomy Consortium’s Australian Mammal Species List recognises only the two subspecies P. volans volans and P. volans minor (AMTC 2025). This recovery plan follows the AFD in referring to the greater gliders as two distinct species as listed under the EPBC Act. Additional information on the classification and redescription of Petauroides is provided in the conservation advice for each species (DCCEEW 2022a; b).

Broad scale population and genetic surveys are required to clarify the distinguishing characteristics for each of the OTUs, particularly in parts of Australia occupied by what is known as P. volans. Baseline genetic information gathered by Knipler et al. (2023) from samples of P. volans collected in southern NSW found a pattern of low effective population size and a high genetic structure, suggesting there was limited dispersal ability and isolation of some populations of this species in this region. This study also implies that there is a putative adaptation to temperature. Such research could be expanded to other regions to determine whether other populations contain functional genes that may facilitate adaptation to climate change. Determining the genetic health of greater glider populations across their range is required to better understand gene flow, the effects of genetic drift and dispersal pathways.

Maintaining evolutionary processes and safeguarding genetic diversity that help greater gliders adapt to change is important to the recovery of both species. Retaining genetic diversity can be achieved by retaining contiguous or connected habitat, or through managed interventions such as translocations for more isolated populations.

The tree species and vegetation characteristics of greater glider habitat varies widely across the species’ distribution. In Victoria and New South Wales this includes a variety of eucalypt species (e.g., Eucalyptus fastigata, E. radiata, E. dives, E. elata, E. obliqua, E. sieberi, E. regnans, E. viminalis, E. ovata, E. dalrympleana, E. pilularis, E. rubida, E. cypellocarpa, E. maiden, E. nitens and E. delegatensis, as well as Corymbia gummifera,) (Norton 1988; Kavanagh and Wheeler 2004; Smith 2019). In Queensland greater gliders are commonly found in habitat dominated by Corymbia species, E. longirostrata, E. crebra, E. tereticornis, E. exserta, E. latisinensis, E. fibrosa, E. moluccana, E. portuensis, and E. siderophloia (Eyre 2006; Eyre et al. 2022).

Greater gliders occur across an elevational gradient of 0-1400 m (Lindenmayer et al. 2018a; Emerson et al. 2019) but are more likely to occur at higher elevations (Bennett et al. 1991; Kavanagh & Bamkin 1995; Kavanagh 2000; Smith and Smith 2020; Eyre et al. 2022; Ridley et al. 2024). They are generally recorded in dry and wet sclerophyll forests compared to open forest and woodlands with varying degrees of understory (Kavanagh 2000; 2004; Eyre et al. 2022). These habitats provide cooler, more stable microclimates, which are critical for greater gliders given their likely low thermal tolerance to high temperatures (Rubsamen et al. 1984; Beale et al. 2018; Wagner et al. 2020; Youngentob et al. 2021; Smith and Smith 2022). Such areas, even localised patches, support greater gliders during heatwaves and drought and are likely to be critical for the recovery of the species as climate change impacts worsen. Other habitats and areas that provide climate refugia include coastal lowland forests (due to the stabilising effect of the ocean on temperatures), areas with continuous or semi-continuous canopy cover, riparian zones, habitats sheltered from hot, dry westerly winds, forests with dense understorey and midstorey vegetation, and areas where hydrology or geology promotes water retention within the species’ range (Reside et al. 2014; 2019; Wagner et al. 2020; De Frenne et al. 2021; Smith and Smith 2022). Refuge sites generally have a history of low burn severity or no fires, and minimal changes in land use (e.g., land clearing, timber harvesting).

Greater gliders can be abundant in continuous habitat where there are stands of mature trees with large numbers of hollows, i.e., 2-4 per ha (Andrews et al. 1994; Kavanagh 2000; Eyre 2004; Kavanagh and Wheeler 2004; Van der Ree et al. 2004b; Vanderduys et al. 2012). Ambrose (1982) indicates that it takes between 40-80 years for trees to reach a diameter size of around 40 cm where hollows start to form. Greater gliders prefer forests with increased structural complexity, which helps to maintain or create heterogeneous microclimates at fine spatiotemporal scales (De Frenne et al. 2021). The level of landscape disturbance, fire frequency, intensity and severity (including extent of the fire scar), along with the concentration of nutrients (nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium) in the foliage in which gliders feed collectively influence their patchy distribution and abundance throughout their range (Kavanagh 1984; Kavanagh and Lambert 1990; Wagner et al. 2021b).

While larger contiguous habitat contributes to sustained population viability, both glider species have been recorded in fragmented landscapes with smaller habitat patches (McCarthy and Lindenmayer 1999a; Pope et al. 2004; Youngentob et al. 2013). Fragmentated habitats impose multiple constraints on populations with these being particularly pronounced for canopy dependent species (Keinath et al. 2017). McCarthy and Lindenmayer (1999a) reported that the quality of suitable habitat and the spatial arrangement of these remnant patches in highly modified landscapes must be complementary (i.e., both are needed to support the species) to have some conservation value. A strategy of connecting habitat patches through wildlife corridors is vital for building a biodiverse landscape and for reconnecting more isolated patches. Gracanin and Mikac (2023) evaluated corridor pathways and the connectedness of habitat in the Berry Bush Links (NSW) project. Greater gliders in this study were found to be the least connected of all targeted species. Although glider poles and rope bridges have been developed to facilitate movement in fragmented areas there is little evidence to suggest that greater gliders use these structures (Slapp et al. 2026).

In the Strathbogie Ranges (Victoria), Downes et al. (1997) also found that gliders were not present in habitat corridors with a minimum width of 32 m, even when occupying nearby forest patches. This indicates that greater gliders are a dispersal limited species and ideally require much larger swathes of habitat to facilitate movement (Taylor et al. 2007). Movements of only a few animals between patches may be sufficient for gene flow and may explain the shared genetic structure greater gliders have across parts of their range. However, further research is needed to determine the threshold of where roads and other gaps create barriers to recolonisation and genetic connectivity.

Habitat corridors facilitate movement of individuals, helping to maintain effective population sizes by allowing enough individuals to contribute to breeding across the landscape and reducing the risk of inbreeding and genetic drift (Lancaster et al. 2011; Frankham et al. 2014). Maintaining large old trees as keystone ecological structures within forest communities is crucial for providing both dens and forage, as well as movement pathways for greater gliders (Le Roux et al. 2014). Gibbons and Lindenmayer (2002) outlined that the partitioning of space between mature hollow bearing nesting trees varies depending on the forest community but generally ranges between 21-141 m for greater gliders. In areas where habitat has been maintained, greater gliders have been observed to follow exact routes through tree crowns indicating that olfactory cues may be important for movement pathways (Henry 1984).

Effective landscapes must address both the adequacy (enough habitat to persist) and the representativeness of habitat features to meet the requirements of greater gliders (e.g., tree hollows >50 cm DBH, connected canopy cover and sufficient foraging trees >30 cm DBH). Furthermore, as forests are dynamic environments, recruitment of hollow-bearing trees can be diminished due to direct removal of young trees, high-intensity grazing/browsing of young trees by introduced or native herbivores, competition with other plants including exotic species, and high frequency and/or severity bushfires (Lindenmayer et al. 2014). Ensuring an adequate ongoing supply of den trees will be important for the survival and recovery of all greater glider populations. A mix of native trees of different age classes should be retained in all areas where greater gliders occur to ensure ongoing recruitment, with rates of natural attrition of trees considered. The long-term viability of greater glider populations across landscapes is contingent on well-connected habitat that encompasses hollow bearing and foraging trees within a multi-aged, structurally diverse, forested community at scale.

Greater gliders are estimated to live for 15 years and have a generation length between six and eight years (Woinarski et al. 2014). Their mating system is typically polygamous but may shift to monogamy in response to reduced habitat patch size and limited food availability (Henry 1984). Members of the genus are polyoestrous with breeding restricted to between February and May (Harris and Maloney 2010; Ritchie 2024). For P. volans, males only produce sperm during that time. As a result, females that fail to breed or subsequently lose their young will not conceive again during that breeding year (Tyndale-Biscoe and Renfree 1987). Up to 50% of females do not breed in any given year (Tyndale-Biscoe and Smith 1969b). The relatively low reproductive rate may render small subpopulations in isolated remnants more prone to local extinction (Pope et al. 2004; Van der Ree et al. 2004b).

Sexual maturity in P. volans is reached at approximately two years of age with females giving birth to a single joey from March to June (Tyndale-Biscoe and Smith 1969a; b; McKay 2008). Young gliders usually spend four, sometimes up to six, months in the pouch and then another four months as a dependent nestling (Nowak 2018). There is limited evidence of paternal investment in young greater gliders and full independence from mothers occurs around 10-13 months of age (Lindenmayer and Lacy 1995; Nowak 2018). Little information is available on juvenile dispersal, but some juveniles are presumed to inherit a part of their mother’s range. Juvenile mortality of up to 16% has been reported (Smith 1965; Tyndale-Biscoe and Smith 1969a). Adult males can be antagonistic to their male offspring which may drive them away at an early age (Tyndale-Biscoe and Smith 1969b).

The life history of P. minor is not well documented and additional research is required although it is assumed to be similar to P. volans.

Figure 2. P. volans grey/white colour morph. Source: Nowak (2018)

Greater gliders are nocturnal and depend on the largest and oldest trees that have hollows, which they use for shelter and for rearing young (Lindenmayer et al. 2004; Lindenmayer et al. 2011). Both live and standing dead trees are used by greater gliders although they prefer live hollow-bearing trees as they maintain a lower thermal profile (Lindenmayer et al. 2017; Goldingay and Thomas 2021; Callan et al. 2023). Some tree species form hollows more readily than others (Gibbons and Lindenmayer 2002; Eyre et al. 2022) with greater glider dens being recorded in over 25 species (Goldingay 2012; Eyre et al. 2022). Disturbance that injures trees such as fire, insect damage or other physical damage may accelerate hollow formation (Gibbons et al. 2000; Adkins 2006; Lindenmayer et al. 2018a; Wagner et al. 2024). In Victoria, temperatures in dens of live trees can be up to 8^oC cooler than outside ambient temperatures, which helps greater gliders remain cool on hot days (Rowland et al. 2017; Goldingay and Thomas 2021). During warm nights gliders may remain in their dens without feeding, which can lead to their energy and water stores being rapidly expended (Beale et al. 2018; Youngentob et al. 2021).

In Queensland, both glider species preferentially select eucalypts with a diameter at breast height (DBH) greater than 50 cm for denning, whilst utilising trees with a DBH greater than 30 cm for foraging (Eyre et al. 2022). The age of trees in which suitable denning hollows form varies depending on forest type but generally commence when eucalypts are aged between 150-250 years, representing one of the slowest ‘reproductive cycles’ for any organism (Gibbons and Lindenmayer 2002). P. volans has been shown to use between one and 20 denning hollows per individual within a home range (Norton 1988; Kavanagh and Wheeler 2004; Lindenmayer et al. 2004; Smith et al. 2007), while P. minor uses one to six dens within a home range (Comport et al. 1996; Starr et al. 2021; McGregor et al. 2023). Two studies have found that greater gliders were generally absent from sites supporting less than six hollow-bearing trees per hectare (Smith et al. 1994; Lamb et al. 1998).

Hofman et al. (2023) undertook a comprehensive study of den tree and hollow characteristics in the dry sclerophyll forest of the Seven Mile Beach National Park (SMBNP), Gerroa. Gliders preferred blackbutt (E. pilularis) hollows selecting those at ‘branch end’ with dead wood at the entrance that generally orientated to a northerly aspect (Figure 3). There was variability in both the depth of hollows ranging from 30 cm to 500 cm (mean 250 +10 cm), as well as cavity wall thickness (1-30 cm, mean 8.0 +0.7 cm) and shape suggesting that a diversity of hollows is utilised for not only breeding but also for short-term needs like predator avoidance.

Figure 3. Greater glider den hollows in E. pilularis identified at Seven Mile Beach National Park Source: Hofman et al. (2023)

Hollow height also varies depending on forest type ranging from 15-40 m off the ground and this was found to be correlated to tree height and distance of den below the canopy (Henry 1984; Kehl and Borsboom 1984; Lindenmayer et al. 1991; Hofman et al. 2023). Increased coverage from foliage at these heights is an important factor for den selection as it provides some protection from predators such as powerful owls and provides a staging point for gliding (Hofman et al. 2023). Hofman et al. (2023) conceptualised a ‘standard hollow’ from SMBNP (Figure 4) with average measurements representing (1) the minimum cavity wall thickness, (2) maximum diameter of the entrance to a hollow, (3) maximum cavity wall thickness at entrance; (4) minimum diameter of hollow entrances and; (5) hollow depth.

Figure 4. Conceptual diagram from Hofman et al. (2023) representing a ‘standard hollow’ (n = 68)

The selection of denning trees is influenced by a wide range of factors including tree size and stage of senescence, aspect, canopy height, and total canopy cover (Comport et al. 1996; Stobo‐Wilson et al. 2021). Resident trees and movement pathways can occasionally be determined by the varying degrees of shredding or scratching of the bark where their claws have scored the trees surface when landing (Fleay 1947). Further research is needed to quantify the degree of variation in habitat structure and composition across different forest communities and what inﬂuences den-tree selection and hollow use.

The utility of nest boxes to replace dens is an area that is understudied. Nest boxes have been used to supplement the loss of hollows; however, greater gliders have only used them intermittently and breeding has not been documented (Menkhorst 1984; Lindenmayer et al. 2003; Goldingay et al. 2020; Brown 2025). Alterations to the construction of nest boxes and improvements to their thermal properties remain significant issues for greater glider habitation. Nest boxes designed by Greening Australia and Pro Con Wildlife for use in Victoria were tested for suitability and subsequently utilised by greater gliders shortly after deployment (Howard et al. 2022; Brad Blake, pers. comm. 2025). Gracanin et al. (2025) also investigated the uptake and use of greater glider nest boxes in the post fire environment of the wet sclerophyll forest in Tallaganda, NSW. Comparisons were made between nest box designs (plastic, plywood, with and without insulation) to address variability in internal temperatures and the gliders’ ability to thermoregulate. This study identified a rapid acceptance of nest boxes and offered insights into the role of nest boxes as supplementary habitat to assist population recovery following the loss of hollow-bearing trees. Further research into the use of nest boxes for greater glider recovery is needed at a landscape scale, across different climatic regions, with monitoring to occur over an extended period.

There also remains a limited understanding of effective nest box placement, with Hofman et al. (2023) suggesting that nest boxes should be installed above 65% of the tree height, or as high as feasible. McGregor et al. (2023) quantified the height and positioning of dens for P. volans indicating that trees selected for dens had a mean height of 31 m with the mean height of den entrances being at 17.34 m. In comparison, trees used for dens by P. minor had a mean height of 23 m with mean entrance height being at 15.15 m. This study was conducted at four locations spanning the latitudinal and longitudinal extremes of the genus Petauroides range (i.e., Bendoc SF, Blackbraes NP, Mount Zero–Taravale National Refuge and Wombat SF), encompassing open eucalypt forest and both dry and wet sclerophyll forest types. As tree height varies across greater glider habitat, the appropriate height for den placement in a tall eucalypt forest (e.g. Eucalyptus regnans) is likely to differ from that of a shorter woodland system such as coastal E. racemosa forest. Nest boxes could be a potential and effective tool for mitigating the short-term impacts of habitat loss and disturbances if appropriately deployed in some circumstances (e.g., immediately after fire events in some habitats) but retaining mature hollow-bearing trees in mixed aged forest communities is the highest priority for the species.

Mechanically carving hollows into tree trunks or branches to create artificial dens is a technique also gaining considerable attention (Griffiths et al. 2018; 2020; Best et al. 2022). This method has the potential to be superior to nest boxes as carved hollows may be more likely to be used, could last significantly longer (with appropriate maintenance) and may offer better internal thermal conditions (Jollie et al. 2025). Ensuring trees survive to an age to develop natural cavities is however the most viable option for population recruitment of greater gliders (Lindenmayer et al. 2003). Appropriate fire management to protect trees from early mortality or the loss of hollow bearing trees in mature forests due to more frequent and high severity fires is essential for long term glider occupancy.

Greater gliders forage almost exclusively on Eucalyptus leaves, supplemented by buds and flowers (Comport et al. 1996). Despite their broad distribution in different forest types, greater gliders have similar dietary patterns across their geographic range (Henry 1985; Comport et al. 1996; Hume 1999). Eucalypt leaves are relatively low in nutrients and high in toxins, with the concentrations of both being highly variable between species and even within trees of the same species (Braithwaite et al. 1983; Kavanagh and Lambert 1990; Lawler et al. 2000; Moore et al. 2010; Wallis et al. 2010; Youngentob et al. 2011). Greater gliders prefer tree species and individual trees with higher foliar nitrogen content (Braithwaite et al. 1983; Youngentob et al. 2011). Young leaves generally contain higher protein, fewer toxins, and more water than older leaves from the same tree. Approximately 85% of the greater gliders’ water requirements are provided by the consumption of leaves (Foley et al. 1990). Water is presumably obtained from dew condensation on leaf surfaces or within canopy hollows rather than creeks or pools as gliders rarely come to ground (Rubsamen et al. 1984). Foliage nutrition depends on several factors including tree genetics, soil nutrients, CO2 levels, and weather conditions (Lawler et al. 1997; Wagner et al. 2021b). Many of the greater gliders’ favoured tree species are epicormic resprouters (Ashton 1976; Kavanagh and Lambert 1990; Cunningham et al. 2004; Smith and Smith 2025), suggesting that these eucalypts can play an essential role in supporting individuals after extreme events such as fire. Wagner et al. (2026) found that epicormic foliage generally has favourable leaf chemistry, inferring that regrowth after fire could be utilised by greater gliders if mature habitat features including hollows remain.

Greater gliders prefer to feed in tall trees or those with a DBH greater than 30 cm (Kavanagh and Lambert 1990; Smith et al. 2007; Youngentob et al. 2011; Eyre et al. 2022). Both species of greater glider exhibit seasonal and condition-based preferences for foraging tree species, with selection patterns capable of changing within a single night depending on palatability (Kehl and Borsboom 1984; Comport et al. 1996). It is believed that this feeding behaviour minimises the ingestion of toxins and helps to vary their nutrient intake according to their needs, e.g., ambient temperature, whether breeding or nursing young (Youngentob et al. 2011; Jensen et al. 2015).

The following references have extensive lists of food trees for P. volans (Kavanagh and Lambert 1990; Eyre 2006; Smith et al. 2007; Ferguson et al. 2018; Eyre et al. 2022) and P. minor (Comport et al. 1996; Vanderduys et al. 2012; Starr et al. 2021). There remain significant gaps in knowledge around the feeding ecology of greater gliders, particularly regarding tree species preferences and linking such information to critical habitat, habitat refugia (including after extreme events) and ranking the value of habitat for greater gliders. Like other arboreal folivore species, greater glider habitat is associated with mixed-age eucalypt forests that provide leaves of sufficient quality and abundance to support the nutritional requirements of a glider population immediately and over the longer term (Moore et al. 2004a; DeGabriel et al. 2009; Wallis et al. 2012; Stalenberg et al. 2014; Au et al. 2019; Kohane et al. 2025).

Greater gliders have adapted to cool climate conditions and are sensitive to high temperatures, particularly when warm and dry conditions occur for an extended period of time (Rubsamen et al. 1984; Wagner et al. 2020). The acute consequences of extreme heat events on greater gliders arise from their physiological limits and dietary preferences. P. volans is unable to cool effectively at temperatures greater than 20^oC (Rubsamen et al. 1984; Youngentob et al. 2021). During periods of heat stress, gliders decrease their food intake to reduce the additional burden of heat produced during foraging and digestion (Youngentob et al. 2021). This poses a risk as they survive on a diet with limited nutrition and obtain the majority of their water from the leaves they consume. At higher temperatures gliders cool themselves by panting and licking their fur, which requires an increased expenditure of water to stay cool (Rubsamen et al. 1984). Unlike many other mammals, greater gliders are likely to suffer higher mortalities during heatwaves or if nighttime temperatures consistently remain above 20^oC they can become hyperthermic, preventing their ability to dissipate heat built up during the day (Rubsamen et al. 1984; Wagner et al. 2020).

There is little known about the thermal tolerance of P. minor but it is suggested that this species does not cope with ambient temperatures around 35^oC for even acute periods, with body temperatures increasing dramatically over 38^oC (Denise McGregor, pers. comm. 2019). High temperatures can lead to mortality, or during less severe heat events, may reduce milk production and growth in nursing young, and impact the nutritional intake and fitness of adult gliders. While direct empirical evidence for greater gliders is limited, these physiological responses are consistent with established patterns observed in other arboreal marsupials and mammalian folivores (Beale et al. 2018; Youngentob et al. 2021). Having access to appropriate hollows can be critical for thermoregulation, providing cooler, climate refugia on heat stress days. Certain tree species not commonly recognised as important food trees may also be essential for greater glider survival, particularly if they provide additional dietary water in their leaves.

Greater gliders are susceptible to heat stress, dehydration, and starvation during the following weather conditions (Foley et al. 1990; Kearney et al. 2010; Beale et al. 2018; Youngentob et al. 2021):

Home range size for greater gliders can vary depending on the availability of resources to meet the needs of the individual, which can change according to season, age, gender, and reproductive status (Powell and Mitchell 2012). At the stand scale, the need for multiple tree hollows for denning and eucalypt species with higher foliar nutrient content shape the establishment and spatial configuration of individual home ranges (Wagner et al. 2021b).

Greater gliders have high site fidelity with home range size for P. volans varying from 1.2 – 4.4 ha (mean 2.7 ha), with males having a significantly larger home range than females. Eyre et al. (2022) provided a summary of studies relating to mean home range. The smallest recorded home range for this species was 0.8 ha in southeast NSW (Kavanagh and Wheeler 2004), while in the Brigalow belt bioregion, Queensland where there are open woodlands and less fertile soils, home range has been observed to be as large as 19.3 ha (Smith et al. 2007). For P. minor the home range size varies from 1.03-11.45 ha (Starr et al. 2021). Individuals of both sexes will have multiple dens (between 4-20) with the most frequently used trees being at the core of their range (Comport et al. 1996; Lindenmayer et al. 2004; Smith et al. 2007). Core home range areas for male P. volans are tightly maintained and do not typically overlap with those of other males. Home range size is therefore an essential requirement for both individuals and the population structure of P. volans (Comport et al. 1996; Kavanagh and Wheeler 2004; Pope et al. 2004; Smith et al. 2007; Eyre et al. 2022). Conversely, males of P. minor have some overlap in their home range but to a lesser extent than females (Comport et al. 1996; Starr et al. 2021).

Table 2 represents the density estimates of greater gliders across several forest communities. Braithwaite et al. (1983) reported that density is particularly responsive to two main landscape elements: nutrient levels in the foliage, with high floristic diversity ensuring a maximum choice in food; and the maturity of forest being correlated to the density of dens. Comport et al. (1996) found P. minor densities were much higher in the open forest community near Paluma (north-eastern Queensland), where predation was much higher and larger group sizes were favoured to increase the detectability of, and therefore avoidance of predation from resident eagles.

Table 2. Population density estimates across different forest ecosystems

Species	Community	Location	Density (per ha)	Reference
P. volans	Eucalypt forest	Tumut region, NSW	0.3-1.7	Youngentob et al. (2013)
	Open eucalypt forest	Mid North Coast assessment, NSW	0.119	DCCEEW (NSW) 2025
	Open eucalypt forest	Mt Duval Nature Reserve, NE NSW	1.36	Emerson et al. (2019)
	Open eucalypt forest	Glengarry North, Vic	0.56	Henry (1984)
	Open eucalypt foreststo woodlands	Bendoc SF, NE VICWombat SF, NW VIC	0.612.49	McGregor et al. (2023)
	Pre- and post-stormUnburntFire past 40 years	Wombat SF, NW VIC	0.37 and 0.280.3520.027	Cally et al. (2025)
	Open eucalypt forest	Strathbogie Ranges, Vic	0.96	Cripps et al. (2021)
	Sclerophyll forest	Waratah Creek catchment, NSW	0.5-1.30.84	Kavanagh and Lambert (1990)Kavanagh 1984
	Dry sclerophyll	Monga National Park, NSW	0.456	May-Stubbles et al. (2022)
	Dry eucalypt forestsDry sclerophyll forest	Burnett Mary Region, SE Qld	0.3	Ferguson et al. (2018)
	Dry sclerophyll forest	Barakula State Forest, Qld	0.1–0.36	Smith et al. (2007)
	Wet sclerophyll forestBelow 500m elevationAbove 500m elevation	Blue Mountains, NSW	0.25-0.450.03-0.08	Smith and Smith (2020)
	Wet sclerophyll forest	Buccleuch State Forest, NSW	0.40-0.840.24–1.66	Tyndale-Biscoe and Smith (1969a)Pope et al. (2004)
Species	Community	Location	Density (per ha)	Reference
P. volans	Multiple eucalypt forest communities	Eden Forest, NSW	0.59	Braithwaite et al. (1983)
P. minor	Eucalypt forest	Townsville, Qld	3.3-3.8	Ward, unpublished.Described in Comport et al. (1996)
	Tropical forest	North Queensland	0.00-1.85	McIlwee 2001
	Dry sclerophyll forest	Taravale, AWC Blackbraes NP, NE Qld	0.961.92	McGregor et al. (2023)
	Dry sclerophyll forest Wet sclerophyll forest	Bluff State Forest, Qld	0.380.24	Starr et al. (2021)

Temporal changes in forests, such as those caused by disturbance events, can significantly impact glider density by altering habitat availability (e.g., hollows), resource abundance, and can shift the balance of intra and inter-species interactions. Additional factors that can affect occupancy and population density relate to the size and spatial arrangement of habitat in favourable climatic conditions that contain primary resources (Youngentob et al. 2013). For instance, Eyre (2006) found that the proportion of cleared habitat within a 1 km spatial extent of greater glider occurrence influenced density. Understanding how forest extent, tree diversity, maturity and spatial configuration influence populations of greater gliders at coarse and fine scales is critical for successful conservation planning. Further research is also needed in understanding the cumulative effects of these interactions that contribute to high and low densities across different forest communities. There is less information on population density for P. minor.

Greater gliders have limited dispersal ability, exhibiting a preference to stay within native forest habitats and utilising established corridors for movement (Woinarski et al. 2014). Both species traverse trees by gliding and climbing across interconnected canopy branches, usually gliding from the top of one tree to the lower trunk of another to maximise their foraging efficiency (Jackson 2023). McGregor et al. (2023) calculated the average minimum nightly distance travelled by P. minor as 740 m, being twice as much as P. volans with an average minimum nightly distance of 284 m. Greater gliders can effectively manoeuvre through the tree canopy changing direction mid-flight by up to 90 degrees. Where trees are not sufficiently close together greater gliders do occasionally come to ground. This is not their preferred method of movement as it leaves them exposed to predators (Eyre et al. 2022). Coming to ground can also increase potential for entanglement on barbed wire fences.

Greater gliders prefer habitat without steep slopes (Davey 1990; Stockwell et al. 1990; Wigham 2000) and can glide a maximum distance of 75 m (Taylor and Goldingay 2009). P. volans glides with an average angle of ≈45° and a glide ratio of ≈1 m horizontal per 1 m drop. This steeper trajectory suggests this species typically uses shorter, more direct crossings. The glide angle for the northern greater glider is currently unknown. The gap greater gliders can navigate depends on the height of the tree canopy and the distance measured between trunks of neighbouring trees (Table 3). Gaps between mature tree trunks of 1.1 times the canopy height or less and an assumed glide angle of 40 degrees allows individuals to land on trunks at least 2.5 m above ground (Taylor and Goldingay 2009). Females with young are likely to have shorter glide distances and will be less able to navigate gaps than conspecifics without young (Starr et al. 2021).

Table 3. Glide distances for greater gliders, for given canopy heights.

Tree canopy height (m)	Glide distance (m)
15	15
20	21
30	33
40	45

Unvegetated gaps wider than the effective glide distance of an individual form barriers to daily movements, dispersal and population connectivity; indicating that greater gliders are sensitive to disturbance tending to avoid forest edges and are less likely to cross man-made barriers such as roads (Dalton 30 April – 2 May 2018 ; Youngentob et al. 2012). Timber harvesting is known to adversely influence movement patterns with some greater gliders recorded moving distances of 0.4−2.8km along the ground, which increases their mortality risk (Tyndale-Biscoe and Smith 1969b; Kavanagh 2000). For long-distance movement it is also essential that greater gliders have access to eucalypt leaves to sustain their energy requirements (Foley et al. 1989) and hollows that serve as a refuge from predators.

Taylor et al. (2007) demonstrated the importance that patch connectivity has on the genetic diversity of P. volans when comparing remnant habitat patches (distances 1-7 km separated by pine plantations) and continuous native eucalypt forests. Despite there being some evidence of immigration, genetic diversity was lowest in patches that had been geographically isolated for longer. This indicates that, depending on patch size, eucalypt remnants may not support greater gliders for extended periods, but they remain important in providing refuge, foraging resources, or as a ‘stepping stone’ within fragmented landscapes. Youngentob et al. (2013) revisited remnant eucalypt sites and assessed the density and probability of occurrence of arboreal marsupials, finding that species recorded in the initial 1996 survey were still present in 2007, with no significant declines detected. The size of a remnant patch did influence the occurrence of P. volans at both time periods with much higher densities observed in the contiguous forest habitats in the second survey. Extensive areas of continuous forest habitats are essential to maintain links between populations and enable movement across the landscape. In general, dispersal behaviour for both greater glider species is poorly understood, thus requiring additional research on how far greater gliders can move at different stages of life in both continuous and modified landscapes.

Habitat critical to the survival of a species refers to areas necessary for the species’ continued persistence and recovery. In determining whether an area constitutes habitat critical to survival, consideration should be given to the extent to which it:

For greater gliders, the identification of critical habitat is based on the species’ functional ecology and the forest structural attributes required to support long-term population viability. Maintaining these attributes is essential to halt ongoing decline and enable recovery of both listed species.

Based on current information, the following attributes define habitat that is critical for greater glider persistence:

 Large, contiguous patches of mature eucalypt forest, with

• High densities of large (>50 cm DBH) hollow bearing trees, (tree hollow density of >0.8 hollows/ha)

• Preferred food tree species (>30 cm DBH) of sufficient nutritional quality to support foraging, shelter and reproduction

 Forest structure and ecological processes that support regeneration, including recruitment of younger trees to ensure the ongoing development of future hollow bearing and food trees as older trees senesce

 Habitat in suitable climatic conditions, including areas that provide cool stable microclimates, and function as refugia from extreme heat, drought, and fire

 Sufficiently sized areas compromising the above habitat attributes to be able to support multiple viable populations over the long-term e.g., minimum effective population size of ≥500 individuals (see Frankham et al. 2014)

 Ensuring connectivity between sufficiently sized habitat areas, through corridors and buffer zones to facilitate movement, maintain gene flow and support recolonisation following disturbance

Refining what constitutes habitat critical to the survival of the greater glider is a priority action. All areas that contain one or more of the ecological attributes within the descriptions provided above have the potential to be habitat critical to the survival of the greater glider. Habitat that contains a higher number of the ecological attributes identified above, increases the likelihood that the habitat may be critical to the survival of the greater glider.

Further guidance in relation to the protection and management of greater glider habitat is outlined in Actions 2.4 and 2.6.

Additional research is required to better understand greater glider habitat requirements and support insights into species-specific behaviour and physiology, as well as the characteristics of foraging trees, including chemical composition and responses to environmental variation.

Figure 5. Petauroides volans with pure white pelage

Members of the genus Petauroides are widely distributed in eucalypt forests and woodland habitats along the Great Dividing Range from north of the Tropic of Capricorn to southern Victoria, at all elevations up to ~1400 m above sea level (Harris and Maloney 2010; Lindenmayer et al. 2011; Woinarski et al. 2014; Smith and Smith 2018; Emerson et al. 2019; McGregor et al. 2020; Starr et al. 2021; Jackson 2023). Their distribution also extends eastward into coastal forests, where there is a broad mix of subtropical to temperate eucalypt communities that constitute suitable habitat.

P. volans predominantly occurs on private native forests in NSW and Qld, and to a lesser extent leasehold land and combined nature reserves, whereas P. minor is distributed mainly on leasehold land (Table 4). Across both species’ distribution there are still large tracts of land that are not protected from future land use changes, increased disturbance, fragmentation and loss.

Table 4. National distribution (%) by jurisdiction and land tenures

Distribution (%)	*P. volans*	*P. minor*
Vic	ACT	NSW	Qld	Vic	ACT	NSW	Qld
Private	1.52	-	12.99	41.39	Outside the species range	13.39
Leasehold	-	0.01	0.03	11.04	67.26
Multiple use public forest	4.4	0.02	3.79	6.44	0.9
Crown land	0.08	-	0.08	0.91	2.61
No data	-	-	0.02	0.2	0.16
Combined nature conservation reserves	2.1	0.12	9.31	4.85	-

The proportion estimates are based on Zonal Analysis of Department's Internal Species of National Environmental Significance dataset of modelled species distributions (DCCEEW 2024) where species or species habitat is known or likely to occur within internal compilation of CRA/RFA boundaries draft (DCCEEW 2008) within Tenure of Australia’s forests (ABARES 2023) tenure categories. Species listed status is up to date as of 15 November 2023.

Threat Forestry, land use change or forest loss, Forest dwelling flora and fauna information derived from Australia’s State of Forests reporting (ABARES 2018). Forest dependency from species knowledge and State of Forest reporting (ABARES 2018). NESP 7.7 Threat impact score derived from NESP Project 7.7 A knowledge synthesis to inform a national approach to fighting extinction (Ward et al. 2021).

Species distributions are indicative only and are compiled from datasets with a range of scales and quality. Planning or investment decisions at a local scale should seek some form of ground-truthing to confirm the existence of the species or ecological community at locations of interest. Species with small distributions areas may be inflated due to resolution limitations.

Petauroides minor

This species occurs in the wet-dry tropical region of north-eastern Australia, from north-west of Cairns to south of Townsville (McGregor et al. 2020). Eyre et al. (2022) reported that P. minor occurs within southeast Queensland, Brigalow, Wet Tropics, Central Mackay Coast, New England Tablelands and Einasleigh Uplands Bioregions, with a smaller number of records located in the Gulf Plains and Desert Upland bioregions (Figure 6). The distribution of this species is very patchy across its range with some subpopulations around the Gregory Range/Gilbert Plateau west of Townsville (Winter et al. 2004) and Blackbraes National Park (Vanderduys et al. 2012) being vulnerable to isolation. P. minor also occurs in the Wet Tropics of Queensland World Heritage Area and in multiple Indigenous Protected Areas (e.g., Eastern Kuku Yalanji, Girringun, Mandingalbay Yidinji).

Figure 6. Indicative distribution of Petauroides minor in north-east Queensland

Source: Base map Geoscience Australia; species distribution data Species of National Environmental Significance database.

Caveat: The information presented in this map has been provided by a range of groups and agencies. While every effort has been made to ensure accuracy and completeness, no guarantee is given, nor responsibility taken by the Commonwealth for errors or omissions, and the Commonwealth does not accept responsibility in respect of any information or advice given in relation to, or as a consequence of, anything contained herein.

Species distribution mapping: The species distribution mapping categories are indicative only and aim to capture (a) the habitat or geographic feature that represents recent observed locations of the species (known to occur) or habitat occurring in close proximity to these locations (likely to occur); and (b) the broad environmental envelope or geographic region that encompasses all areas that could provide habitat for the species (may occur). These presence categories are created using an extensive database of species observations records, national and regional-scale environmental data, environmental modelling techniques and documented scientific research.

Petauroides volans

This species occurs in eastern Australia, where it has a broad distribution (Figure 7) from around Proserpine in Qld, south through NSW and the ACT, to Wombat State Forest in central Vic (McGregor et al. 2020; ALA 2021). The distribution appears to be restricted in the ACT, where the species is only known from the Lower Cotter Catchment and Namadgi National Park (CNM 2019). The species’ distribution overlaps with several World Heritage Areas, including the Gondwana Rainforests of Australia and the Blue Mountains and multiple listed threatened ecological communities. The Gondwana Rainforests is a listed World Heritage Area for its ecological diversity, which includes sclerophyll forests that serve as a transitional zone between the rainforest and drier eucalypt woodlands. Greater gliders contribute to the Outstanding Universal Value of the World Heritage Area, with such habitat recognised as an important refugium for the species. The distribution of P. volans includes a number of Commonwealth managed areas and several Indigenous Protected Areas (e.g., Dorodong, Guanaba, Gumma, Minyumai, Wattleridge).

Figure 7. Indicative distribution of Petauroides volans across the east coast of Australia

Source: Base map Geoscience Australia; species distribution data Species of National Environmental Significance database.

The broad extent of occurrence (EOO) for both greater glider species is unlikely to have changed substantially since European settlement (Eyre 2004; Kavanagh 2004; van der Ree et al. 2004a; Woinarski et al. 2014). In contrast, the area of occupancy (AOO) has decreased substantially, predominantly due to land clearing. The decline in AOO has caused fragmentation impacts and edge effects, which have also been driven by bushfires, climate change and anthropogenic activities (Eyre 2006; Lindenmayer et al. 2011; Youngentob et al. 2012; Berry et al. 2015; McLean et al. 2018; Wagner et al. 2020). Some subpopulations of P. volans in apparently undisturbed, intact habitat have disappeared or undergone rapid decline (Lindenmayer et al. 2011; Lindenmayer et al. 2018b; Smith and Smith 2018, 2025), suggesting more research in these areas is required to better understand the drivers of these declines. The species appears to have been extirpated from Booderee National Park, where it has not been recorded since 2006, for reasons that are unclear (Lindenmayer et al. 2018b). The steep decline of subpopulations in the Blue Mountains World Heritage Area is likely to be due to increased temperatures resulting from climate changes (Smith and Smith 2018; Wagner et al. 2020). The distribution of P. volans overlaps with the Australian Alps National Heritage Place. This overlap is particularly important, as the Australian Alps may become a climate refuge for P. volans and many other species.

Knowledge of the distributions of both species is incomplete emphasising the need to undertake broad scale systematic standardised and repeated surveys across their distribution. These should include, where practicable, taxonomic analysis to help determine the boundary between the two species, as well as the distribution of P. v. armillatus.

Although there is reasonable confidence in the broad distribution envelopes of both greater glider species, there are no precise or robust estimates of total population size for either species. Woinarski et al. (2014) provided historical population estimates for both greater glider species, being more than 10,000 individuals for the P. minor, and 100,000 individuals for P. volans with each species comprising of more than 10 subpopulations. Data from long-term monitoring sites have indicated localised and significant population declines (>30%) over recent generations, i.e., 20 years (McGregor et al. 2020; DCCEEW 2022b; a), including in the Central Highlands of Victoria (Lindenmayer et al. 2011), as well as Booderee National Park (Lindenmayer et al. 2018b) and the Blue Mountains World Heritage Area, NSW (Smith and Smith 2018, 2025). There has been limited survey effort across both species’ distribution resulting in major knowledge gaps about their population status. Long-term monitoring is essential to improve the understanding of multiyear population dynamics (Goldingay et al. 2022; May-Stubbles et al. 2022). Alignment with established initiatives (e.g., the National Koala Monitoring Program) could provide opportunities for shared survey design, data collection, and reporting, creating efficiencies and strengthening outcomes for both species.

Important populations are those that are considered necessary for the ongoing survival and recovery of the species. Populations that are important for persistence of greater gliders are any:

The main drivers of decline are land clearing, climate change, and the frequency, severity and extent of fire events. These threats may act in isolation or may interact with each other (McLean et al. 2018). Key impacts include habitat loss, fragmentation, and degradation, leading to reduced hollow availability and changes in forest structure, tree species composition, stand age and recruitment, density and distribution. Other threats that may have localised or regional impacts on some greater glider populations include excessive predation by native species in degraded habitats (e.g., owls and other raptors, quolls), injury and mortality due to introduced predators (e.g., cats and foxes), disease, inter-specific competition for tree hollows and entanglement in barbed wire fencing.

Research to date has predominantly focused on P. volans populations, with less understanding of the ecology and threats facing P. minor. Enhancing knowledge of these regional differences is crucial for effective recovery planning.

Figure 8 illustrates the threats and drivers that impact on population growth of greater gliders.

Figure 8. Drivers, threats and impacts to both greater glider species, P. volans and P. minor

Changes in land use practices causing the loss and fragmentation of habitat are a significant threat to greater glider populations (Pope et al. 2004; van der Ree et al. 2004a; DCCEEW 2022a; b; Wardell-Johnson and Robinson 2024; Cally et al. 2025). Key human-generated factors that contribute to habitat loss and fragmentation include agriculture and forestry, as well as the development of infrastructure for renewable energy, resource exploration and extraction (SLA 2014; Lindenmayer and Sato 2018; Ashman et al. 2022; Lindenmayer and Dickman 2022; Daly et al. 2024). Expansion of urban areas and transportation infrastructure, including upgrades to existing road and rail networks and new vehicle trails within forests, also contribute to habitat fragmentation and associated edge effects. Bushfires and climate change are also major drivers of habitat loss with greater gliders being particularly vulnerable due to their reliance on mature forest habitat and sensitivity to heat.

Habitat loss occurs at multiple spatial and temporal scales, with these factors directly influencing the severity of its impact on population persistence and ecosystem function. At a landscape scale, habitat loss not only reduces the amount of available habitat but also fragments landscapes. Fragmentation reduces the extent of and access to suitable habitat, increases exposure to predation and competition (Kavanagh 1988; Lindenmayer et al. 2013), limits movement pathways (Gracanin and Mikac 2023), and impairs gene flow between populations (Knipler et al. 2023). Artificial light at night may further reduce functional habitat connectivity by altering nocturnal behaviour and movement between habitat patches.

The low fecundity rate of greater gliders and their limited dispersal ability make them highly sensitive to fragmentation. Habitat fragmentation also amplifies edge effects, alters microclimates, and makes ecosystems more vulnerable to external pressures such as invasive species, bushfires, and climate change (Fischer and Lindenmayer 2007; Youngentob et al. 2012; De Frenne et al. 2021). Forest edges in fragmented landscapes are typically warmer and drier than contiguous forests, and more exposed to damaging winds, further diminishing their suitability as available habitat for greater gliders and making these areas more fire prone (Armenteras 2013; De Frenne et al. 2021).

Energy developments, including renewable energy and coal and gas projects, are an emerging and increasingly complex threat to greater gliders through direct and indirect landscape-scale modification. Energy development activities involve vegetation clearing and the construction of extensive networks of linear infrastructure such as access roads, transmission corridors, pipelines, substations and service tracks (Laurance et al. 2009; Northrup and Wittemyer 2013). Collectively, these developments fragment continuous forests, increase edge effects, and simplify landscape structure, reducing habitat connectivity and the effective area of suitable habitat. These disturbances are often extensive and long-lasting, removing mature forest and preventing hollow-bearing tree persistence and recruitment for many decades (Horner et al. 2010; Treby 2014). Breaks in canopy cover reduce glide pathways and increase fragmentation for arboreal mammals, even where total habitat loss is relatively localised (Forman and Alexander 1998; van der Ree et al. 2015).

Other impacts to wildlife resulting from energy developments include altered behaviour, reduced fecundity and breeding success, and changes in space use, such as movement patterns and home range (Northrup and Wittemyer 2013). Coal and gas extraction can also alter hydrology, soil structure, and local microclimates, indirectly affecting forest condition and the nutritional quality of foraging trees (Evans et al. 2012; Hovenden and Williams 2010). Where energy developments overlap with other land uses such as forestry, grazing, or fire-affected landscapes, cumulative impacts may exceed ecological thresholds for the persistence of greater glider populations across an entire region, particularly in regions with limited remaining mature forest (Lindenmayer et al. 2018; Cumming et al. 2020).

Native forestry encompasses a range of practices (e.g., selective harvesting, mosaic thinning, variable retention logging, salvage harvesting post fire, ABARES 2023), with similar landscape effects to those caused by energy developments. These effects vary in their potential impacts on habitat and greater glider populations, as well as across the species' geographic range. The degree of impact depends on forest type, harvesting intensity, rotation frequency, presence of any buffers and reserved areas, restocking techniques, landscape complementarity and the level of interaction with other disturbance events.

Greater glider populations can persist in harvested forests, though likely at lower densities than before timber harvesting, providing sufficient habitat quality and extent are maintained over space and time (Tyndale-Biscoe and Smith 1969b; Kavanagh 2000). Retention of at least 60% of the original basal area of eucalypts and a greater gliders home range has been identified as necessary to support occupancy and persistence within harvested landscapes (Environment East Gippsland Inc v VicForests (No 4) [2022] VSC 668). Larger population declines have been recorded in areas most heavily impacted by historical short rotation clear felling (Kavanagh 2000), although this activity is no longer undertaken. Population monitoring has generally been insufficient to determine the long-term impacts of less-intense silviculture practices on greater glider densities, especially where practices have been modified over time. Wagner et al. (2021b) investigated this and identified a higher threshold and level of importance in retaining aggregated habitat patches. Recovery of greater glider populations following harvesting is slow, with the species persisting at low densities or not at all within areas harvested for many years (Goldingay and Whelan 1997; Goldingay and Daly 1998; Kavanagh and Webb 1998).

In Queensland, important agricultural areas used for livestock grazing occur within, or adjacent to, remaining greater glider habitat that lies outside of formal conservation areas (Ferguson et al 2018; Norman and MacKay 2023; Queensland Government 2023). As a result, grazing practices can affect a substantial proportion of the species’ current and potential habitat. In addition to habitat loss through land clearing for agricultural practices, stock grazing and trampling of seedlings can suppress tree species recruitment, reducing the long-term sustainability of habitat. Over time, this can lead to aging forests with few replacement trees, exacerbating hollow shortages.

Extensive areas of connected mature eucalypt forests with hollow-bearing trees are critical for the survival of greater gliders (Lindenmayer et al. 1990). The loss of hollow bearing trees can directly impact an individual’s fitness and can reduce reproductive success, resulting in population decline and an increased risk of local extinction. Large hollow-bearing trees generally occur at low densities in forests formerly managed for timber production, such as the Central Highlands of Victoria (Lindenmayer and Sato 2018) and southern Queensland (Eyre et al. 2010), further limiting the distribution of greater gliders. Compounding this issue is the significant lag in the recruitment of new hollow-bearing trees, as tree hollows can take more than 150 years to form (Gibbons and Lindenmayer 2002). Greater gliders cannot persist in landscapes where the loss of hollow bearing trees exceeds their rate of recruitment (Tyndale-Biscoe and Smith 1969b; McCarthy and Lindenmayer 1999a; b; Eyre 2006; Taylor and Goldingay 2009).

Habitat loss fragments landscapes and can impede greater glider movement, increasing exposure to other threatening processes (Brooker et al 1999; Cogger et al. 2003; Bradshaw 2012). For greater gliders, key impacts that arise from the clearing and thinning of native vegetation is a reduced canopy cover, removal of hollow-bearing trees, and simplification in forest structure, directly diminishing the availability of den sites and foraging resources essential for persistence. Loss of surrounding vegetation types that help buffer glider habitat from threats can also potentially have a significant impact.

Habitat loss and fragmentation also impact the availability and accessibility of foraging trees. While research has investigated the minimum foraging habitat requirements in Victoria (Wagner et al. 2021a; Wagner et al. 2021b), these thresholds are likely to vary across the species’ distribution. Greater gliders are particularly vulnerable to the loss of access to high-quality foraging habitat. These pressures are compounded by the cumulative effects of climate change, which raise atmospheric CO₂ levels and increase toxic secondary metabolites (TSMs) in foraging trees (Hovenden and Williams 2010). Further impacts of native timber harvesting on greater gliders may be mitigated by excluding known habitat from harvesting, applying landscape-level strategies that limit overall forest disturbance, retaining suitable habitat corridors and hollow-bearing trees, and preventing or reversing declines in the nutritional quality of foraging trees (Kavanagh 2000; Eyre et al. 2010; Woinarski et al. 2014; Au et al. 2019; Lindenmayer et al. 2020).

Forest degradation leads to the reduction or loss of biological complexity within the ecosystem and can result in diminished species diversity, altered forest structure, reduced ecosystem services, and disrupted ecological processes (FAO 2011; Betts et al. 2022).

The silvicultural practice of thinning is the selective removal of trees from a stand and is aimed at enhancing the growth and health of the remaining trees to improve the quality of the timber yield (Gonçalves 2021). Thinning typically targets regrowth trees and when done excessively not only degrades habitat but can also reduce habitat connectivity and increase fragmentation. The consequences of tree thinning for greater gliders can be complex and variable, including how it interacts with fire severity and other threats. Thinning can reduce the availability of hollows and foraging resources while limiting the recruitment of preferred tree species, leading to an age-class bias within the forest.

Insufficient retention and recruitment of hollow bearing trees is a key threat to the ongoing persistence of greater glider populations particularly in production forests (Lindenmayer et al. 1997; Ball et al. 1999; Eyre et al. 2010). Keto and Scott (2024) outlined the impact that selective tree harvesting has on P. volans in Queensland, suggesting that, under current conditions, greater glider habitat is likely to be seriously degraded across 31–70% of the species’ range within the coming decade. In contrast, Horner et al. (2010) suggested that selective thinning can promote ecological benefits by increasing the density of large trees more quickly, potentially accelerating long-term habitat development in forest stands. Gonçalves (2021) indicated that thinning of smaller understory trees while retaining larger, hollow-bearing canopy trees helps maintain a more mature forest structure, canopy connectivity, and resources.

Additional pressures that can degrade habitat quality and alter forest composition include transportation and infrastructure developments, inappropriate fire regimes (e.g., burning to clear land) and weed invasion, with all having the potential to reduce the availability of preferred forage tree species and movement pathways.

In eastern Victoria and southeast NSW fast-growing tree species like silvertop ash (E. sieberi) or brown barrel (E. fastigata) respond to disturbance events like intensive or repeated timber harvesting with rapid regrowth, leading to altered forest composition and reduced browse quality (Au et al. 2019). Limitations on food and hollow resources can increase mortality and stress and reduce successful breeding opportunities, all of which can lower abundance and threaten the long-term viability of populations. Without ongoing management to alleviate habitat degradation, many fragmented populations are predicted to decline or disappear (Lindenmayer et al. 1999; Taylor et al. 2007; Youngentob et al. 2012; Youngentob et al. 2013).

Fire regimes across the greater gliders’ distribution have substantially altered over the past two centuries through changes in burning practices and the effects of climate change and other threats (e.g., timber harvesting, land clearing). Ongoing and projected climate change is expected to result in warmer, drier conditions across much of Australia, increasing the intensity, scale, and frequency of wildfires and altering seasonality, while also elevating the incidence of extreme fire-danger days (Sharples et al. 2016; Andrew 2020; CSIRO 2024). The most substantial changes are predicted for ash forests and sclerophyll-dominated vegetation along the east coast of Australia (Williams et al. 2009), which overlap with the distribution of both species.

Habitat clearance and fragmentation can increase the negative impacts of fires by limiting the movement of greater gliders and reducing their ability to recolonise burnt areas (May-Stubbles et al. 2022). Hard forest boundaries or ecotones also tend to create drier microclimates, not only reducing habitat suitability for greater gliders but also increase the susceptibility of these areas to fire risk (Armenteras et al. 2013; De Frenne et al. 2021). The structural integrity of forests is critical to the microclimate buffering capacity, with understorey vegetation density (<1.5 m) and biophysical effects (e.g., temperature, humidity, season) all playing an important role in regulating conditions at the forest floor (Brown et al. 2022). While disturbance events occur dynamically in forest systems, their effects on forest structure and understorey processes can strongly influence fire behaviour and associated risk.

Changes in fire regimes, together with climate change, have complex feedback interactions with biodiversity, being both positive and negative (Williams et al. 2009; Driscoll et al. 2024). Following severe fires, greater gliders often remain absent for many years (e.g., >10 years) from previously occupied sites, or they recolonise at a very slow rate (Andrew 2001; Campbell‐Jones et al. 2022; Smith and Smith 2025). Understanding the impact of fire regimes on species is complex due to the variability in the nature and context of individual fire events across space and time (Whelan 2002; Williams et al. 2009).

As greater glider occupancy is strongly associated with high (>50%) levels of canopy cover, fires that burn the forest crown significantly influence glider distribution and pose a serious threat to the species’ survival (Campbell‐Jones et al. 2022; Ridley et al. 2024). In 2019–2020, bushfires impacted 6,920,462 ha (28%) of known or likely P. volans habitat (Ward et al. 2020). Fires not only cause direct mortality and injury but also alter habitat conditions, increase temperature extremes, reduce the availability of tree hollows and food resources, elevate stress levels, and increase vulnerability to landslides in heavy post-fire rain, weeds, feral herbivores and predation (Lindenmayer et al. 2013; McLean et al. 2018; Wagner et al. 2020; Starr et al. 2021; Jolly et al. 2022; May-Stubbles et al. 2022; Smith and Smith 2022; Robinson et al. 2025).

A single high-intensity bushfire or too-frequent lower intensity burns can result in extensive losses of hollow-bearing trees, and can change the composition, age and structure of forests to be more prone to fire and less resilient to drought (Gibbons and Lindenmayer 2002; Eyre et al. 2010; Lindenmayer et al. 2013; Lindenmayer and Sato 2018; Trouvé et al. 2021). Conversely, fire can also promote hollow development, particularly following low severity burns (Adkins 2006; Wagner et al. 2024; Taylor et at. 2025). Such fires have the potential to enhance habitat suitability in areas that do not result in a net loss of hollows for forest dwelling species like the greater glider. McLean et al. (2018) found that fire frequency increased hollow and hollow-bearing tree densities in unlogged sclerophyll forests. Sites that were both logged and frequently burnt had the lowest hollow densities, while unlogged but similarly burnt sites had the highest hollow density. The results suggest that fire frequency alone does not limit hollow abundance or potential availability for arboreal animals, provided trees are not removed and remain standing (McLean et al. 2018). Under these conditions, hollow abundance was positively related to fire frequency, although the suitability of fire-created hollows for occupation still requires further investigation, particularly across different habitat types.

In harvested forests, fire regimes are frequently altered by the combined effects of shifts toward more fire-prone or disturbance-adapted plant species, changes to forest structure and age, and the intentional use of fire for regeneration and asset protection (Lindenmayer and Sato 2018; Lindenmayer et al. 2021). These altered regimes can significantly affect the abundance of greater gliders in some landscapes. Landscape configuration, proximity to source populations, and the intensity and extent of fire influence the rate at which greater gliders re-populate habitat following a fire event, as does exposure to post-fire threats, e.g., predation, ability to forage or find hollows (Ensbey et al. 2023; Robinson et al. 2025). In areas subjected to both high fire frequency and high intensity timber harvesting, greater glider abundance declined more than in areas subjected to one of these threats (McLean et al. 2018). Further research is needed to better understand landscape-scale impacts of changing fire regimes and resultant shifting habitat mosaic on the recolonisation processes and population-level recovery for both species of greater glider.

Management of fire

Fire management includes prevention, preparedness, response and recovery (Holley and McArthur 2022). Prescribed burning is widely applied to mitigate the risk and severity of bushfires by deliberately and expertly lighting fires under specific conditions (AFAC 2015) for the purpose of protecting human life, as well as natural and built assets. Similarly, strategic fuel breaks (SFBs) are linear features where vegetation is modified and actively managed to reduce fuel loads and support wildfire suppression (Oliveira et al. 2016). They are designed to slow fire spread, provide safe access and egress for firefighting crews, and act as control lines for suppression activities such as backburning and prescribed burning. SFBs are commonly used in pre-season fuel management and during active fire events to prevent large fire runs from overtaking control lines and to reduce the likelihood of spotting downwind of the fire front.

Across the greater glider’s range, fire management is guided by jurisdiction-specific policies, strategies, planning procedures, tools and research that collectively inform fire management activities. Implementation varies depending on local vegetation type, land tenure, topology, the organisation(s) undertaking the fire management action, and the objectives of the burn. SFBs typically involve the reduction or removal of shrubs and understorey fuels, management of coarse woody debris, and selective treatment of hazardous trees, while retaining some canopy cover (Oliveira et al. 2016).

The expanded implementation of strategic fuel breaks, particularly in southeastern Australia, has prompted increasing discussion, reflecting concerns about both the perceived and actual effects on ecological values, including the removal of hollow-bearing trees, reduced canopy connectivity, and the creation of hard edges that alter forest microclimates. Future use of strategic fuel breaks should carefully consider their placement relative to key ecological assets and the risk reduction benefits they provide. Incorporating the ecological requirements of greater gliders into strategic fuel break design can balance protection of assets and personnel with biodiversity conservation and a functional habitat.

Other land-use practices including timber harvesting and farming can influence fire behaviour. Like forestry, fire management practices are frequently integrated into grazing systems to help promote pasture growth (Earl, 2014; Reid et al. 2014). Burn frequency, intensity, and season must be carefully managed to minimise tree mortality, protect hollow-bearing trees, and support regeneration, particularly in landscapes already stressed by drought or extreme heat (Nolan et al. 2020; DES 2022). If regimes are poorly applied, they can cause inadvertent or irreversible changes that may lead to population declines and biodiversity loss (Baker 2000). To minimise adverse effects on populations a holistic understanding of species’ responses and consideration of both the ecological benefits and costs of different fire regimes should be undertaken (Whelan 1995; 2002; Clarke 2008; Driscoll et al. 2010).

Fire has been used as a tool by First Nations peoples for millennia to maintain healthy, resilient landscapes. Cultural fire management can include burning or prevention of burning on Country for the health of particular plants and animals (Steffensen 2020). It may involve patch burning to create different fire intervals across the landscape and can result in fuel and hazard reduction (Steffensen 2020; Atkinson and Montiel-Molina 2023). Fire is applied as part of a broader suite of cultural land management practices, including habitat stewardship, species monitoring, and protection of culturally and ecologically significant sites. Strengthening Traditional Owner leadership and partnerships in on-ground fire management actions can deliver improved ecological outcomes, enhance biodiversity resilience, and embed caring for Country within conservation and recovery efforts.

Fire management regimes must be tailored to regional ecological conditions and cannot be applied uniformly between habitat types, and notably between northern and southern Australia (AFAC 2015). In the wetter regions of northern Queensland, planned burning may be an objective at a particular site at appropriate intervals to limit rainforest encroachment into eucalypt-dominated forests and prevent transition to habitat unsuitable for greater gliders (DES 2022). Conversely, in the generally drier forests of southern Australia, less frequent and less intense fires are typically required to avoid damage to hollow-bearing trees and other critical habitat structures. Too frequent fires can also cause severe loss of recruitment and seed banks for some eucalypt forest types. Fire regimes must also consider seasonal timing, soil moisture and fuel conditions to ensure planned burns remain at a low intensity to avoid damage, or loss of, hollow-bearing trees. Planned burns that are too intense or frequent may contribute to population losses or declines across the greater gliders range. Bluff (2016) reported that hollow-bearing trees affected by fire during planned burns in Victoria were 27.9 times more likely to collapse than those that were not burnt (0.9% collapse rate). Parnaby et al. (2010) found that following low intensity prescription burns in the Pilliga forests (NSW), mean collapse rates for burnt hollow-bearing trees ranged between 14-26%. This was consistent with the collapse rate of 25.6% found by Bluff (2016).

Overall, there is little data on the impact that fire management regimes specifically have on greater gliders at the individual or population level; however, initial investigations indicate that risks to greater gliders remain regardless of mitigation approach (Smith and Smith 2025). It is generally agreed that planned burns of lower severity and intensity will minimise canopy scorch and are likely to have reduced impact on greater gliders. While tree hollows offer some protection from radiant heat, the effects of smoke remain unclear. Monitoring for the presence of greater gliders occurs during some prescribed burns but generally there is not a consistent approach across all operations and likely varies between jurisdictions. Significant knowledge gaps remain regarding the ecological effects of changed fire management regimes on forest-dependent species like the greater glider.

Greater gliders are highly susceptible to a warming climate because of their physiology and dependence on cool, stable forest microclimates, although climate impacts are likely to vary across their range and between species. Climate change poses a significant threat to their recovery, particularly with predicted increases in the frequency, intensity, and duration of extreme weather events such as heatwaves, droughts, severe storms and bushfires (Smith and Smith 2020; Wagner et al. 2020; Wagner 2021; Smith and Smith 2025). Heatwaves can also cause high mortality rates through heat stress, dehydration and starvation (Rubsamen et al. 1984; Foley et al. 1990; Beale et al. 2018; Wagner et al. 2020; Starr et al. 2021; Youngentob et al. 2021).

Recent rapid declines and local extinctions have been observed in some greater glider populations, even in apparently intact and otherwise healthy habitats with changes in climate considered a causal factor (Smith and Smith 2020, Wagner et al. 2020a, Goldingay et al. 2022, Smith and Smith 2025). In another specialised folivore (also of eucalypts), the koala (Phascolarctos cinereus), extreme climate events can limit breeding success by altering foliar chemistry, diminishing both the nutritional quality and moisture content of browse trees (Davies et al. 2014; Youngentob et al. 2021).

Climate change has complex effects on vegetation flammability, fire behaviour and ignitions, which can influence the severity of a bushfire (Nolan et al. 2020). Conditions leading to intense canopy-scorching fires are expected to increase under climate change, along with predicted declines in winter rainfall that will contribute to increased drought-induced habitat dieback and increased fuel loads (Mitchell et al. 2014; CSIRO 2024). The intensity and extent of extreme bushfire events have direct implications on populations through increased mortalities, loss and fragmentation of habitat, and will limit the availability of food for greater gliders. In the longer term, there could be shifts or changes in the distribution and composition of foraging trees so that less palatable species (e.g., silvertop ash) are given a competitive advantage (Butt et al. 2013; Booth 2017; Lindenmayer et al. 2018a; Matusick et al. 2018; Nolan et al. 2021).

Climate change is also expected to exacerbate widespread tree stress and dieback through prolonged and intense drought, heat stress, and altered rainfall patterns, leading to canopy thinning, reduced leaf production, and increased tree mortality (Allen et al. 2010; Anderegg et al. 2015; CSIRO 2024). These changes can diminish both the availability and quality of forage resources and accelerate the loss of mature and hollow-bearing trees, reducing denning opportunities and structural complexity (Gibbons and Lindenmayer 2002; Lindenmayer et al. 2012). Declines in canopy cover may further expose forest interiors to hotter, drier conditions, compounding thermal stress for greater gliders and reducing the suitability of otherwise intact habitats through altered microclimates (De Frenne et al. 2021). Collectively, vegetation dieback has the potential to degrade habitat condition at broad spatial scales, even in the absence of clearing or fire, thereby limiting population persistence and recovery.

It is anticipated that the total area of habitat that is climatically suitable for greater gliders will decline substantially within the next decade (Wagner et al. 2020). Kearney et al. (2010) predicted a ‘stark’ and ‘dire’ decline of suitable habitat for P. minor under a 3°C increase in mean annual temperature, with modelling indicating an ‘almost complete loss’ (≈90%) relative to its historical range. With future climate change both greater glider species will likely become increasingly restricted to higher elevations and forested areas with cooler, wetter microclimates (Smith and Smith 2020; Wagner et al. 2020). Range shifts to higher elevations may however be constrained by nutritional limitations, such as lower foliar sodium and higher concentrations of herbivore-deterrent formylated phloroglucinol compounds in these areas and homogenous distribution of tree species e.g., Eucalyptus pauciflora in the ACT (Moore et al. 2004b; Marsh et al. 2006; Martin et al. 2020). While some populations may adapt to or recover from these events over time, the increasing frequency and cumulative impacts of other threats, such as habitat fragmentation and changes in land use practices suggest that many populations may not recover without a level of intervention.

Severe windthrow events such as cyclones, or tornadoes, or intense storms are predicted to become more intense but less frequent in coming decades (CSIRO 2021). These events can cause high mortality rates to greater gliders and can significantly alter forest structure by damaging or destroying hollow-bearing and foraging trees, as seen at Seven Mile Beach National Park in 2013 (Vinson et al. 2021). A severe storm in Victoria’s Wombat Forest also reduced greater glider abundance by approximately one-third, with this study highlighting that mature habitat not only supported a higher abundance of individuals but also improved the species’ capacity to persist through a disturbance event (Cally et al. 2025).

Future impacts of climate change and the ways in which different climate processes interact with each other and other threats, remain key knowledge gaps in the conservation of greater gliders. Addressing these uncertainties is critical to supporting the long-term recovery efforts of both species. An important strategy to support greater glider recovery is the identification of climate refugia and the protection, restoration, and expansion of habitat within climate refugia, which will provide more stable environmental conditions in the face of climate change.

Table 5 lists other threats that may cause regional or localised impacts to greater glider populations. Powerful owls (Ninox strenua), other raptors and spotted tailed quolls (Dasyurus maculatus) are natural predators of greater gliders. When predators become too abundant or there is greater competition for resources within an ecosystem, they may place additional pressure on greater glider populations (Kavanagh 1988; Kavanagh 2002; Belcher et al. 2007).

Competition with other forest-dwelling species can limit greater gliders’ access to suitable tree hollows. These can include native animals such as brushtail possums and cockatoos, as well as invasive species like feral European honeybees (Apis mellifera) or common mynas (Acridotheres tristis). Additional threats may include predation from foxes or cats (particularly if a glider comes to ground), and entanglement in barbed wire fencing with occasional deaths being recorded (DCCEEW 2022a; b). Compromised health in individuals may also lower survival rates and reduce reproductive success, threatening long-term population viability. An indirect threat that affects the health of eucalypts is Phytophthora fungus and myrtle rust (Austropuccinia psidii). These processes may have local impacts on some populations of greater glider.

Table 5. Summary of other threats to greater gliders

Threat	Threat extent	Possible effect on greater gliders
Predation by owls, other raptors and quolls	Localised	Reduction or extirpation in the local population, see Kavanagh (1988); Belcher et al. (2007)There are no recorded instances for P. minor.
Inter-specific competition for tree hollows	Localised	Displacement of individual animals from hollows. Potential species that may contribute to this threat include other hollow-nesting animals (e.g., brush tailed possum), introduced honeybees.See Youngentob et al. (2012); Ridley et al. 2025
Introduced predators(e.g., cats, foxes)	Regional	Injury and mortality of individual animals. Individuals are at greatest risk if they come to ground, but occurrence is likely to be rare.Fire events may amplify this threat.
Entanglement in barbed wire fencing	Localised	Injury and mortality of individual animals, see van der Ree (1999).
Plant pathogens	Regional	Phytophthora root fungus and myrtle rust can lead to significant plant dieback and ecosystem damage. Greater gliders may be affected by reduced foraging trees, limited recruitment, and a degraded habitat.
Disease	Localised	Disease can reduce individual survivability as well as potentially impact entire populations. Greater gliders may be affected by Mycobacterium tuberculosis complex and chlamydia.See Clough et al. (2023; 2024)

By 2050, the long-term survival of greater gliders in the wild is secured. Populations are increasing so they are genetically diverse and resilient. Effective control of threats has achieved healthy, connected and high-quality habitats. This is strengthened by areas of refugia to support resilience in a changing environment.

The objectives of this recovery plan are that:

Objective 1	Population size and trends of greater gliders are monitored effectively, and populations show a measurable increase across their geographic range
Objective 2	The extent, quality, and connectivity of greater glider habitat is maintained and increased to support population persistence
Objective 3	Monitoring and implementation of recovery actions are achieved with the participation of stakeholders
Objective 4	Key knowledge gaps are addressed, and information is used to improve decision-making, conservation action and recovery of greater gliders

Strategies, actions and performance criteria to guide greater glider protection and recovery are detailed below. Two primary actions are highlighted as follows:

National monitoring strategy and program

The creation and implementation of a greater glider National Monitoring Program is a key action necessary for the protection of the species. Due to the wide distribution of greater gliders in eastern Australia and occurrence across different forest types and land tenures, population dynamics and threats vary significantly across their range. A nationally coordinated monitoring program is essential to deliver an integrated picture of each species' status and population trend, while allowing flexibility to accommodate local variation in ecology, threats, and land management practices.

The aim of the program would be to:

A greater glider National Monitoring Strategy would aim to guide the implementation of the monitoring program by guiding:

Habitat protection and restoration

Avoiding further habitat clearance and fragmentation, securing and formally protecting existing high-quality habitat is essential to ensure the long-term survival of greater glider populations and maintain connectivity across the landscape. While there will be a significant lag in the development of suitable hollows for greater gliders, restoration efforts will support the improvement of degraded forest habitats and help to minimise fragmentation.

Habitat restoration is essential for re-establishing critical structural and ecological features of forest ecosystems that support greater gliders. Depending on site condition and ecological context, restoration activities may include soil preparation, weed suppression, management of invasive animals, direct seeding, and planting of preferred food and hollow-forming tree species. This should include both active replanting and natural regeneration and be guided by the ecological requirements of the greater glider.

Factors that should be prioritised in greater glider habitat and restoration include the following:

These primary actions are also included in the full list of strategies and actions below. Priorities assigned to actions should be interpreted as follows:

Priority 1	Is considered an urgent action. Prompt action is needed in advance of implementation of other management actions, to ensure effective coordination or to provide crucial information for planning and management. Early action might also be necessary to avoid or mitigate the most significant threats.
Priority 2	Is considered an essential action over the course of the plan. Action is necessary to avoid or mitigate direct threats, implement planning and management, undertake research, and develop tools towards the long-term recovery.
Priority 3	Is considered highly beneficial. Action is desirable, and while not critical, will provide for longer term maintenance of recovery.

4.3.1 Strategies, actions and performance criteria

Objective 1. Population size and trends of the greater gliders are monitored effectively, and populations show a measurable increase across their geographic range
Strategy 1. Develop a national monitoring strategy and program to report on greater glider population size, distribution and long-term trends
Action	Description	Time frame	Priority	Leading partners
1.1	Implement a National Monitoring Strategy across the species range that will ensure consistency of gathered information, metrics used, survey frequency and reporting approaches• Develop standardised survey protocols that integrate traditional field methods and emerging technologies• Define guidelines for survey effort, spatial coverage, temporal frequency, and repeatability• Produce practical guidance documents to support implementation by researchers, land managers, prescribed burns operators, and citizen scientists	2026-2028 and ongoing	1	• Commonwealth/ state/territory governments• Universities• NGOs
1.2	Conduct detailed surveys across known sites throughout the greater gliders range• Monitor greater glider occurrence annually at key locations, permanent sample plots, and periodically at other important sites in different land tenures, using standardised protocols as developed in Action 1.1• Determine trends in abundance, dispersal and distribution patterns of greater glider populations and their relative importance• Track glider movement using field-based techniques to understand dispersal pathways and habitat use• Evaluate responses to intensive disturbance events• Support the development of community-based surveys that leverage land manager and citizen involvement	Ongoing	1	• All
1.3	Maintain a centralised, publicly accessible database for greater glider populations, habitat and distribution data• Define data storage requirements and establish a nationally coordinated database system• Ensure the database is regularly maintained, updated, and quality-assured• Integrate existing state and regional datasets to create a comprehensive national repository• Facilitate timely data sharing with stakeholders to inform conservation planning, monitoring, and adaptive management	2026-2027 and ongoing	1	• Commonwealth/ state/territory governments• Universities• NGOs• Fire management authorities
Objective 2. The extent, quality, and connectivity of greater glider habitat are maintained and increased to support population persistence
Strategy 2a. Map, assess, and monitor habitat extent and quality
Action	Description	Time frame	Priority	Leading partners
2.1	Undertake spatial mapping to define habitat suitability and distribution• Identify habitat types, dominant tree species, and forest structure and maturity at multiple scales (stand, regional, landscape)• Map the extent and configuration of suitable habitat using satellite imagery/drone technology and occurrence data• Include identification of climate refugia	2026-2030	1	• Commonwealth/ state/territory governments• Universities• NGOs
2.2	Develop a forest condition index to evaluate changes in habitat distribution and quality for greater gliders• Quantify forest maturity using indicators such as tree species, canopy height, biomass, and hollow density (see Norman & Mackey 2023)• Conduct targeted field surveys to ground-truth habitat metrics and refine predictive models• Apply the index across mapped habitats (from Action 2.1) to prioritise areas for protection or restoration and targeted assessment for areas where habitat condition is uncertain	2026-2030	2	• State/territory governments• Universities
2.3	Refine key habitat attributes to identify important and more marginalised populations• Conduct field surveys in smooth-barked and mixed eucalypt forests where glider occurrence is uncertain• Determine how widespread greater gliders are in more marginal habitat types, including coastal areas• Evaluate how food tree composition, hollow availability, and thermal buffering influence habitat suitability, especially in sub-optimal or transitional areas	2026-2035	2	• State/territory governments• Universities• NGOs
Action	Description	Time frame	Priority	Leading partners
2.4	Manage habitat quality through targeted vegetation management and protection of key forest structures• Identify areas where dominant or competitive tree species (e.g. silvertop ash, blackbutt) reduce forage quality for greater gliders• Implement and monitor the effect of thinning and vegetation management practices to promote preferred forage and denning tree species• Prevent incremental habitat loss and degradation by retaining key habitat thresholds (i.e., ≥60% basal area of eucalypts and home range size) and minimise fine-scale clearing, particularly in high-value or intact forest areas• Apply best-practice land management approaches to maintain vegetation structure that supports foraging, movement, and thermal refugia• Establish ongoing monitoring programs to track changes in habitat quality, forest structure, and the effectiveness of management interventions, using standardised protocols to inform adaptive management (to complement Objective 1)	Immediate and ongoing	1	• State/Territory Governments• LLS/NRM• Land holders
Strategy 2b. Increase habitat connectivity through strategic corridor planning, restoration and protection
2.5	Identify and map priority habitat corridors to inform corridor planning, restoration, and protection activities that enhance landscape-scale connectivity across the greater glider’s range and support metapopulation connectivity.• Use habitat suitability and fragmentation models to identify key linkage zones• Incorporate known greater glider occurrence records, movement data and genetic information to inform corridors• Conduct empirical and modelling studies to define minimum corridor width and length for effective movement• Assess how different landscape contexts (e.g. fire history, elevation, fragmentation) affect corridor effectiveness	2027–2050	1	• State/Territory Governments• Universities• NGOs
Action	Description	Time frame	Priority	Leading partners
2.6	Protect, manage, and restore native vegetation to increase habitat available to greater gliders• Implement conservation agreements and relevant incentives with landholders• Embed greater glider habitat protection to maintain canopy cover, protect hollow-bearing trees, and to enable recruitment of native trees• Retain at least 60% of the basal area of eucalypts and habitat that reflects the home range size (i.e., 3 ha) of a greater glider to support foraging and dispersal• Establish protective zones around known den trees of at least 50 m to minimise disturbance and maintain root health, canopy integrity, and surrounding native vegetation• Manage canopy structure to minimise large gaps and maintain connected crowns that facilitate safe and functional glide pathways with canopy openings that do not exceed species’ maximum known glide distances (≤ 75 m), and scaled to the surrounding tree height (refer to Table 3)• Retain and protect riparian vegetation to preserve moisture, shelter, and movement corridors along waterways (e.g., at least 100 m wide either side of a waterway)• Maintain native vegetation buffers from edges of known glider habitat to minimise edge effects. For linear infrastructure, maintain minimum habitat widths of up to 500 m on either side (1 km total width)• Remove or control invasive species threatening habitat structure and recruitment of habitat trees• Ensure corridor vegetation maintains sufficient vertical and horizontal structure for glider movement• Align Commonwealth, state, and territory forest management policies and procedures to reflect the long-term (>100 years) habitat requirements of greater gliders	Ongoing	1	• Commonwealth (where relevant)• State/Territory Governments• LLS/NRM• Land holders
2.7	Integrate land-use planning that prioritises protection of high-value connected habitat for greater gliders across both public and private lands• Develop risk-mapping methods to spatially prioritise glider habitat• Apply a three-tier zoning system (high, medium, low-value) to avoid additional fragmentation and to guide planning• Embed corridor protection in regional environment plans and planning overlays to minimise impacts on critical habitat and dispersal pathways• Avoid clearing of hollow-bearing trees and prioritising existing easements or alternative routing• Strengthen vegetation clearing controls in mapped linkage areas• Promote habitat connectivity at the landscape scale and ensure clearing controls reflect mapped priorities	2027–2050	1	• Commonwealth (where relevant)• State/Territory Governments• Universities• LLS/NRM• Land holders• Fire management authorities
Strategy 2c. Enhance land management practices to protect and expand habitat
Action	Description	Time frame	Priority	Leading partners
2.8	Conserve and promote recruitment of hollow-bearing and important forage trees (DBH >30 cm) across land tenures• Identify and monitor the abundance, age, and structural characteristics of hollow-bearing trees on public and private lands, including roadsides and remnant patches• Prevent the unnecessary removal of hollow-bearing trees, with consideration of ecological requirements of greater gliders, asset management, and human safety• Integrate plantings of future hollow-bearing trees into restoration programs and land-use planning• Prioritise protection of hollow-bearing, trees in high-value glider habitat, and known denning areas• Promote natural regeneration and active planting to secure long-term denning resources	Ongoing	1	• State/Territory Governments• LLS/NRM• Land holders• Fire management authorities
2.9	Apply best-practice land management and forestry practices to maintain greater glider habitat• Retain mature, hollow-bearing, and forage trees during forestry and silviculture operations• Apply structural retention techniques (e.g. exclusion zones) to maintain forest complexity and connectivity within harvest areas such that greater glider movement through the landscape is not impeded• Adjust harvest regimes in priority glider habitat to reduce impacts e.g., by lengthening harvest intervals and lowering harvest intensity• Embed relevant ecological thresholds (e.g., ≥60% basal area of eucalypts and home range size, physiological and nutritional) into forestry practices• Monitor post-harvest habitat condition and any occupation by greater gliders to evaluate impacts and inform adaptive forestry management	Ongoing	1	• State/Territory Governments• Agriculture, forestry and other relevant primary industries• Land holders
Action	Description	Time frame	Priority	Leading partners
2.10	Restore and enhance glider habitat through targeted revegetation and regeneration• Prioritise revegetation in fragmented landscapes to link remnant patches, buffer reserves, and improve landscape-scale connectivity• Use ecological science, reference areas and vegetation classification systems as benchmarks to guide restoration• Plant and manage a mix of locally appropriate native species that provide forage and have structural characteristics important for denning (e.g., future hollow-bearing trees)• Use assisted regeneration and site preparation techniques to promote natural recruitment in degraded areas• Monitor survivorship, species composition, and structural development of restored areas over time• Support landholder participation through incentive programs and community engagement	2026–2050	2	• State/Territory Governments• LLS/NRM• Land holders• Traditional owners• NGOs
2.11	Safeguard areas of high-quality habitat not currently managed for conservation• Use outputs from habitat mapping and risk assessments to identify high-quality habitat to support foraging, denning, and dispersal• Work with landholders, Traditional Owners and local stakeholders to implement protection mechanisms such as conservation agreements or covenants• Inclusion of key habitat corridors (Action 2.5), mapped climate refugia (Action 4.8), identified critical habitat or important or marginalised populations (Action 2.3) into the National Reserve System• Tailor site-specific management plans to local context and threats, incorporating cultural, ecological, and land-use considerations for greater glider persistence and recovery• Provide long-term support through stewardship programs, incentives, and technical assistance to conserve and restore high-quality habitat	Ongoing	1	• State/Territory and local Governments• LLS/NRM• Land holders• Traditional owners• Fire management authorities
Action	Description	Time frame	Priority	Leading partners
2.12	Establish coordinated programs for monitoring, research and knowledge exchange• Support long-term monitoring and research (habitat and species) through a collaborative network of institutions, agencies, local stakeholders and regional areas• Develop a centralised web portal to facilitate communication between researchers, land managers, and the public (supported in Action 1.3)• Use this network to share best practices for habitat restoration and adaptive management	2027-2050	3	• Commonwealth (where relevant)• State/Territory Governments• Universities• NGOs• LLS/NRM• Traditional owners
Strategy 2d. Manage fire as a key ecological process to support greater glider habitat persistence
2.13	Review and revise fire management prescriptions and practices to support persistence and recovery• Ensure prescribed burning practices are ecologically appropriate for glider habitat, particularly avoiding canopy scorch• Minimise impacts on hollow-bearing trees and key forage species• Incorporate environmental risk assessments and adaptive management to guide fire planning and implementation	2027-2035	1	• State/Territory Governments• Fire management authorities• LLS/NRM• Land holders• Traditional owners
2.14	Reduce the likelihood of direct mortality during planned burns• Prior to planned burns, assess the likelihood of greater glider occupancy and the presence of den trees within the proposed burn area and adapt fire management program accordingly• Implement site specific protective measures during preparation prior to ignition, including physical protection of trees (e.g., rake hoeing)• Integrate pre- and post-treatment surveys of targeted sites within the National Monitoring Program to assess impacts to greater gliders (contribute to Action 4.12)• Monitor burn outcomes and refine operational activities to minimise habitat loss and mortality risk, applying adaptive management where impacts are identified	Ongoing	1	• State/Territory Governments• Fire management authorities• Traditional owners
Action	Description	Time frame	Priority	Leading partners
2.15	Apply fire management practices that maintain corridor integrity• Implement fire management practices that promote natural regeneration of greater glider habitat• Avoid too frequent and high intensity burns in known movement corridors• Include glider habitat in fire exclusion zones where appropriate• Integrate Traditional Ecological Knowledge with fire planning to maintain landscape connectivity	Ongoing	1	• State/Territory Governments• Fire management authorities• LLS/NRM• Land holders• Traditional Owners
Objective 3. Monitoring and implementation of recovery actions are achieved with the participation of stakeholders
Strategy 3a. Strengthen the involvement of First Nations communities in recovery planning and delivery
3.1	Maximise opportunities for Indigenous-led and co-designed conservation projects• Support First Nations leadership and cultural authority across recovery actions• Seek to increase the number and scope of projects led or co-managed by Indigenous led organisations• Support First Nations engagement in habitat restoration and protection	Ongoing	1	• Traditional owners• State/Territory Governments• LLS/NRM• Universities
3.2	Support cultural knowledge exchange• Promote participatory research to better understand the cultural significance of greater gliders• Acknowledge First Nations connections to land and support recovery action that deliver broad biodiversity and cultural outcomes• Support two-way learning models that combine ecological and cultural knowledge• Incorporate Traditional Ecological Knowledge and fire management practices in land and habitat management	Ongoing	2	• Traditional owners• State/Territory Governments• Universities
Strategy 3b. Promote public participation in monitoring, habitat protection, and conservation awareness
Action	Description	Time frame	Priority	Leading partners
3.3	Engage the public in greater glider conservation• Develop educational campaigns to raise awareness and community support, including the importance of appropriate forest management practices to support the persistence and recovery of the species• Provide clear information on the importance of hollow-bearing trees and promote their retention in the landscape, where appropriate to do so• Encourage land holders to consider voluntary conservation agreements to protect glider habitat• Involve citizen scientists and volunteers in surveys using standardised monitoring protocols and habitat restoration efforts	Initially 2 years, then ongoing campaigns 2026-2050	3	• State/Territory Governments• LLS/NRM• NGOs• Community groups• Land holders• Traditional owners
3.4	Raise awareness and reduce hazards from fencing and artificial obstacles• Identify areas with high incidence of injury from fencing or infrastructure• Promote fencing alternatives such as plain wires to reduce injury risks in priority areas• Incorporate natural-infrastructure (e.g., vegetation corridors, canopy linkages) and best-practice mitigation guidelines into planning policies to ensure safe movement of gliders• Develop community campaigns and publish case studies highlighting successful mitigation strategies	Ongoing	3	• State/Territory Governments• LLS/NRM• Land holders• Community groups
Strategy 3c. Establish a national Recovery Team to guide, deliver, and report on recovery efforts
3.5	Establish a National Greater Glider Recovery Team to support Recovery Plan implementation• Convene regular meetings with broad stakeholder representation• Track and report on measurable conservation outcomes to inform adaptive planning	2026-27	1	All
Objective 4. Key knowledge gaps are addressed, and information is used to improve decision-making, conservation action and recovery of greater gliders
Strategy 4a. Improve ecological and biological knowledge of the greater glider
Action	Description	Time frame	Priority	Leading partners
4.1	Undertake spatial and temporal analysis of diet and behaviour• Identify key foraging species and assess foliar nutritional quality across their geographic ranges• Evaluate how fire, season, and forest type influence food availability, glider movement and food selection• Use indices to quantify the quality of feeding habitat across different regions• Investigate behavioural responses of gliders to clumped vs. dispersed food resources	Ongoing	2	• State/Territory Governments• Universities• NGOs
4.2	Expand understanding of life history traits• Investigate breeding success, survival, dispersal (especially juveniles), and causes of mortality• Collect data on growth rates, size at maturity, reproductive investment, and longevity• Assess variation across the range and update or identify generalisable demographic patterns	Ongoing	3	• State/Territory Governments• Universities• NGOs
4.3	Use genetic methods to support population viability analysis and conservation management• Compile existing genetic information and identify knowledge gaps through collaboration with research institutions and conservation groups• Establish structured, standardised sampling protocols across the species' geographic range• Use genetic analyses to clarify species boundaries, assess population connectivity, and identify isolated or at-risk populations• Use findings to inform conservation unit delineation, adaptive management actions, and translocation potential	2 years to compile data, ongoing	2	• State/Territory Governments• Universities• NGOs• Museums
4.4	Assess the feasibility of translocation to assist recolonisation where natural dispersal is limited or slow• Conduct population viability analyses (PVA) to inform translocation scenarios and assess long-term outcomes under different management options• Trial adaptive-release methods to evaluate survival, dispersal, and habitat suitability• Optimise protocols for selecting source and recipient sites, handling procedures, and post-release monitoring• Use findings to inform guidelines on when, where, and what conditions translocation may be appropriate as a recovery action for greater gliders	2026–2050	3	• State/Territory Governments• Universities• NGOs
Strategy 4b. Evaluate artificial structures that support habitat connectivity and persistence
Action	Description	Time frame	Priority	Leading partners
4.5	Assess artificial hollows in areas with low hollow availability• Identify the attributes of hollows preferred by greater gliders across their ranges, including depth, orientation, thermal buffering, and structural features• Test different substitute hollow designs and placements across forest types• Monitor use and adapt designs to improve effectiveness and uptake	2026-2031	2	• State/Territory Governments• Universities• NGOs
4.6	Trial and refine glider poles and other movement structures• Evaluate feasibility of glider poles in fragmented and disturbed landscapes at various scales• Test structural and scent-based cues to encourage movement and colonisation• Monitor and document outcomes to guide future application at scale	2026-2031	3	• State/Territory Governments• Universities• NGOs
Strategy 4c. Anticipate and where feasible reduce the impacts of climate change on greater gliders through modelling, research, and adaptive planning
4.7	Conduct research to understand physiological responses to temperature and climate extremes• Identify and map thermal refugia and heat-sensitive populations, and the climatic and microclimatic conditions that define refugia• Investigate how temperature and climate-driven changes in foliar nutrition affect foraging efficiency, digestion, hydration, activity, and home range size and formation• Determine physiological and nutritional thresholds to inform emergency interventions and climate-resilient habitat planning	Ongoing	2	• Universities• NGOs
4.8	Use climate modelling techniques to investigate the potential influence climate change has on the distribution of both species• Conduct research and modelling to improve understanding of the effects of climate change on greater gliders and their habitats across their geographic range• New knowledge is incorporated into relevant policies and management plans• Investigate the feasibility of expanding the National Reserve System to meet the future needs of greater gliders• Integrate climate adaptation into habitat protection, restoration, reserve design, and fire management to safeguard climate refugia	2026-2036	2	• State/Territory Governments• Universities• LLS/NRM• Traditional owners• Land holders• NGOs
Strategy 4d. Assess and manage threats from native and introduced species that compete with or prey upon greater gliders
Action	Description	Time frame	Priority	Leading partners
4.9	Develop and implement long-term predator control strategies where threats are locally significant• Determine levels of feral predator abundance in key glider habitats, especially in post-fire refugia and under different climate change scenarios• Identify when and where predation occurs to inform spatial and temporal control efforts• Apply predator control measures and monitor effects on predator abundance and glider populations• Compare outcomes with control and non-control sites; define thresholds for action	2026-2050	3	• State/Territory Governments• LLS/NRM• Land holders• Universities
4.10	Investigate the impact of feral honeybees on availability of suitable tree hollows• Survey tree hollows in glider habitat to detect feral bee occupation• Assess whether bee presence reduces hollow availability long-term• Develop and trial mitigation methods to exclude bees from tree hollows to improve hollow availability for greater gliders, with priority given to sites supporting known populations	2027-2030	3	• State/Territory Governments• Universities
4.11	Assess competitive interactions with native and introduced species that may affect hollow or food availability• Investigate whether focal species displace greater gliders from hollows or reduce food availability• Evaluate habitat overlap, seasonal activity, and hollow use patterns• Determine if management or habitat enhancement measures are feasible and likely to significantly reduce competition impacts	2027-2030	3	• State/Territory Governments• Universities• NGOs
Strategy 4e. Refine fire management to support greater glider habitat resilience and population recovery
Action	Description	Time frame	Priority	Leading partners
4.12	Improve the understanding of population and habitat level responses of greater gliders to fire regimes• Assess the suitability of fire-created hollows for greater glider use, including how hollow formation varies with fire frequency and intensity• Quantify ecological responses to fire regimes, including prescribed burning, by assessing post-fire changes in canopy cover, hollow-bearing tree availability, forage quality, and microclimate conditions• Evaluate population-level outcomes of fire regimes, including prescribed burning, by determining effects on mortality risk, smoke exposure, habitat suitability, recolonisation processes and population recovery• Develop and apply predictive models to evaluate landscape-scale outcomes of different fire regimes under current and future climate scenarios• Integrate field monitoring, remote sensing, Traditional Ecological Knowledge, and modelling to inform adaptive fire management and decision-support tools for land and fire managers	Ongoing	2	• State/Territory Governments• Fire management authorities• LLS/NRM• Land holders• Traditional owners
Strategy 4f. Assess and manage the risk of disease in greater glider populations
4.13	Assess disease prevalence and potential population-level impacts• Identify and prioritise key pathogens of concern, including Mycobacterium tuberculosis complex and Chlamydia spp.• Design and implement standardised field protocols for health assessments, including clinical exams and specimen collection (e.g., blood, faecal, tissue)• Conduct targeted surveillance for existing and emerging diseases (e.g., HPAI) and ectoparasites in representative populations across the species’ range• Analyse health data to assess individual survivability and broader population risks• Use findings to inform potential management responses and guide future monitoring	2026-2034	3	• State/Territory Governments• Universities• NGOs

Implementation of this recovery plan will help to achieve the following outcomes:

Greater gliders occur across an extensive range and a variety of land tenures throughout eastern Australia. People with an interest in the recovery of the species include (but are not limited to) First Nations people and organisations, Australian Government, state and territory governments, environmental non-government organisations, local councils, private landowners and managers, researchers, forestry and other relevant primary industry sectors, tourism operators, and conservation/wildlife and community groups.

Conservation of the greater glider is also led by dedicated champions and researchers, and many community groups that play an active role in surveys, monitoring and education.

The greater glider is a flagship species for forest habitats across eastern Australia. Enhanced forest protection and recovery actions focused on greater gliders are likely to provide broad biodiversity benefits, supporting many other listed threatened species, as well as forest and woodland-dependent fauna and ecological communities. This includes other arboreal species that rely on mature hollow-bearing trees for nesting and foraging, such as other gliders (e.g., yellow-bellied glider, Petaurus australis), possums (e.g., Leadbeater’s possum, Gymnobelideus leadbeateri), marsupials (e.g., spotted-tailed quoll, Dasyurus maculatus), and owls (e.g., Australian masked owl, Tyto novaehollandiae). Many other mammals, invertebrates, and plant species will also benefit from the measures implemented to protect and restore greater glider habitat, including a variety of woodland birds and those that depend on large, intact forest areas for their long-term survival.

Several Ecological Communities listed as threatened under the EPBC Act are of importance to both species of greater glider, such as: ‘Upland Basalt Eucalypt Forests of the Sydney Basin Bioregion’, ‘River-flat eucalypt forest on coastal floodplains of southern New South Wales and eastern Victoria’, and ‘Subtropical eucalypt floodplain forest and woodland of the New South Wales North Coast and South East Queensland bioregions’. There are also several Ecological Communities listed under state legislation that are of importance to the persistence and recovery of greater gliders.

ABARES 2018, Australia’s State of the Forests Report 2018, Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences, Canberra, DOI: 10.25814/5be12aa83aa34, accessed 24 July 2023.

ABARES (2023) Australia’s forests and forestry glossary, v1.2.0. Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences, Canberra.

ABARES 2023, Tenure of Australia's forests (2023), Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences (ABARES), Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, accessed 2 January 2024.

ABARES (2024). Australia’s State of the Forests Report: Synthesis 2023, report prepared by Montreal Process Implementation Group for Australia and National Forest Inventory Steering Committee. Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences, Canberra.

ABRS, Australian Faunal Directory. Genus Petauroides Thomas, 1888, Australian Biological Resources Study, 2021, accessed 21 December 2023.

Adkins MF (2006) 'A burning issue: using fire to accelerate tree hollow formation in Eucalyptus species', Australian Forestry, volume(2):107–113, doi:10.1080/00049158.2006.10676236.

AFAC (2015) Overview of Prescribed Burning in Australasia, report to the National Burning Project – Subproject 1. Australasian Fire and Emergency Service Authorities Council Limited.

ALA, OZCAM records of Petauroides, Atlas of Living Australia, 2021, accessed 17 August 2021.

Allen CD, Macalady AK, Chenchouni H, Bachelet D, McDowell N, Vennetier M, Kitzberger T, Rigling A, Breshears DD, Hogg EH, Gonzalez P, Fensham R, Zhang Z, Castro J, Demidova N, Lim J-H, Allard G, Running SW, Semerci A and Cobb N (2010) 'A global overview of drought and heat-induced tree mortality reveals emerging climate change risks for forests', Forest Ecology and Management, volume(4):660–684, doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2009.09.001.

Ambrose G, An ecological and behavioural study of vertebrates using hollows in Eucalyptus branches [PhD thesis], La Trobe University, 1982, accessed 11 March 2025.

AMTC, The AMTC Australian Mammal Species List, Version 4.2., 2024, accessed 14 September 2025.

Anderegg WRL, Hicke JA, Fisher RA, Allen CD, Aukema J, Bentz B, Hood S, Lichstein JW, Macalady AK, McDowell N, Pan Y, Raffa K, Sala A, Shaw JD, Stephenson NL, Tague C and Zeppel M (2015) 'Tree mortality from drought, insects, and their interactions in a changing climate', New Phytologist, volume(208):674–683, doi:10.1111/nph.13477.

Andrew D (2001) Post fire vertebrate fauna survey: Royal and Heathcote National Parks and Garawarra State Recreation Area, report to the NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service, Sydney South Region National Parks and Wildlife Service.

Andrew JD (2020) 'Seamless climate change projections and seasonal predictions for bushfires in Australia Seamless climate change projections and seasonal predictions for bushfires in Australia', Journal of Southern Hemisphere Earth Systems Science, volume(1):120–138, doi:10.1071/ES20001.

Andrews S, Gration G, Quin D and Smith A (1994) Description and assessment of forestry impacts on fauna of the Urbenville Forestry Management Area, report to the State Forests of New South Wales Austeco Environmental Consultants.

Armenteras D, González TM and Retana J (2013) 'Forest fragmentation and edge influence on fire occurrence and intensity under different management types in Amazon forests', Biological Conservation, 73–79, doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2012.10.026.

Ashman KR, Watchorn DJ, Lindenmayer DB and Taylor MFJ (2022) 'Is Australia's environmental legislation protecting threatened species? A case study of the national listing of the greater glider', Pacific Conservation Biology, volume(3):277–289, doi:10.1071/PC20077.

Ashton DH (1976) 'The development of even-aged stands of Eucalyptus regnans F. Muell. [Mountain Ash] in central Victoria', Australian Journal of Botany, volume(3):397–414, doi:10.1071/BT9760397.

Atkinson A and Montiel-Molina C (2023) 'Reconnecting Fire Culture of Aboriginal Communities with Contemporary Wildfire Risk Management', Fire, volume(8):296, doi:10.3390/fire6080296.

Au J, Clark RG, Allen C, Marsh KJ, Foley WJ and Youngentob KN (2019) 'A nutritional mechanism underpinning folivore occurrence in disturbed forests', Forest Ecology and Management, volume(453):117585, doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2019.117585.

Baker J (2000) 'The Eastern Bristlebird: Cover-dependent and Fire-sensitive', Emu, volume(4):286–298, doi:10.1071/MU9845.

Ball IR, Lindenmayer DB and Possingham HP (1999) 'A tree hollow dynamics simulation model', Forest Ecology and Management, volume(2):179–194, doi:10.1016/S0378-1127(99)00026-2.

Beale PK, Marsh KJ, Foley WJ and Moore BD (2018) 'A hot lunch for herbivores: physiological effects of elevated temperatures on mammalian feeding ecology', Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society, volume(1):674–692, doi:10.1111/brv.12364.

Belcher CA, Nelson JL and Darrant JP (2007) 'Diet of the tiger quoll (Dasyurus maculatus) in south-eastern Australia', Australian Journal of Zoology, volume(2):117–122, doi:10.1071/ZO06102.

Bennett A, Lumsden L, Alexander J, Duncan P, Johnson P, Robertson P and Silveira C (1991) 'Habitat Use by Arboreal Mammals along an Environment Gradient in North-eastern Victoria', Wildlife Research, volume(2):125–146, doi:10.1071/wr9910125.

Berry LE, Driscoll DA, Banks SC and Lindenmayer DB (2015) 'The use of topographic fire refuges by the greater glider (Petauroides volans) and the mountain brushtail possum (Trichosurus cunninghami) following a landscape-scale fire', Australian Mammalogy, volume(1):39–45, doi:10.1071/AM14027.

Best K, Haslem A, Maisey AC, Semmens K and Griffiths SR (2022) 'Occupancy of chainsaw-carved hollows by an Australian arboreal mammal is influenced by cavity attributes and surrounding habitat', Forest Ecology and Management, 119747, doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2021.119747.

Betts MG, Yang Z, Hadley AS, Smith AC, Rousseau JS, Northrup JM, Nocera JJ, Gorelick N and Gerber BD (2022) 'Forest degradation drives widespread avian habitat and population declines', Nature Ecology & Evolution, volume(6):709–719, doi:10.1038/s41559-022-01737-8.

Bluff L (2016) Reducing the effect of planned burns on hollow-bearing trees, report to the Victorian Government Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning, Melbourne.

Booth TH (2017) 'Impacts of climate change on eucalypt distributions in Australia: an examination of a recent study', Australian Forestry, volume(4):208–215, doi:10.1080/00049158.2017.1365402.

Braithwaite LW, Dudzinski ML and Turner J (1983) 'Studies on the arboreal marsupial fauna of eucalypt forests being harvested for woodpulp at Eden, NSW. II. Relationship between the fauna density, richness and diversity, and measured variables of the habitat', Wildlife Research, volume(2):231–247, doi:10.1071/WR9830231.

Bradshaw CJA, (2012) ‘Little left to lose: deforestation and forest degradation in Australia since European colonization’, Journal of Plant Ecology, volume(5):109-120, doi:10.1093/jpe/rtr038.

Brooker L, Brooker M and Cale P (1999) ‘Animal dispersal in fragmented habitat: measuring habitat connectivity, corridor use, and dispersal mortality’, Conservation Ecology, volume(3):4, doi: 10.5751/ES-00109-030104.

Brown TP, Inbar A, Duff TJ, Lane PNJ and Sheridan GJ (2022) 'The sensitivity of fuel moisture to forest structure effects on microclimate', Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, volume(316):108857, doi:10.1016/j.agrformet.2022.108857.

Brown T, Are nest boxes a viable conservation management strategy as supplementary habitat for greater gliders? [Master's thesis], University of Wollongong, 2025, accessed 22 July 2025.

Butt N, Pollock LJ and McAlpine CA (2013) 'Eucalypts face increasing climate stress', Ecology and Evolution, volume(15):5011–5022, doi:10.1002/ece3.873.

Callan MN, Krix D, McLean CM, Murray BR and Webb JK (2023) 'Thermal Profiles of Chainsaw Hollows and Natural Hollows during Extreme Heat Events', Biology (Basel), volume(3):doi:10.3390/biology12030361.

Cally JG, Macak PV, Chick MP, Blake B, Wagner B and Ramsey DSL (2025) 'Mature forest habitat mitigates the decline of an Endangered greater glider population through a widespread disturbance event', Forest Ecology and Management, 122440, doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2024.122440.

Campbell‐Jones MM, Bassett M, Bennett AF, Chia EK, Leonard S and Collins L (2022) 'Fire severity has lasting effects on the distribution of arboreal mammals in a resprouting forest', Austral Ecology, volume(7):1456–1469, doi:10.1111/aec.13231.

Clarke MF (2008) 'Catering for the needs of fauna in fire management: science or just wishful thinking?', Wildlife Research, volume(5):385–394, doi:10.1071/WR07137.

Clough J, Emery M, Gracanin A and Mikac K (2024) 'Molecular survey for Chlamydia among southern greater gliders (Petauroides volans) from southeastern New South Wales, Australia', Veterinary Research Communications, doi:10.1007/s11259-024-10604-9.

Clough J, Schwab S and Mikac K (2023) 'Gut Microbiome Profiling of the Endangered Southern Greater Glider (Petauroides volans) after the 2019–2020 Australian Megafire', Animals, volume(22):3583, doi:10.3390/ani13223583.

CNM, Petauroides volans (southern greater glider), Canberra Nature Map, 2019, accessed 23 April 2025.

Cogger H, Ford H, Johnson C, Holman J and Butler D (2003). Impacts of Land Clearing on Australian Wildlife in Queensland, report prepared by WWF-Australia, accessed 29 December 2025.

Comport SS, Ward SJ and Foley WJ (1996) 'Home ranges, time budgets and food-tree use in a high-density tropical population of greater gliders, Petauroides volans minor (Pseudocheiridae : Marsupialia)', Wildlife Research, volume(4):401–419, doi:10.1071/WR9960401.

Cripps JK, Nelson JL, Scroggie MP, Durkin LK, Ramsey DSL and Lumsden LF (2021) 'Double-observer distance sampling improves the accuracy of density estimates for a threatened arboreal mammal', Wildlife Research, volume(8):756–768, doi:10.1071/WR19136.

CSIRO, Climate Change in Australia: Regional Climate Change Explorer, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, 2021, accessed 13 June 2025.

CSIRO, State of the Climate 2024, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, Bureau of Meteorology, Australian Government, 2024.

Cunningham RB, Pope ML and Lindenmayer DB (2004) 'Patch use by the greater glider (Petauroides volans) in a fragmented forest ecosystem. III. Night-time use of trees', Wildlife Research, volume(6):579–585, doi:10.1071/WR02112.

Cumming G, Buerkert A, Hoffmann E, Schlecht E, Cramon-Taubadel S and Tscharntke T (2014) 'Implications of agricultural transitions and urbanization for ecosystem services', Nature, volume(515):50–57, doi:10.1038/nature13945.

Dalton K (30 April – 2 May 2018 ) 'Use and effectiveness of glider pole linkages as a mitigation measure: Sugarloaf Pipeline project' [conference presentation], Australasian Network for Ecology and Transportation Conference, Creswick, Victoria, accessed 14 March 2025.

Daly G, Craven P, Bryant J, Senior C, Smith M and Mahony M (2024) 'Long-term monitoring of arboreal mammals in coastal reserves on the south coast of New South Wales', Australian Zoologist, doi:10.7882/AZ.2024.040.

Davey SM (1990) 'Methods for Surveying the Abundance and Distribution of Arboreal Marsupials in a South Coast Forest of New-South-Wales', Wildlife Research, volume(4):427, doi:10.1071/WR9900427.

Davies N, Gramotnev G, Seabrook L, McAlpine C, Baxter G, Lunney D and Bradley A (2014) 'Climate-driven changes in diet composition and physiological stress in an arboreal folivore at the semi-arid edge of its distribution', Biological Conservation, 80–88, doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2014.02.004.

DCCEEW 2008, Australia - CRA/RFA - Forests - Combined Regional Forest Agreement Boundaries Coverage without state boundaries (Internal Grids), Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water, Canberra, accessed 14 February 2024.

DCCEEW, Conservation Advice for Petauroides minor (greater glider (northern)), Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water, 2022a, accessed 12 December 2024.

DCCEEW, Conservation Advice for Petauroides volans (greater glider (southern and central)), Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water, 2022b, accessed 12 December 2024.

DCCEEW 2024, Species of National Environmental Significance (Internal Grids), Updated 6 February 2024, Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water, Canberra, accessed 14 February 2024.

DCCEEW (NSW) (2025) Glider observations in the Mid North Coast assessment area, report to the Environment and Heritage, Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water (NSW).

De Frenne P, Lenoir J, Luoto M, Scheffers BR, Zellweger F, Aalto J, Ashcroft MB, Christiansen DM, Decocq G, De Pauw K, Govaert S, Greiser C, Gril E, Hampe A, Jucker T, Klinges DH, Koelemeijer IA, Lembrechts JJ, Marrec R, Meeussen C, Ogée J, Tyystjärvi V, Vangansbeke P and Hylander K (2021) 'Forest microclimates and climate change: Importance, drivers and future research agenda', Global Change Biology, volume(11):2279–2297, doi:10.1111/gcb.15569.

De Frenne P, Zellweger F, Rodríguez-Sánchez F, Scheffers BR, Hylander K, Luoto M, Vellend M, Verheyen K and Lenoir J (2019) 'Global buffering of temperatures under forest canopies', Nature Ecology & Evolution, volume(5):744–749, doi:10.1038/s41559-019-0842-1.

DeGabriel JL, Moore BD, Foley WJ and Johnson CN (2009) 'The effects of plant defensive chemistry on nutrient availability predict reproductive success in a mammal', Ecology, volume(3):711–719, doi:10.1890/08-0940.1.

DES (2022) Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service Planned Burn Guidelines: Southeast Queensland bioregion of Queensland, report to the Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service. Department of Environment and Science, Queensland Government.

Downes SJ, Handasyde KA and Elgar MA (1997) 'The use of corridors by Mammals in fragmented Australian eucalypt forests', Conservation Biology, volume(3):718–726, doi:10.1046/j.1523-1739.1997.96094.x.

Driscoll DA, Lindenmayer DB, Bennett AF, Bode M, Bradstock RA, Cary GJ, Clarke MF, Dexter N, Fensham R, Friend G, Gill M, James S, Kay G, Keith DA, MacGregor C, Russell-Smith J, Salt D, Watson JEM, Williams RJ and York A (2010) 'Fire management for biodiversity conservation: Key research questions and our capacity to answer them', Biological Conservation, volume(9):1928–1939, doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2010.05.026.

Driscoll DA, Macdonald KJ, Gibson RK, Doherty TS, Nimmo DG, Nolan RH, Ritchie EG, Williamson GJ, Heard GW, Tasker EM, Bilney R, Porch N, Collett RA, Crates RA, Hewitt AC, Pendall E, Boer MM, Gates J, Boulton RL, McLean CM, Groffen H, Maisey AC, Beranek CT, Ryan SA, Callen A, Hamer AJ, Stauber A, Daly GJ, Gould J, Klop-Toker KL, Mahony MJ, Kelly OW, Wallace SL, Stock SE, Weston CJ, Volkova L, Black D, Gibb H, Grubb JJ, McGeoch MA, Murphy NP, Lee JS, Dickman CR, Neldner VJ, Ngugi MR, Miritis V, Köhler F, Perri M, Denham AJ, Mackenzie BDE, Reid CAM, Rayment JT, Arriaga-Jiménez A, Hewins MW, Hicks A, Melbourne BA, Davies KF, Bitters ME, Linley GD, Greenville AC, Webb JK, Roberts B, Letnic M, Price OF, Walker ZC, Murray BR, Verhoeven EM, Thomsen AM, Keith D, Lemmon JS, Ooi MKJ, Allen VL, Decker OT, Green PT, Moussalli A, Foon JK, Bryant DB, Walker KL, Bruce MJ, Madani G, Tscharke JL, Wagner B, Nitschke CR, Gosper CR, Yates CJ, Dillon R, Barrett S, Spencer EE, Wardle GM, Newsome TM, Pulsford SA, Singh A, Roff A, Marsh KJ, McDonald K, Howell LG, Lane MR, Cristescu RH, Witt RR, Cook EJ, Grant F, Law BS, Seddon J, Berris KK, Shofner RM, Barth M, Welz T, Foster A, Hancock D, Beitzel M, Tan LXL, Waddell NA, Fallow PM, Schweickle L, Le Breton TD, Dunne C, Green M, Gilpin A-M, Cook JM, Power SA, Hogendoorn K, Brawata R, Jolly CJ, Tozer M, Reiter N and Phillips RD (2024) 'Biodiversity impacts of the 2019–2020 Australian megafires', Nature, volume(8040):898–905, doi:10.1038/s41586-024-08174-6.

Earl J (2014) 'Grazing and pasture management and utilisation in Australia', in Cottle D and Kahn L (eds) Cattle Beef Production and Trade, CSIRO Publishing, Collingwood.

Ensbey M, Legge S, Jolly CJ, Garnett ST, Gallagher RV, Lintermans M, Nimmo DG, Rumpff L, Scheele BC, Whiterod NS, Woinarski JCZ, Ahyong ST, Blackmore CJ, Bower DS, Burbidge AH, Burns PA, Butler G, Catullo R, Chapple DG, Dickman CR, Doyle KE, Ferris J, Fisher DO, Geyle HM, Gillespie GR, Greenlees MJ, Hohnen R, Hoskin CJ, Kennard M, King AJ, Kuchinke D, Law B, Lawler I, Lawler S, Loyn R, Lunney D, Lyon J, MacHunter J, Mahony M, Mahony S, McCormack R, Melville J, Menkhorst P, Michael D, Mitchell N, Mulder E, Newell D, Pearce L, Raadik TA, Rowley JJL, Sitters H, Southwell DG, Spencer R, West M and Zukowski S (2023) 'Animal population decline and recovery after severe fire: Relating ecological and life history traits with expert estimates of population impacts from the Australian 2019-20 megafires', Biological Conservation, 110021, doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2023.110021.Emerson LD, Ballard G-A and Vernes K (2019) 'Conventional distance sampling versus strip transects and abundance indices for estimating abundance of greater gliders (Petauroides volans) and eastern ringtail possums (Pseudocheirus peregrinus)', Wildlife Research, volume(6):518–532, doi:10.1071/WR18155.

Eyre T (2004) 'Distribution and conservation status of the possums and gliders of southern Queensland', in Goldingay RL and Jackson SM (eds) The Biology of Australian Possums and Gliders, Surrey Beatty & Sons Pty Limited, Chipping Norton.

Eyre TJ (2006) 'Regional habitat selection of large gliding possums at forest stand and landscape scales in southern Queensland, Australia. I. Greater glider (Petauroides volans)', Forest ecology and management, volume(1-3):270–282, doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2006.08.338.

Eyre TJ, Butler DW, Kelly AL and Wang J (2010) 'Effects of forest management on structural features important for biodiversity in mixed-age hardwood forests in Australia's subtropics', Forest Ecology and Management, volume(3):534–546, doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2009.11.010.

Eyre TJ, Smith GC, Venz MF, Mathieson MT, Hogan LD, Starr C, Winter J and McDonald K (2022) Guide to greater glider habitat in Queensland, report to the Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment, Canberra, and Department of Environment and Science, Queensland Government.

FAO (2011) Assessing Forest Degradation: Towards the Development of Globally Applicable Guidelines, report to the Forest Resources Assessment Working Paper 177, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Roma, Italy.

Ferguson D, Laidlaw M and Eyre T (2018) Greater Glider Habitat Resource Assessment in the Burnett Mary, report to the Queensland Government Department of Environment and Science.

Forman RTT and Alexander LE (1998) 'Roads and their major ecological effects', Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics, volume(29):207–231, doi:10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.29.1.207.

Fischer J and Lindenmayer DB (2007) 'Landscape modification and habitat fragmentation: a synthesis', Global Ecology and Biogeography, volume(3):265–280, doi:10.1111/j.1466-8238.2007.00287.x.

Fleay D (1947) Gliders of the gum trees: the most beautiful and enchanting Australian marsupials. Bread and Cheese Club Melbourne.

Foley W, KehlB J, Kaplan I and BorsboomB A (1990) 'Energy and Water Metabolism in Free-living greater gliders, Petauroides volans', Australian Journal of Zoology, doi:10.1071/ZO9900001.

Foley WJ, Hume ID and Cork SJ (1989) 'Fermentation in the hindgut of the greater glider (Petauroides volans) and the brushtail possum (Trichosurus vulpecula): Two Arboreal Folivores', Physiological Zoology, volume(5):1126–1143, doi:10.1086/physzool.62.5.30156201.

Frankham R, Bradshaw CJA and Brook BW (2014) 'Genetics in conservation management: Revised recommendations for the 50/500 rules, Red List criteria and population viability analyses', Biological Conservation, 56–63, doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2013.12.036.

Gibbons P, B. Lindenmayer D, C. Barry S and T. Tanton M (2000) 'Hollow formation in eucalypts from temperate forests in southeastern Australia', Pacific Conservation Biology, volume(3):218–228, doi:10.1071/PC000217.

Gibbons P and Lindenmayer D (2002) Tree Hollows and Wildlife Conservation in Australia. CSIRO Publishing, Collingwood, Victoria.

Goldingay R and Daly G (1998) 'Surveys of arboreal and terrestrial mammals in the montane forests of Queanbeyan, New South Wales', Australian Mammalogy, volume(1):9–19, doi:10.1071/AM97009.

Goldingay RL (2012) 'Characteristics of tree hollows used by Australian arboreal and scansorial mammals', Australian Journal of Zoology, volume(5):277–294, doi:10.1071/ZO11081.

Goldingay RL, McHugh D and Parkyn JL (2022) 'Multiyear monitoring of threatened iconic arboreal mammals in a mid-elevation conservation reserve in eastern Australia', Ecology and Evolution, volume(5):e8935, doi:10.1002/ece3.8935.

Goldingay RL, Rohweder D and Taylor BD (2020) 'Nest box contentions: Are nest boxes used by the species they target?', Ecological Management & Restoration, volume(2):115–122, doi:10.1111/emr.12408.

Goldingay RL and Thomas KJ (2021) 'Tolerance to high temperature by arboreal mammals using nest boxes in southern Australia', Journal of Thermal Biology, 102899, doi:10.1016/j.jtherbio.2021.102899.

Goldingay RL and Whelan RJ (1997) 'Powerline easements: Do they promote edge effects in eucalypt forest for small mammals?', Wildlife Research, 737–744, doi:10.1071/WR96116.

Gonçalves AC (2021) ‘Thinning: An Overview’. in Gonçalves AC (eds) Silviculture IntechOpen, United Kingdom.

Gracanin A, Hofman M, Willson S, Clough J, Brown T and Mikac K (2025) 'Rapid uptake of nest boxes by the Endangered greater glider (Petauroides volans)', Ecological Management & Restoration, doi:10.1111/emr.70000.

Gracanin A and Mikac KM (2023) 'Evaluating modelled wildlife corridors for the movement of multiple arboreal species in a fragmented landscape', Landscape Ecology, volume(5):1321–1337, doi:10.1007/s10980-023-01628-8.

Griffiths SR, Lentini PE, Semmens K, Watson SJ, Lumsden LF and Robert KA (2018) 'Chainsaw-carved cavities better mimic the thermal properties of natural tree hollows than nest boxes and log hollows', Forests, volume(5):235, doi:10.3390/f9050235.

Griffiths SR, Semmens K, Watson SJ and Jones CS (2020) 'Installing chainsaw‐carved hollows in medium‐sized live trees increases rates of visitation by hollow‐dependent fauna', Restoration ecology, volume(5):1225–1236, doi:10.1111/rec.13191.

Harris JM and Maloney KS (2010) 'Petauroides volans (Diprotodontia: Pseudocheiridae)', Mammalian Species, volume(1):207–219, doi:10.1644/866.1.

Henry SR (1984) 'Social organisation of the greater glider (Petauroides volans) in Victoria', in Smith AP and Hume ID (eds) Possums and Gliders, Australian Mammal Society, Sydney.

Henry SR, The diet and sociology of gliding possums in Victoria [PhD thesis], Monash University, 1985, accessed 26 February 2025.

Hofman M, Gracanin A and Mikac KM (2023) 'Greater glider (Petauroides volans) den tree and hollow characteristics', Australian Mammalogy, volume(2):127–137, doi:10.1071/AM22008.

Holley A and McArthur T (2022) 'PPRR and AIIMS: a whole-of government strategy in NSW', Australian Journal of Emergency Management, July:65–74, doi:10.3316/agispt.20220906073649.

Horner GJ, Baker PJ, Nally RM, Cunningham SC, Thomson JR and Hamilton F (2010) 'Forest structure, habitat and carbon benefits from thinning floodplain forests: Managing early stand density makes a difference', Forest Ecology and Management, volume(3):286–293, doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2009.10.015.

Howard I, Ridley JCH, Blanchard W, Ashman KR, Lindenmayer DB, Head ML and Youngentob KN (2022) 'Helping wildlife beat the heat: Testing strategies to improve the thermal performance of nest boxes', Australian Zoologist, volume(2):534–560, doi:10.7882/AZ.2022.026.

Hovenden MJ and Williams AL (2010) 'The impacts of rising CO2 concentrations on Australian terrestrial species and ecosystems', Austral Ecology, volume(6):665–684, doi:10.1111/j.1442-9993.2009.02074.x.

Hume ID (1999) Marsupial Nutrition. Cambridge University Press, Melbourne, Australia.

Jackson S and Groves C (2015) Taxonomy of Australian mammals. CSIRO publishing, Collingwood.

Jackson SM (2023) 'Greater Glider: Petauroides volans', in Baker AM and Gynther IC (eds) Strahan's Mammals of Australia: Fourth edition, Reed New Holland, Sydney.

Jensen LM, Wallis IR, Foley WJ and Ballhorn D (2015) 'The relative concentrations of nutrients and toxins dictate feeding by a vertebrate browser, the greater glider Petauroides volans', PLOS One, volume(5):e0121584–e0121584, doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0121584.

Jollie KAC, Law BS, Mikac KM and Martin JM (2025) 'Re-assessment of chainsaw-carved hollows and animal use seven years after installation', Australian Zoologist, doi:10.7882/az.2025.032.

Jolly CJ, Dickman CR, Doherty TS, van Eeden LM, Geary WL, Legge SM, Woinarski JCZ and Nimmo DG (2022) 'Animal mortality during fire', Global Change Biology, volume(6):2053–2065, doi:10.1111/gcb.16044.

Kavanagh RP (1984) 'Seasonal changes in habitat use by gliders and possums in southeastern New South Wales', in Smith AP and Hume ID (eds) Possums and Gliders, Australian Mammal Society, Sydney.

Kavanagh RP (1988) 'The impact of predation by the powerful owl, Ninox strenua, on a population of the greater glider, Petauroides volans', Australian Journal of Ecology, volume(4):445–450, doi:10.1111/j.1442-9993.1988.tb00992.x.

Kavanagh RP (2000) 'Effects of variable-intensity logging and the influence of habitat variables on the distribution of the Greater Glider Petauroides volans in montane forest, southeastern New South Wales', Pacific Conservation Biology, volume(1):18–30, doi:10.1071/pc000018.

Kavanagh RP (2002) 'Comparative diets of the powerful owl (Ninox strenua), sooty owl (Tyto tenebricosa) and masked owl (Tyto novaehollandiae) in south-eastern Australia', in Newton I, Kavanagh R, Olsen J and Taylor I (eds) Ecology and Conservation of Owls, CSIRO, Melbourne.

Kavanagh RP (2004) 'Distribution and conservation status of possums and gliders in New South Wales', in Goldingay RL and Jackson SM (eds) The Biology of Australian Possums and Gliders, Surrey Beatty and Sons, Chipping Norton.

Kavanagh RP and Bamkin KL (1995) 'Distribution of nocturnal forest birds and mammals in relation to the logging mosaic in south-eastern New South Wales, Australia', Biological conservation, volume(1):41–53, doi:10.1016/0006-3207(94)00019-M.

Kavanagh RP and Lambert MJ (1990) 'Food selection by the greater glider, Petauroides volans: Is foliar nitrogen a determinant of habitat quality?', Australian Wildlife Research, 285–299, doi:10.1071/WR9900285.

Kavanagh RP and Webb GA (1998) 'Effects of variable-intensity logging on mammals, reptiles and amphibians at Waratah Creek, southeastern New South Wales', Pacific Conservation Biology, volume(4):326, doi:10.1071/PC980326.

Kavanagh RP and Wheeler RJ (2004) 'Home-range of the greater glider Petauroides volans in tall montane forest of southeastern New South Wales, and changes following logging', in Goldingay RL and Jackson SM (eds) The Biology of Australian Possums and Gliders, Surrey Beatty & Sons Pty Limited, Chipping Norton, NSW.

Kearney MR, Wintle BA and Porter WP (2010) 'Correlative and mechanistic models of species distribution provide congruent forecasts under climate change', Conservation Letters, volume(3):203–213, doi:10.1111/j.1755-263X.2010.00097.x.

Kehl J and Borsboom A (1984) 'Home-range, den tree use and activity patterns in the greater glider (Petauroides volans)', in Smith AP and Hume ID (eds) Possums and Gliders, Australian Mammal Society, Sydney.

Keinath DA, Doak DF, Hodges KE, Prugh LR, Fagan W, Sekercioglu CH, Buchart SHM and Kauffman M (2017) 'A global analysis of traits predicting species sensitivity to habitat fragmentation', Global Ecology and Biogeography, volume(1):115–127, doi:10.1111/geb.12509.

Kerle A (2001) Possums: the Brushtails, Ringtails and Greater Glider. UNSW Press, Randwick, NSW.

Keto A and Scott K (2024). Impacts of intensive native forest logging on the endangered Greater Glider in Queensland: A response to Eco Logical Australia Risk Assessment and Department of Agriculture and Fisheries Protection Measures, report prepared by Australian Rainforest Conservation Society Inc. Working Paper 2024-04. Updated 23 June 2024: 40.

Kohane E, Kathuria A and Law B (2025) The effect of timber harvesting and fire on tree species composition in eucalypt forests with a focus on arboreal marsupial feed trees, report to the Forest Science, Department of Primary Industries and Regional Development.

Knipler ML, Gracanin A and Mikac KM (2023) 'Conservation genomics of an endangered arboreal mammal following the 2019–2020 Australian megafire', Scientific Reports, volume(1):480–480, doi:10.1038/s41598-023-27587-3.

Lamb D, Smith A, Wilkinson G and Loyn R (1998) Managing habitat trees in Queensland forests, report to the Habitat Tree Technical Advisory Group to the Queensland Department of Natural Resources, Forest Resources.

Lancaster ML, Taylor AC, Cooper SJB and Carthew SM (2011) 'Limited ecological connectivity of an arboreal marsupial across a forest/plantation landscape despite apparent resilience to fragmentation', Molecular Ecology, volume(11):2258–2271, doi:10.1111/j.1365-294X.2011.05072.x.

Laurance WF, Goosem M and Laurance SGW (2009) 'Impacts of roads and linear clearings on tropical forests', Trends in Ecology & Evolution, volume(12):659–669, doi:10.1016/j.tree.2009.06.009.

Lawler IR, Foley WJ and Eschler BM (2000) 'Foliar concentration of a single toxin creates habitat patchiness for a marsupial folivore', Ecology, volume(5):1327–1338, doi:10.1890/0012-9658(2000)081[1327:FCOAST]2.0.CO;2.

Lawler IR, Foley WJ, Woodrow IE and Cork SJ (1997) 'The effects of elevated CO2 atmospheres on the nutritional quality of Eucalyptus foliage and its interaction with soil nutrient and light availability', Oecologia, volume(1):59–68, doi:10.1007/s004420050058.

Le Roux DS, Ikin K, Lindenmayer D, Manning AD and Gibbons P (2014) 'The future of large old trees in urban landscapes', PLOS One, volume(6):1–11, doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0099403.

Lindenmayer D, Blair D, McBurney L, Banks S and Bowd E (2021) 'Ten years on - a decade of intensive biodiversity research after the 2009 Black Saturday wildfires in Victoria's mountain ash forest', Australian Zoologist, volume(2):220–230, doi:10.7882/AZ.2020.041.

Lindenmayer D, Cunningham R, Tanton M and Nix H (1991) 'Aspects of the use of den trees by arboreal and scansorial marsupials inhabiting montane ash forests in Victoria', Australian Journal of Zoology, volume(1):57–65, doi:10.1071/ZO9910057.

Lindenmayer D and Dickman C (2022) 'Impact of Habitat Loss and Fragmentation on Assemblages, Populations, and Individuals of Australasian Marsupials', in Cáceres NC and Dickman CR (eds) American and Australasian Marsupials: An Evolutionary, Biogeographical, and Ecological Approach, Springer International Publishing, Cham.

Lindenmayer D, Lacy RC, Tyndale-Biscoe H, Taylor A, Viggers KL and Pope ML (1999) 'Integrating demographic and genetic studies of the greater glider Petauroides volans in fragmented forests: predicting movement patterns and rates for future testing', Pacific Conservation Biology, volume(1):2–8, doi:10.1071/PC990002.

Lindenmayer DB, Blanchard W, Blair D, McBurney L and Banks SC (2017) 'Relationships between tree size and occupancy by cavity-dependent arboreal marsupials', Forest Ecology and Management, 221–229, doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2017.02.014.

Lindenmayer DB, Blanchard W, Blair D, McBurney L, Stein J and Banks SC (2018a) 'Empirical relationships between tree fall and landscape-level amounts of logging and fire', PLOS One, volume(2):e0193132, doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0193132.

Lindenmayer DB, Blanchard W, McBurney L, Blair D, Banks SC, Driscoll D, Smith AL and Gill AM (2013) 'Fire severity and landscape context effects on arboreal marsupials', Biological Conservation, 137–148, doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2013.07.028.

Lindenmayer DB, Blanchard W, McBurney L, Blair D, Banks S, Likens GE, Franklin JF, Laurance WF, Stein JAR and Gibbons P (2012) 'Interacting Factors Driving a Major Loss of Large Trees with Cavities in a Forest Ecosystem', PLOS One, volume(7):e41864, doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0041864.

Lindenmayer DB, Cunningham RB and Donnelly CF (1997) 'Decay and collapse of trees with hollows in eastern Australian forests: Impacts on arboreal marsupials', Ecological Applications, volume(2):625–641, doi:10.1890/1051-0761(1997)007[0625:DACOTW]2.0.CO;2.

Lindenmayer DB, Cunningham RB, Tanton MT, Smith AP and Nix HA (1990) 'Habitat requirements of the mountain brushtail possum and the greater glider in the montane ash-type eucalypt forests of the central highlands of Victoria', Wildlife Research, volume(5):467–478, doi:10.1071/WR9900467.

Lindenmayer DB, Foster CN, Westgate MJ, Scheele BC, Blanchard W and Leverkus AB (2020) 'Managing interacting disturbances: Lessons from a case study in Australian forests', The Journal of Applied Ecology, volume(9):1711–1716, doi:10.1111/1365-2664.13696.

Lindenmayer DB and Lacy RC (1995) 'Metapopulation viability of arboreal marsupials in fragmented old-growth forests: Comparison among species', Ecological Applications, volume(1):183–199, doi:10.2307/1942062.

Lindenmayer DB, Laurance WF, Franklin JF, Likens GE, Banks SC, Blanchard W, Gibbons P, Ikin K, Blair D, McBurney L, Manning AD and Stein JAR (2014) 'New policies for old trees: Averting a global crisis in a keystone ecological structure', Conservation Letters, volume(1):61–69, doi:10.1111/conl.12013.

Lindenmayer DB, MacGregor CI, Cunningham RB, Incoll RD, Crane M, Rawlins D and Michael DR (2003) 'The use of nest boxes by arboreal marsupials in the forests of the central highlands of Victoria', Wildlife Research, volume(3):259–264, doi:10.1071/WR02047.

Lindenmayer DB, McBurney L, Blanchard W, Marsh K, Bowd E, Watchorn D, Taylor C, Youngentob K and White AM (2022) 'Elevation, disturbance, and forest type drive the occurrence of a specialist arboreal folivore', PLOS one, volume(4):e0265963–e0265963, doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0265963.

Lindenmayer DB, Pope ML and Cunningham RB (2004) 'Patch use by the greater glider (Petauroides volans) in a fragmented forest ecosystem. II. Characteristics of den trees and preliminary data on den-use patterns', Wildlife Research, volume(6):569–577, doi:10.1071/WR02111.

Lindenmayer DB and Sato C (2018) 'Hidden collapse is driven by fire and logging in a socioecological forest ecosystem', Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, volume(20):5181–5186, doi:10.1073/pnas.1721738115.

Lindenmayer DB, Wood J, MacGregor C, Foster C, Scheele B, Tulloch A, Barton P, Banks S, Robinson N, Dexter N, O'Loughlin LS and Legge S (2018b) 'Conservation conundrums and the challenges of managing unexplained declines of multiple species', Biological Conservation, 279–292, doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2018.03.007.

Lindenmayer DB, Wood JT, McBurney L, MacGregor C, Youngentob K and Banks SC (2011) 'How to make a common species rare: A case against conservation complacency', Biological Conservation, volume(5):1663–1672, doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2011.02.022.

Marsh KJ, Wallis IR, Andrew RL and Foley WJ (2006) 'The detoxification limitation hypothesis: where did it come from and where is it going?', Journal of Chemical Ecology, volume(6):1247–1266, doi:10.1007/s10886-006-9082-3.

Martin S, Youngentob KN, Clark RG, Foley WJ and Marsh KJ (2020) 'The distribution and abundance of an unusual resource for koalas (Phascolarctos cinereus) in a sodium-poor environment', PLOS One, volume(6):e0234515, doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0234515.

Matusick G, Ruthrof KX, Kala J, Brouwers NC, Breshears DD and Hardy GESJ (2018) 'Chronic historical drought legacy exacerbates tree mortality and crown dieback during acute heatwave-compounded drought', Environmental Research Letters, volume(9):doi:10.1088/1748-9326/aad8cb.

May-Stubbles J, Gracanin A and Mikac K (2022) 'Increasing fire severity negatively affects greater glider density', Wildlife Research, 709–718, doi:10.1071/WR21091.

McCarthy MA and Lindenmayer DB (1999a) 'Conservation of the greater glider (Petauroides volans) in remnant native vegetation within exotic plantation forest', Animal Conservation, volume(3):203–209, doi:10.1111/j.1469-1795.1999.tb00066.x.

McCarthy MA and Lindenmayer DB (1999b) 'Incorporating metapopulation dynamics of greater gliders into reserve design in disturbed landscapes', Ecology, volume(2):651–667, doi:10.1890/0012-9658(1999)080[0651:IMDOGG]2.0.CO;2.

McGregor D, Nordberg E, Yoon HJ, Youngentob K, Schwarzkopf L, Krockenberger A and Root K (2023) 'Comparison of home range size, habitat use and the influence of resource variations between two species of greater gliders (Petauroides minor and Petauroides volans)', PLOS One, volume(10):e0286813–e0286813, doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0286813.

McGregor DC, Padovan A, Georges A, Krockenberger A, Yoon H-J and Youngentob KN (2020) 'Genetic evidence supports three previously described species of greater glider, Petauroides volans, P. minor, and P. armillatus', Scientific Reports, volume(1):19284, doi:10.1038/s41598-020-76364-z.

McIlwee AP, The distribution and abundance of arboreal folivores in response to variation in soil fertility, climate and the nutritional quality of eucalypt foliage [PhD thesis], James Cook University, 2001, accessed 20 December 2025.

McKay GM (1989) 'Family Petauridae', in Walton DW and Richardson BJ (eds) Fauna of Australia Volume 1B - Mammalia, CSIRO Publishing, Canberra.

McKay GM (2008) 'Greater glider Petauroides volans', in Strahan R and Dyck SV (eds) Mammals of Australia: Third Edition, New Holland, Sydney.

McLean CM, Kavanagh RP, Penman T and Bradstock R (2018) 'The threatened status of the hollow dependent arboreal marsupial, the greater glider (Petauroides volans), can be explained by impacts from wildfire and selective logging', Forest Ecology and Management, 19–25, doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2018.01.048.

Menkhorst PW (1984) 'Use of nest boxes by forest vertebrates in Gippsland: Acceptance, preference and demand', Wildlife Research, volume(2):255–264, doi:10.1071/WR9840255.

Mitchell PJ, O'Grady AP, Hayes KR and Pinkard EA (2014) 'Exposure of trees to drought-induced die-off is defined by a common climatic threshold across different vegetation types', Ecology and Evolution, volume(7):1088–1101, doi:10.1002/ece3.1008.

Moore B, Wallis I, Marsh K and Foley W (2004a) 'The role of nutrition in the conservation of the marsupial folivores of eucalypt forests', in Lunney D (eds) Conservation of Australia's Forest Fauna, Royal Zoological Society of New South Wales, Sydney.

Moore BD, Lawler IR, Wallis IR, Beale CM and Foley WJ (2010) 'Palatability mapping: a koala's eye view of spatial variation in habitat quality', Ecology, volume(11):3165–3176, doi:10.1890/09-1714.1.

Moore BD, Wallis IR, Wood JT and Foley WJ (2004b) 'Foliar nutrition, site quality, and temperature influence foliar chemistry of tallowwood (Eucalyptus microcorys)', Ecological Monographs, volume(4):553–568, doi:10.1890/03-4038.

Nolan R, Gauthey A, Losso A, Medlyn B, Smith R, Chhajed S, Fuller K, Song M, Li X-E, Beaumont L, Boer M, Wright I and Choat B (2021) 'Hydraulic failure and tree size linked with canopy die‐back in eucalypt forest during extreme drought', New Phytologist, doi:10.1111/nph.17298.

Nolan RH, Blackman CJ, de Dios VR, Choat B, Medlyn BE, Li X, Bradstock RA and Boer MM (2020) 'Linking forest flammability and plant vulnerability to drought', Forests, volume(7):779, doi:10.3390/f11070779.

Norman P and Mackey B (2023) 'Priority areas for conserving greater gliders in Queensland, Australia', Pacific Conservation Biology, volume(1):doi:10.1071/PC23018.

Northrup JM and Wittemyer G (2013) 'Characterising the impacts of emerging energy development on wildlife, with an eye towards mitigation', Ecology Letters, volume(1):112–125, doi:10.1111/ele.12009.

Norton TW, Ecology of greater gliders, Petauroides volans Kerr 1792, In Relation to variations in habitat quality in eucalypt forests in south-east New South Wales [PhD thesis], Australian National University, 1988, accessed 12 December 2024.

Nowak RM (2018) 'Diprotodontia: Koala, Wombats, Possums, Wallabies, and Kangaroos', in (eds)Johns Hopkins University Press, United States.

Oliveira TM, Barros AMG, Ager AA and Fernandes PM (2016) 'Assessing the effect of a fuel break network to reduce burnt area and wildfire risk transmission', International Journal of Wildland Fire, volume(6):619–632, doi:10.1071/wf15146.

Parnaby H, Lunney D, Shannon I and Fleming M (2010) 'Collapse rates of hollow-bearing trees following low intensity prescription burns in the Pilliga forests, New South Wales', Pacific Conservation Biology, volume(3):209–220, doi:10.1071/pc100209.

Pope ML, Lindenmayer DB and Cunningham RB (2004) 'Patch use by the greater glider (Petauroides volans) in a fragmented forest ecosystem. I. Home range size and movements', Wildlife Research, volume(6):559–568, doi:10.1071/WR02110.

Post DA, Crosbie RS, Viney NR, Peeters LJM, Zhang YQ, Herron NF, Wilkins A, Janardhanan S, Karim F, Aryal SK, Pena-Arancibia J, Lewis S, Evans T, Vaze J, Chiew FHS, Marvanek SP, Henderson B, Schmidt B and Herr A (2020) 'Impacts of coal mining and coal seam gas extraction on groundwater and surface water', Journal of Hydrology, volume(591):125281, doi:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2020.125281.

Powell R and Mitchell M (2012) 'What is a home range?', Journal of Mammalogy, 948–958, doi:10.2307/23259840.

Queensland Government, 2022–23 Slats report. Available at https://www.qld.gov.au/environment/land/management/mapping/statewide-monitoring/slats/slats-reports, 2023, accessed 29 December 2025

Reside AE, Welbergen JA, Phillips BL, Wardell-Johnson GW, Keppel G, Ferrier S, Williams SE and VanDerWal J (2014) 'Characteristics of climate change refugia for Australian biodiversity', Austral Ecology, volume(8):887–897, doi:10.1111/aec.12146.

Ridley JCH, Marsh K, Lavery T, Blanchard W, Lindenmayer D and Evans MJ (2024) 'Australian megafires alter predicted distribution of the southern greater glider (Petauroides volans)', Austral Ecology, volume(8):n/a, doi:10.1111/aec.13582.

Ritchie CA (2024) 'First record of mating in wild southern greater gliders Petauroides volans', Australian Zoologist, doi:10.7882/AZ.2024.042.

Ridley JCH, Nestbox use and predicted distribution of the southern greater glider (Petauroides volans) following the Black Summer megafires [Masters thesis], The Australian National University, 2024, accessed 19 December 2025.

Ridley JCH, Youngentob KN, Marsh K, Evans MJ, Lavery T, Ashman K, Gracanin A and Lindenmayer D (2025) 'Establishing foundations: Designing a long-term experiment to evaluate whether nestboxes assist population recovery of an endangered species after fire', PLOS ONE, volume(12):e0334130, doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0334130.

Reid N, Norton DA and Stafford Smith M (2014) 'Environmental Management', in Cottle D and Kahn L (eds) Cattle Beef Production and Trade, CSIRO Publishing, Collingwood.

Robinson N, Beranek C, Southwell D and DeGabriel J (2025) 'Contrasting the influence of extent and severity of fire on the occupancy of two marsupial gliders in New South Wales', Wildlife Research, doi:10.1071/WR24212.

Rowland JA, Briscoe NJ and Handasyde KA (2017) 'Comparing the thermal suitability of nest-boxes and tree-hollows for the conservation-management of arboreal marsupials', Biological Conservation, 341–348, doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2017.02.006.

Rubsamen K, Hume ID, Foley WJ and Rubsamen U (1984) 'Implications of the large surface area to body mass ratio on the heat balance of the greater glider (Petauroides volans: Marsupialia)', Journal of Comparative Physiology B, 105–111, doi:10.1007/BF00683223.

Sharples JJ, Cary GJ, Fox-Hughes P, Mooney S, Evans JP, Fletcher M-S, Fromm M, Grierson PF, McRae R and Baker P (2016) 'Natural hazards in Australia: extreme bushfire', Climatic Change, volume(1):85–99, doi:10.1007/s10584-016-1811-1.

SLA (2014). Fauna surveys in the Berry Corridors Seven Mile Beach to Brought Value focus area, report prepared by Gaia Research Pty Ltd. Bomaderry, NSW.

Slapp, J., Nitschke, C., & Wagner, B. (2026). Minding the forest gaps: Uptake and use of single rope bridges over forests roads by arboreal fauna. Australian Forestry, doi:10.1080/00049158.2025.2602274

Smith AL (2019) Effects of past and proposed logging on 58 coupes located in the central highlands regional forest agreement area in Victoria on the greater glider (Petauroides volans), report to the Federal Court of Australia, as an expert report for Friends of Leadbeater’s Possum Inc. under Proceeding VID 1228/2017.

Smith AP, Andrews SP and Moore DM (1994). Terrestrial Fauna of the Grafton and Casino State Forest Management Areas - Description and Assessment of Forestry Impacts Northern Region State Forests of New South Wales, report prepared by Forestry Commission of New South Wales. Casino Management Area EIS Supporting Document No. 6, Coffs Harbour.

Smith GC, Mathieson M and Hogan L (2007) 'Home range and habitat use of a low-density population of greater gliders, Petauroides volans (Pseudocheiridae: Marsupialia), in a hollow-limiting environment', Wildlife Research, volume(6):472–483, doi:10.1071/WR06063.

Smith P and Smith J (2018) 'Decline of the greater glider (Petauroides volans) in the lower Blue Mountains, New South Wales', Australian Journal of Zoology, volume(2):103–114, doi:10.1071/ZO18021.

Smith P and Smith J (2020) 'Future of the greater glider (Petauroides volans) in the Blue Mountains, New South Wales', Proceedings of the Linnean Society of New South Wales, 55–66.

Smith P and Smith J (2022) 'Impact of the 2019-20 drought, heatwaves and mega-fires on greater gliders ('Petauroides volans') in the greater Blue Mountains World Heritage Area, New South Wales', Australian Zoologist, volume(2):164–181, doi:10.7882/AZ.2022.017.

Smith P and Smith J (2025) 'Recovery of the southern greater glider (Petauroides volans) following the extreme drought, heatwaves, and mega-fires of 2019–2020 in the southern Greater Blue Mountains World Heritage Area, Australia', Pacific Conservation Biology, volume(PC24061), doi:10.1071/PC24061.

Smith RFC, Studies of the Reproduction and Ecology of greater glider, Schoinobates volans Kerr (Marsupialia: Phalangeridae) [Masters thesis], Australian National University, 1965, accessed 12 December 2024.

Stalenberg E, Wallis IR, Cunningham RB, Allen C and Foley WJ (2014) 'Nutritional correlates of koala persistence in a low-density population', PLOS One, volume(12):e113930, doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0113930.

Starr CR, Hughes RT, Hemmings MS, Coase JF and Jess MD (2021) 'Field studies of a high elevation population of northern greater glider 'Petauroides volans minor' in the Bluff State Forest, Far North Queensland', Australian Zoologist, volume(4):743–752, doi:10.7882/AZ.2021.003.

Steffensen V (2020) Fire country: how Indigenous fire management could help save Australia. Hardie Grant Publishing, Richmond, Victoria.

Stobo‐Wilson AM, Murphy BP, Cremona T, Carthew SM, Levick SR, Pettorelli N and Carter A (2021) 'Illuminating den‐tree selection by an arboreal mammal using terrestrial laser scanning in northern Australia', Remote Sensing in Ecology and Conservation, volume(2):154–168, doi:10.1002/rse2.177.

Stockwell D, Davey SM, Davis JR and Noble IR (1990) 'Using induction of decision trees to predict greater glider density', AI Applications Natural Resource Management, volume(4):33–44.

Taylor AC, Tyndale-Biscoe H and Lindenmayer DB (2007) 'Unexpected persistence on habitat islands: genetic signatures reveal dispersal of a eucalypt-dependent marsupial through a hostile pine matrix', Molecular Ecology, volume(13):2655–2666, doi:10.1111/j.1365-294X.2007.03331.x.

Taylor BD and Goldingay RL (2009) 'Can Road-Crossing Structures Improve Population Viability of an Urban Gliding Mammal?', Ecology and Society, volume(2):13.

Taylor M, Scheele BC, Brawata R, Gale M and Gibbons P (2025) 'Effects of fire severity and fire frequency on the abundance of hollows and hollow-bearing trees', Forest Ecology and Management, volume(596):1-10, doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2025.123110.Trouvé R, Oborne L and Baker PJ (2021) 'The effect of species, size, and fire intensity on tree mortality within a catastrophic bushfire complex', Ecological Applications, volume(6):1–14, doi:10.1002/eap.2383.

Treby DL, Hollow-Bearing Trees as a Habitat Resource along an Urbanisation Gradient [PhD thesis], Griffith University, 2014, accessed 21 January 2026.

Tyndale-Biscoe CH and Smith RFC (1969a) 'Studies on the Marsupial Glider, Schoinobates volans (Kerr): II. Population structure and regulatory mechanisms', The Journal of Animal Ecology, volume(3):637–650, doi:10.2307/3040.

Tyndale-Biscoe CH and Smith RFC (1969b) 'Studies on the Marsupial Glider, Schoinobates volans (Kerr): III. Response to habitat destruction', The Journal of Animal Ecology, volume(3):651–659, doi:10.2307/3041.

Tyndale-Biscoe H and Renfree MB (1987) Reproductive physiology of marsupials. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

van der Ree R (1999) 'Barbed Wire Fencing as a Hazard for Wildlife', The Victorian Naturalist, 210–218,

van der Ree R, Bennett AF and Gilmore DC (2004a) 'Gap-crossing by gliding marsupials: thresholds for use of isolated woodland patches in an agricultural landscape', Biological Conservation, volume(2):241–249, doi:10.1016/S0006-3207(03)00142-3.

van der Ree R, Ward SJ and Handasyde KA (2004b) 'Distribution and conservation status of possums and gliders in Victoria', in Goldingay RL and Jackson SM (eds) The Biology of Australian Possums and Gliders, Surrey Beatty and Sons Pty Limited, Chipping Norton.

van der Ree R, Smith DJ and Grilo C (2015) 'The Ecological Effects of Linear Infrastructure and Traffic', in van der Ree R, Smith DJ and Grilo C (eds) Handbook of Road Ecology, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, West Sussex, UK.

Vanderduys E, Kutt A and Kemp JE (2012) 'Upland savannas: The vertebrate fauna of largely unknown but significant habitat in north-eastern Queensland', Australian Zoologist, 59–74, doi:10.7882/AZ.2012.007.

Vinson SG, Johnson AP and Mikac KM (2021) 'Current estimates and vegetation preferences of an endangered population of the vulnerable greater glider at Seven Mile Beach National Park', Austral Ecology, volume(2):303–314, doi:10.1111/aec.12979.

Wagner B, The role of climate and tree nutrition on the occurrence of the southern greater glider (Petauroides volans) and its implications for conservation planning [PhD thesis], The University of Melbourne, 2021, accessed 23 April 2024.

Wagner B, Baker PJ, Moore BD and Nitschke CR (2021a) 'Mapping canopy nitrogen‐scapes to assess foraging habitat for a vulnerable arboreal folivore in mixed‐species Eucalyptus forests', Ecology and Evolution, volume(24):18401–18421, doi:10.1002/ece3.8428.

Wagner B, Baker PJ and Nitschke CR (2021b) 'The influence of spatial patterns in foraging habitat on the abundance and home range size of a vulnerable arboreal marsupial in southeast Australia', Conservation Science and Practice, volume(12):1–17, doi:10.1111/csp2.566.

Wagner B, Baker PJ, Stewart SB, Lumsden LF, Nelson JL, Cripps JK, Durkin LK, Scroggie MP and Nitschke CR (2020) 'Climate change drives habitat contraction of a nocturnal arboreal marsupial at its physiological limits', Ecosphere, volume(10):1–22, doi:10.1002/ecs2.3262.

Wagner B, Baker PJ and Nitschke CR (2024) 'How an unprecedented wildfire shaped tree hollow occurrence and abundance—implications for arboreal fauna', Fire Ecology, volume(1):42, doi:10.1186/s42408-024-00274-y.

Wagner, B., Youngentob, K., Marsh, K., Singh, A., & Nitschke, C. R. (2026) ‘Differences between mature and epicormic Eucalyptus leaf chemistry drive landscape nutritional quality for folivores’, Forest Ecology and Management, volume(606):123569, doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2026.123569.

Wallis IR, Edwards MJ, Windley H, Krockenberger AK, Felton A, Quenzer M, Ganzhorn JU and Foley WJ (2012) 'Food for folivores: nutritional explanations linking diets to population density', Oecologia, volume(2):281–291, doi:10.1007/s00442-011-2212-9.

Wallis IR, Nicolle D and Foley WJ (2010) 'Available and not total nitrogen in leaves explains key chemical differences between the eucalypt subgenera', Forest Ecology and Management, volume(5):814–821, doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2010.05.040.

Ward M, Tulloch AIT, Radford JQ, Williams BA, Reside AE, Macdonald SL, Mayfield HJ, Maron M, Possingham HP, Vine SJ, O’Connor JL, Massingham EJ, Greenville AC, Woinarski JCZ, Garnett ST, Lintermans M, Scheele BC, Carwardine J, Nimmo DG, Lindenmayer DB, Kooyman RM, Simmonds JS, Sonter LJ and Watson JEM (2020) 'Impact of 2019–2020 mega-fires on Australian fauna habitat', Nature Ecology & Evolution, volume(10):1321–1326, doi:10.1038/s41559-020-1251-1.

Ward M, Carwardine J, Yong CJ, Watson JEM, Silcock J, Taylor GS, Lintermans M, Gillespie GR, Garnett ST, Woinarski J, Tingley R, Fensham RJ, Hoskin CJ, Hines HB, Roberts JD, Kennard MJ, Harvey MS, Chapple DG and Reside AE (2021) ‘A national-scale dataset for threats impacting Australia’s imperilled flora and fauna’, Ecology and Evolution, volume(11):11749-11761, DOI:10.1002/ece3.7920.

Wardell-Johnson GW and Robinson TP (2024) 'Hostile environments, terminal habitat, and tomb trees: the impact of systemic failures to survey for mature-forest dependent species in the State forests of New South Wales', Pacific Conservation Biology, volume(1):–, doi:10.1071/PC24014.

Whelan RJ (1995) The ecology of fire. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Whelan RJ (2002) 'Managing fire regimes for conservation and property protection: An Australian response', Conservation Biology, volume(6):1659–1661, doi:10.1046/j.1523-1739.2002.02091.x.

Wigham PA (2000) 'Induction of a marsupial density model using genetic programming and spatial relationships', Ecological Modelling, 299–317, doi:10.1016/S0304-3800(00)00248-9.

Williams RJ, Bradstock RA, Cary GJ, Enright NJ, Gill AM, Leidloff AC, Lucas C, Whelan RJ, Andersen AN, Bowman DJMS, Clarke PJ, Cook GD, Hennessy KJ and York A (2009) Interactions between climate change, fire regimes and biodiversity in Australia: A preliminary assessment, report to the Department of Climate Change and Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts.

Winter JW, Dillewaard HA, Williams SE and Bolitho EE (2004) 'Possums and gliders of north Queensland: distribution and conservation status', in Goldingay RL and Jackson SM (eds) The Biology of Australian Possums and Gliders, Surrey Beatty and Sons, Sydney.

Woinarski JCZ, Burbidge AA, Harrison PL, Stephen G and CSIRO (2014) The Action Plan for Australian Mammals 2012. CSIRO Publishing, Collingwood, Victoria.

Youngentob KN, Lindenmayer DB, Marsh KJ, Krockenberger AK and Foley WJ (2021) 'Food intake: an overlooked driver of climate change casualties?', Trends in Ecology and Evolution, volume(8):676–678, doi:10.1016/j.tree.2021.04.003.

Youngentob KN, Wallis IR, Lindenmayer DB, Wood JT, Pope ML and Foley WJ (2011) 'Foliage chemistry influences tree choice and landscape use of a gliding marsupial folivore', Journal of Chemical Ecology, volume(1):71–84, doi:10.1007/s10886-010-9889-9.

Youngentob KN, Wood JT and Lindenmayer DB (2013) 'The response of arboreal marsupials to landscape context over time: a large-scale fragmentation study revisited', Journal of Biogeography, 2082–2093, doi:10.1111/jbi.12158.

Youngentob KN, Yoon H-J, Coggan N and Lindenmayer DB (2012) 'Edge effects influence competition dynamics: A case study of four sympatric arboreal marsupials', Biological Conservation, 68–76, doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2012.05.015.

Sourced from the Federal Register of Legislation at legislation.gov.au, © Commonwealth of Australia, licensed under CC BY 4.0. Compilations may have been reformatted.

Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (National Recovery Plan for Greater Gliders, Petauroides minor (northern), Petauroides volans (southern and central)) Instrument 2026

1 Name #

2 Commencement #

3 Authority #

4 Jointly made recovery plan #

Key facts

History · 1 version

1 Name #

2 Commencement #

3 Authority #

4 Jointly made recovery plan #