Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (National Recovery Plan for the Ghost Bat (Macroderma gigas)) Instrument 2026

law://au/li/2026/f2026l01005@2026-11-13

Contents

Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (National Recovery Plan for the Ghost Bat (Macroderma gigas)) Instrument 2026I, Murray Watt, the Minister for the Environment and Water, make the National Recovery Plan for the Ghost Bat (Macroderma gigas) in the following instrument, jointly with Queensland, Western Australia and the Northern Territory.Dated 28 July 2026Murray WattMinister for the Environment and WaterNameThis instrument is the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (National Recovery Plan for the Ghost Bat (Macroderma gigas)) Instrument 2026.CommencementThis instrument commences on the day after it is registered.AuthorityThis instrument is made under subsection 269A(3) of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999.Jointly made recovery planThe National Recovery Plan for the Ghost Bat (Macroderma gigas) in this instrument is jointly made with Queensland, Western Australia and the Northern Territory, as agreed by the following State Ministers:the Minister for the Environment and Tourism (Queensland);the Minister for the Environment; Community Services; Homelessness (Western Australia); andthe Minister for Lands, Planning and Environment (Northern Territory).Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (National Recovery Plan for the Ghost bat (Macroderma gigas)) Instrument 2026© Commonwealth of Australia 2026Ownership of intellectual property rightsUnless 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 licenceAll material in this publication is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Licence except content supplied by third parties, logos and the Commonwealth Coat of Arms.Inquiries about the licence and any use of this document should be submitted via our online contact form.Cataloguing dataThis publication (and any material sourced from it) should be attributed as: DCCEEW 2026, National Recovery Plan for the Ghost Bat (Macroderma gigas), Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water, Canberra, September. CC BY 4.0.This publication is available at dcceew.gov.au/publications.Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and WaterGPO Box 3090 Canberra ACT 2601Telephone 1800 920 528Web dcceew.gov.auDisclaimerThe 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.AcknowledgementsThe Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water acknowledges that the preparation of this Recovery Plan was made possible by the contributions of numerous individuals and organisations. In particular, we thank the Ghost Bat Recovery Team and agencies of the Queensland, Western Australia and Northern Territory governments.Cover photo: A ghost bat in flight (© Bruce Thomson)Acknowledgement of CountryWe acknowledge the Traditional Owners of Country throughout Australia and recognise a continuing connection to land, waters and culture. We pay our respects to Elders past and present.

Executive summary #

Scientific name: | Macroderma gigas (Dobson, 1880)Common name: | Ghost batNational status (EPBC Act): | VulnerableWA status (BC Act): | VulnerableSA status (NPW Act): | EndangeredNT status (TPWC Act): | Near ThreatenedQld status (NC Act): | EndangeredInternational (IUCN): | VulnerableListing eligibility: | Limited area of occupancy, a historical contraction in range and abundance, and continuing population decline (TSSC 2016).Distribution: | The Pilbara and Kimberley regions of Western Australia (WA), the Top End of the Northern Territory (NT), northwestern Queensland (Qld) and adjoining areas of the NT, and from Cape York to Rockhampton in eastern Qld. Presumed to be extinct from central arid areas.Populations: | Not well understood but all are considered important given continuing decline (TSSC 2016).Biology/ecology: | Australia’s largest echolocating bat. Females are generally larger than males. Feeds on large insects, microbats, birds, small mammals, reptiles and amphibians. Main foraging strategy is perch-and-ambush. Usually roosts communally. Obligate cave-breeder with a slow reproductive rate. Pregnant females congregate in maternity roosts. High mobility but individuals tend to have high fidelity to both their roost and foraging area. Habitat diverse: from caves, rocky areas, dry grassy savanna and woodland, dry shrubland, tropical monsoon woodland, tropical monsoon forest and rainforest, riparian forests, and mangroves.Key habitat features: | A roost or network of roosts (where roosting, feeding, mating and parturition take place), and foraging areas that are of adequate spatial extent and that have habitat attributes suitable to sustain foraging. These two features enable population growth. Also necessary are areas that provide connectivity amongst roost sites, as well as amongst foraging areas.Key threats: | Habitat loss (roost sites and foraging habitat), habitat degradation due to fire regimes that cause declines in biodiversity, grazing by livestock (primarily cattle), entanglement in barbed wire, altered hydrology, habitat modification due to introduced weeds, poisoning and bioaccumulation of contaminants, persecution, disturbance at roosts, predation by feral cats, predation or disturbance by other introduced species, competition with introduced species, direct and indirect impacts of cane toads, and climate change.Vision: | Determine the species' current national population size and distribution, and increase or maintain the population size within each region to a level that is resilient and supports the species' long-term persistence across its range.Recovery objectives:1. Population sizes are known, and trends are monitored and tracked effectively2. The extent, quality, and connectivity of roosting and foraging habitat are maintained or increased3. Key threats are managed effectively4. Recovery actions are implemented with the participation of stakeholders5. Key knowledge gaps are addressed, and information is used to improve decision-making, conservation and recoveryKey knowledge gaps: | Understanding of population size, distribution and trajectory over timeForaging habitat requirements, including understanding of dispersal and connectivity within and amongst regionsImpacts of threats from feral cats, fire, cattle grazing, weeds and other introduced species such as pigs and cane toads

Contents #

Executive summary...........................................................iiiFigures....................................................................viTables....................................................................viGlossary..................................................................vii1. Introduction.............................................................11.1 Conservation status...................................................11.2 Recovery interests....................................................11.3 Cultural significance...................................................22. Species information.......................................................22.1 Taxonomy..........................................................22.2 Description.........................................................32.3 Distribution.........................................................42.4 Important populations.................................................83. Biology and ecology.......................................................93.1 Diet...............................................................93.2 Foraging behaviour...................................................93.3 Sensory perception and sociality..........................................93.4 Reproductive ecology.................................................113.5 Longevity..........................................................133.6 Activity...........................................................133.7 Movement and dispersal..............................................133.8 Hydration.........................................................153.9 Habitat...........................................................153.10 Habitat critical to the survival of ghost bats.................................184. Threats and impacts......................................................204.1 Current known and suspected threatening processes..........................204.2 Other potential threats................................................285. Recovery objectives and actions.............................................305.1 Vision............................................................305.2 Objectives.........................................................305.3 Recovery actions....................................................30References................................................................46FiguresFigure 1: A ghost bat navigating a cave.............................................3Figure 2: The ghost bat distribution with region overlays................................5Figure 3: The ghost bat perches in a tree (left) and uses its large ears and large eyes (right) to hunt 10Figure 4: Ghost bats roosting together.............................................11Figure 5: A ghost bat in flight – Cape Hillsborough....................................13TablesTable 1: Glossary of terms used within the National Recovery Plan for the Ghost Bat...........viiTable 2: Variation in gestation length across the five regions where ghost bats persist..........12Table 3: Summary of other potential threats to the ghost bat............................28Table 4: Recovery actions to complete Objective 1....................................31Table 5: Recovery actions to complete Objective 2....................................34Table 6: Recovery actions to complete Objective 3....................................36Table 7: Recovery actions to complete Objective 4....................................39Table 8: Mapping, surveys and monitoring actions to complete Objective 5..................41Table 9: Threat research actions to complete Objective 5...............................43

Glossary #

Table 1: Glossary of terms used within the National Recovery Plan for the Ghost BatTopic | Term | DefinitionDistribution | Region | A large geographic area encompassing known ghost bat habitat and having similarities in landscape attributes, threats and recovery partners, providing a framework for communicating region-specific information throughout the plan. Six regions are identified in this plan.Population | A group of individual ghost bats occupying one or more spatially associated roosts that are more strongly connected to one another through movement, breeding and/or gene flow than to ghost bats outside that group.Roost type | Roost | As a noun: a place where ghost bats congregate to rest, sleep, feed or interact with conspecifics. Also, as a verb: the act of a ghost bat settling or congregating for rest or sleep, to breed and/or to nurse young.Natural roost site | A naturally formed roost site in a rocky geological formation that is used by ghost bats. This includes caves, sinkholes, boulder piles, overhangs, crevices and other suitable speleological formations.Mine roost site | A mine working that is suitable for ghost bats to roost in. This includes adits, shafts, stopes, declines and other mine infrastructure.Roost usage | Mating roost | A roost where male and female ghost bats congregate during the mating season for courtship and mating.Maternity roost | A roost used by female ghost bat/s during pregnancy, parturition and rearing of pups. Pups may be left in crèche in these roosts while their mothers forage. The maternity roost may be a different site to the mating roost.Feeding roost | A site used by ghost bats primarily for consuming captured prey. These roosts sometimes contain discarded prey remains scattered on the ground, reflecting repeated use for feeding. Although ghost bats may occasionally remain in these roosts during the day, some are only visited at night for feeding and are typically abandoned by daylight.Roost occupancy | Permanent roost | A permanent roost is a site that forms part of the core roosting network for a ghost bat population. Permanent roosts are used predictably and consistently over long periods—often year-round—and typically provide essential functions such as mating, maternal activities, or long-term day shelter. Occupancy may fluctuate seasonally but the site remains a stable, enduring component of the bats’ roosting system.Regular roost | A regular roost is a site used frequently but not necessarily continuously. Regular roosts support the day-to-day movements of ghost bats and are visited often enough to be considered part of their regular roosting circuit.Occasional roost | A roost site that is used infrequently but may be important as a refuge site or as a ‘stepping stone’ while transiting across the landscape. Often, a relatively shallow structure.Opportunistic roost | A roost site that is used rarely and very short-term, possibly in response to circumstances that prevent ghost bats returning to or remaining in their regular roost/s.

1. Introduction #

This National Recovery Plan for the ghost bat (Macroderma gigas) has been prepared under Part 13, Division 5 of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act). This is the first national recovery plan for the ghost bat. It sets out research, protection and management actions to stop the decline and support recovery of this species.At the time of listing this species under the EPBC Act in May 2016, a Conservation Advice was published to guide its protection and conservation. Research and management actions have been undertaken since, including the development of improved survey techniques, targeted surveys, genetic sampling and analysis, research on movement patterns, and implementation of tailored fire management programs. These activities have led to the identification of new sites where the species occurs and greater understanding of population sizes in some areas.

1.1 Conservation status #

The ghost bat is listed as Vulnerable under the Commonwealth EPBC Act (TSSC 2016). It is also listed as Vulnerable on the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species and in Western Australia (Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016); Endangered in Queensland (Nature Conservation Act 1992) and South Australia (National Parks and Wildlife Act 1972); and Near Threatened in the Northern Territory (Territory Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act 1976) but under assessment for uplisting at the time of the making of this plan.

1.2 Recovery interests #

Ghost bats are known to occur across a wide range of land tenures and uses including, but not limited to, agricultural lands and pastoral leases, Indigenous Protected Areas (IPAs) and other lands managed by First Nations peoples, private conservation reserves, mining and exploration leases and tenements, and national parks and other conservation reserves. For this reason, a collaborative approach between land managers, governments, First Nations people, researchers and conservation organisations is vital to progressing recovery actions for this species.Key recovery partners include, but are not limited to: The Ghost Bat Recovery Team Ghost bat experts and researchers Landholders (including the mining, agricultural/horticultural, pastoral and forestry sectors) First Nations groups (including organisations, people and ranger groups) Land managers, including managers of national parks and other conservation reserves, private leases and Commonwealth lands (e.g. Parks Australia) Local governments Conservation organisations National Resource Management (NRM) groups Planners, managers and environmental regulators Ecological/environmental consultants Tourism operators Recreational visitors to caves Local community and the broader public

1.3 Cultural significance #

The cultural, customary and spiritual significance of ghost bats to First Nations peoples are diverse and varied across the species’ range but not well documented. This section describes some published examples of the cultural significance of ghost bats.In central arid areas (WA, NT, SA, Qld), the ghost bat has been documented in caves in the Rawlinson and Kathleen Ranges and has an important role in ceremonies (Churchill & Helman 1990). Local names for the species in this area include Irlkintjiri (Luritja), Warramurrungka (Manytjilytjarra), Tjalku-tjalku (Ngaatjatjarra and Pitjantjantjarra), Warramurrungka (Ngangamarta), Tjalku-tjalku (Pintupi) and Warramurrungka (Warnman) (Burbidge et al 1988). In the Top End, the ghost bat is central to the Wagiman Warlang (ghost bat) dreaming story (Murphy et al. 2025). Natural roosts used by ghost bats may also be culturally important to First Nations people.First Nations people are vital partners in the recovery of the ghost bat. Large areas of ghost bat habitat, including many roosts, are found on lands managed and/or owned by Indigenous rangers and custodians. This includes a substantial network of Indigenous Protected Areas (35 individual IPAs as at 2026) across the modelled distribution of the ghost bat. Supporting engagement of First Nations peoples in the protection and recovery of this species is a priority action of this plan. This includes through: developing and implementing land management activities to support ghost bat recovery on land managed by, or associated with, First Nations peoples, including linkages to Healthy Country Plans; promoting opportunities to increase land management capacity through sharing of cultural and scientific knowledge; documenting new records of ghost bats; two-way science and knowledge sharing; and developing and implementing research projects on land managed by, or associated with, First Nations peoples.

2. Species information #

2.1 Taxonomy #

The species is accepted as Macroderma gigas (Dobson, 1880). The ghost bat is the only living representative of the genus Macroderma and the only extant member of the family Megadermatidae in Australasia (Hand 1996). Although endemic to Australia, close living relatives of the ghost bat occur in Asia and Africa (Miller 1906). The ghost bat was described by Dobson as Megaderma gigas from an individual captured at Mount Margaret Station, Wilson’s River, Queensland (Finlayson 1958), with the genus Macroderma subsequently erected for this species by Miller (1906). The fossil record shows that ancestral ghost bat species (Macroderma) have been part of Australian ecosystems for more than 25 million years (Hand 1996; Armstrong et al. 2020). Douglas (1962) recognised the Kimberley population as distinct and described it as a separate subspecies, Macroderma gigas saturata; however, the subspecies is currently treated as a junior synonym of M. gigas (fide Jackson & Groves 2015).

2.2 Description #

The ghost bat, previously known as the Australian false vampire bat, is a large, facultative echolocating bat with adults typically weighing 100–172 g, measuring 10–13 cm (head-body length), and a wingspan of 64–76 cm (Armstrong et al 2023, Churchill 2008). Females are generally larger than males. The ghost bat is the third-largest echolocating bat in the world (Armstrong et al. 2023).The species is readily recognised by its large ears, which are joined by a band of skin across the head, a forked tragus, large eyes, a long simple noseleaf, a prominent lower lip and no tail (Armstrong et al 2023). Fur colour ranges from light grey to light brown to rufous, with a paler underside (Hanrahan 2020; Figure 1).Figure 1: A ghost bat navigating a caveSource: © Bruce Thomson

2.3 Distribution #

The ghost bat occurs in the Pilbara and Kimberley regions of Western Australia (WA), the Top End of the Northern Territory (NT), northwestern Queensland (Qld) and adjoining areas of the NT, and from Cape York to Rockhampton in eastern Qld (Figure 2). It is presumed to be extinct from the central arid areas (Churchill & Helman 1990), and from the Boodjamulla/Riversleigh area in Qld (White et al. 2016). The type specimen may have historically been erroneously attributed to Mount Margaret Station near Eromanga in southwestern Qld (Churchill & Helman 1990). Fossil records show the ghost bat’s distribution has contracted north over approximately 12,000 years (Hudson & Wilson 1986; Churchill & Helman 1990).For the purpose of recovery and management, the ghost bat’s range has been split into six geographic regions. These regions comprise Eastern Queensland (Qld), Gulf-Inland Qld (NT-Qld), Top End (NT), Kimberley (WA), Pilbara (WA) and Central Arid (SA-WA-NT-Qld).These broad regions share similarities in landscape attributes, threats, and recovery partners. Splitting the species’ distribution into regions improves the usability of this plan by providing a framework for communicating region-specific information (ecology, populations, roost sites, critical habitat), as well as variation in threat risk (as required under s270(2)(j) of the EPBC Act). The regions also help present regional variation in the actions required to halt the decline and support the recovery and long-term survival of the ghost bat. They may also guide the identification of the most appropriate sites for long-term monitoring across the species’ range.To provide context to the location of roost sites and known populations, the regions are described below, noting that there may be overlap between some regions (e.g. Kimberley and the Top End). Due to remoteness and/or geological complexity across the ghost bat’s range, comprehensive surveys have not been undertaken across all regions. As actions in this plan are implemented, new roosts or populations may become known.Figure 2: The ghost bat distribution with region overlaysSource: 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.

Pilbara (WA)#

Following the IBRA bioregion boundary (Interim Biogeographic Regionalisation for Australia (IBRA) version 7, Cth DCCEEW 2025), the Pilbara region extends from the Indian Ocean coast, inland across the Hamersley and Chichester Ranges to the interior of WA east of Newman. The Pilbara is rugged and has a semi-arid climate. It is characterised by low mountain ranges, notably the Hamersley and Chichester Ranges, which provide complex topography and a network of sites suitable for roosting. Extensive rocky terrain, including banded ironstone formations and granite rockpiles, often contain deep natural cave systems that have suitable microclimates for use by ghost bats. The vegetation generally comprises mulga woodlands, open low eucalypt woodlands, mixed Acacia shrublands and hummock (spinifex) grasslands that support foraging of ghost bats.The Pilbara region contains an isolated population that contributes independently to the long-term persistence of the ghost bat. It is a genetically distinct population (DBCA unpublished data). The largest colonies were historically found at six gold and copper mines in the East Pilbara (Chichester); however, two of these sites no longer exist and the remaining four are at risk of collapsing (Cramer et al. 2022). No other large roosts are known in the region. Instead, colonies in natural roosts in the Chichester and the Hamersley Ranges are often small, with groups consisting of less than 10 individuals and with occupancy heavily fluctuating between years (Ottewell et al 2017). Drivers of occupancy in natural roosts are not well understood. The population size for the region is thought to be approximately 2,000 individuals, albeit this figure is yet to be confirmed by empirical data (TSSC 2016).The Pilbara region is a priority area for economic development, including mining, pastoralism and renewable energy development. The majority of habitat that is used by the ghost bat for roosting and/or foraging is in areas that are being explored or developed for mining (Shaw et al. in prep). Additionally, knowledge of ghost bat distribution and ecology in the region is derived from research and monitoring efforts associated with mining activities, with most recorded roosts, particularly in the Hamersley Ranges, known from mining tenements. Only 0.6% of known ghost bat roosts are on the conservation estate. While habitat modelling indicates suitable roosting habitat is present in Karijini National Park, it is less likely to occur within the Millstream Chichester National Park (Shaw et al. in prep).Ghost bats are also found in areas adjacent to the Pilbara bioregion, such as Karlamilyi National Park in the Little Sandy Desert bioregion, and near the Barlee Range Nature Reserve in the Ashburton bioregion.

Kimberley (WA)#

The Kimberley region encompasses the area from the Mueller Ranges northwards to the north coast, through to Derby in the west and the WA-NT border in the east. The Kimberley region is characterised by a tropical-arid mix of habitats and cave-forming geology that provides suitable microclimates for ghost bat roosting. It is characterised by wet-dry seasonal cycles, extensive sandstone and limestone ranges and plateaus, monsoon rainforest, vine thickets, and savanna woodlands. It also includes islands on which ghost bats have been recorded (McKenzie and Bullen 2012). The Kimberley differs from the nearby Pilbara region in that it is more humid, tropical, tidal and more vegetated.The ghost bat has been detected across rocky landscapes and islands of the Kimberley region (McKenzie et al. 2019), but its distribution is still poorly known, population estimates are largely inferred, and threats are not well understood.

Top End (NT)#

The Top End region in the NT encompasses the area north of Larrimah and up to the northern coast of the NT. Groote Eylandt is included in the Top End region due to potential interconnectivity with the Arnhem coast. No genetic analysis has been conducted on Groote Eylandt ghost bats and further studies may indicate the area as a distinct region.The Top End region is characterised by rugged, geologically complex terrains such as sandstone escarpments and gorges (e.g. Arnhem Land, and Kakadu, Nitmiluk, Keep River, and Litchfield national parks) and karst systems (e.g. Tindall Limestone and Judbarra (Gregory) National Park) that support roost habitat. Historic mine workings in some areas provide roosting habitat for ghost bats. Savanna woodlands and riparian areas provide common foraging habitat for ghost bats (Tidemann et al 1985; Ruykys et al 2026).The Top End region contributes significantly to the long-term persistence of the ghost bat, with relatively high abundance in some areas and likely connectivity across the region (Worthington Wilmer 1997; Hanrahan et al 2026). In the Pine Creek area, ghost bats are predominantly found in mine workings and the largest known maternity roost is in an unstable disused mine. Other large colonies are known from within Litchfield and Kakadu national parks. Elsewhere in the region, ghost bats roost in caves in sandstone escarpment and limestone systems.

Gulf-Inland Queensland (Qld)#

The Gulf–Inland Qld region extends from the Gulf of Carpentaria in the Northern Territory, across the Qld border and south-eastward to approximately 150 km south of Cloncurry. The landscape spans dry tropical to semi-arid inland environments, forming a broad mosaic of habitat types across the region.The area is characterised by tropical savanna, hot semi-arid terrain and arid inland plains, with prominent geological features including sandstone escarpments, rugged gorges and extensive dolomitic limestone cave systems. These landforms occur across key sites in the region: the sandstone plateaus of Pungalina-Seven Emu Sanctuary, the fossil-rich limestone karst of Riversleigh, the Cambrian dolomitic cave systems of Camooweal and the naturally cavernous and mined terrains around Cloncurry and Mount Isa, which are dominated by weathered rocky outcrops and mineralised formations.Vegetation communities across the region include eucalypt woodlands, riparian vegetation, Mitchell grass grasslands, littoral grasslands and freshwater wetlands. In northern coastal areas such as around the Gulf, the landscape also supports mangrove-lined estuarine and coastal systems.The status and distribution of the ghost bat in the Gulf-Inland Qld region is poorly understood. Infrequent monitoring has shown declines in some areas and likely extinction in the Riversleigh/Boodjamulla National Park area.

Eastern Queensland (Qld)#

The Eastern Qld region spans from the McIlwraith Range on Cape York Peninsula south through the Wet Tropics, west to approximately Hughenden in the dry tropics, and further south to Rockhampton on the central Qld coast. It contains an exceptionally broad environmental gradient and roost diversity—sea caves, limestone and sandstone cave systems, granitic boulders, volcanic/lava-tube formations and disused mines. The vegetation is also mixed and includes rainforests, semi-evergreen vine thickets, open woodlands and grasslands that support ghost bat populations that vary in size and security.Within this region, Cape York contains some of Queensland’s largest and most secure colonies, including the state’s largest known colony at Alwal National Park (Cape York Peninsula Aboriginal Land). Most known roosts occur in remote rocky ranges with limited human disturbance and no subregion-wide decline is evident.Confidence levels in data on ghost bat occurrence in this region varies considerably. Distribution, trends and connectivity are unresolved due to sparse, infrequent surveys across a vast landscape. Recent work has confirmed multiple large, genetically disjunct colonies and newly documented roosts but major data gaps persist—particularly around Mitchell Palmer, the McIlwraith Range and Cape Melville, where some colonies are known only from incidental records.Ghost bat colonies in north-eastern Qld (wet and dry tropics from Mt Carbine south to Hervey Range, and west to approximately Hughenden) are poorly known. The landscape is rugged, often well-vegetated and consequently under-surveyed. There are no confirmed large colonies equivalent to those in Cape York and most historical records are scattered and unvalidated. Potential roosting structures are widespread (granite/volcanic ranges, small sandstone outcrops, lava tubes, caves and old mines) but their presence, persistence, and connectivity remain largely unknown.On the central Qld coast, two small, isolated populations persist at Mt Etna and Cape Hillsborough, with no recent connectivity between the sites or to populations further north. Mt Etna declined and then stabilised at very low numbers (<50 individuals); Cape Hillsborough also appears small but stable. Both require ongoing protection and targeted recovery given their size, isolation and exposure to local pressures. Fossil records from the Mt Etna-Capricorn Caves complex indicate occupation of the area by rainforest-associated faunas from at least ~500,000 years ago followed by shifts to more arid-adapted communities as the climate dried during the late Pleistocene (Laurikainen Gaete et al. 2025); these deposits include ghost bats throughout the entire period where much of the other fauna transitioned from New Guinea-like rainforest biotas (e.g., cassowaries, striped possums) to more xeric assemblages (e.g., greater bilbies, hopping mice).

Central Arid (WA, NT, SA, Qld)#

The Central Arid region includes the Mt Margaret area west of Quilpie in Qld—the type locality for the species—as well as parts of the Central Desert in the NT. The NT subregion runs from the Dulcie Range National Park through Tjoritja/West MacDonnell National Park, to Uluru and extends approximately 50 km into SA and west to Warburton (Milyirrtjarra) in WA. The environment is arid to semi-arid, dominated by rocky ranges and desert sand and gibber plains, with scattered limestone and sandstone cave systems, abandoned mine shafts and deep crevices in ranges that historically provided roosting and foraging habitat.Ghost bats have not been detected at Mt Margaret since the 1960s or from the Central Arid region since the 1940 to 1970s (Churchill & Helman 1990), noting these dates do not incorporate knowledge held by First Nations peoples. There are records from the mid-1800s to the mid-1900s across the southern part of the NT, the far north-west of SA and close to the NT borders with WA and Qld. Undertaking an extinction probability assessment (IUCN 2024) is worthwhile, because the species has not been detected in the Central Arid region in at least 40 years. No other recovery actions specific to the region are included in this plan.

2.4 Important populations #

Woinarski et al. (2014) estimated the national population size of the ghost bat to be fewer than 10,000 mature individuals. While there are significant knowledge gaps in relation to distribution across the species’ range, ghost bats are listed as threatened due to declines in multiple populations in the Pilbara and Kimberley (WA), Kakadu National Park (NT) and Mt Etna, Cape Hillsborough, Camooweal and Kings Plains (Qld) (TSSC 2016). Consequently, all known populations of ghost bat are considered important.Objectives and actions outlined in this plan seek to improve knowledge of ghost bat distribution as well as to better understand the species’ population demographics. This information will help inform recovery actions so that ghost bat populations stabilise or increase in the long term.

3. Biology and ecology #

3.1 Diet #

The ghost bat feeds on a wide variety of prey, including large insects, birds, small mammals (including other bat species), reptiles and frogs (Douglas 1967; Tidemann et al. 1985; Toop 1985; Pettigrew et al. 1986; Schulz 1986; Boles 1999; Johnston et al. 2015; Arteaga Claramunt et al. 2019; Start et al. 2019). While the composition of the ghost bat’s diet differs amongst studies (principally ratio of invertebrate to vertebrate prey), most studies do not include assessment of seasonal or demographic differences in diet. It is therefore not possible to make meaningful comparisons on diet variability between regions (Ghost Bat Recovery Team pers. comm. 17 March 2026). The exception to this is Toop (1985) who assessed diet seasonality, but whose work was restricted to Mt Etna, Qld.The diet of the ghost bat is likely to vary over time and across its distribution, in line with the variability in distribution and abundance of prey species, as well as with the species’ seasonal nutritional needs. For example, Toop (1985) reported that the main prey of the Mt Etna population (in the Eastern Qld region) during warmer months was large insects, whereas in cooler months the prey were mostly birds (e.g. owlet nightjar, little shrike-thrush, Lewin’s honeyeater) and mammals (e.g. house mouse, common sheath-tailed bat).

3.2 Foraging behaviour #

The ghost bat's main foraging strategy is perch-and-ambush, with the species often ambushing prey whilst hanging from trees (Tidemann et al. 1985; Toop 1985; Bat Call WA 2021). Individuals locate prey while remaining stationary at a vantage point, restricting flight activity to short flights in order to capture prey and/or to change vantage point (Tidemann et al. 1985). Individuals move to another vantage point if the previous one was unproductive. The ghost bat may also search for prey by flying low to the ground (1–2 m) (McKenzie & Bullen 2012; Augusteyn et al. 2018). Prey is captured on the ground, in vegetation or while in flight, then carried to a high point in a tree, rock overhang or inside a roost to be eaten (Douglas 1967; Tidemann et al. 1985; Kulzer et al. 1984; Armstrong et al. 2023). Tracking data (VHF, GPS and PIT tag) also shows that they do not necessarily forage throughout the night; instead, they may forage in bouts. In the middle of the night, individuals often perch in trees or rock overhangs for prolonged periods or return to the roost, leaving the roost again to forage close to dawn (Tidemann et al. 1985; Ryan Ellis pers. comm. 17 March 2026; Nicola Hanrahan pers. comm. 17 March 2026).

3.3 Sensory perception and sociality #

The ghost bat can use both echolocation and vision to navigate but does not always echolocate (Douglas 1967; Guppy et al. 1985). The species has excellent night vision and owl-like hearing (Douglas 1967; Guppy & Coles 1988) that are attuned to detecting movement and noise respectively (Kulzer et al. 1984). Individuals communicate through at least 12 distinct types of social calls (chirp-trills, squabbles, grumbles, whistles, ‘ultrasonic social’ calls etc.), often at 5–15 kHz but also up to 70 kHz (Guppy et al. 1985; McKenzie & Bullen 2012; Hanrahan 2020). Social calls are made when feeding close to each other; in roosts, particularly during peak activity times around sunset and sunrise; during mating and when raising pups; by males when defending territory; and when fighting or in distress (Douglas 1967; Tidemann et al. 1985; Hanrahan et al. 2021; 2022).The ghost bat usually roosts communally but bats roosting singly have been observed, particularly during the dispersal period (outside of the mating period). Colony size is highly variable with most colonies, excluding regionally important roosts in the Pilbara, numbering 1–10 individuals (Ryan Ellis pers. comm. 22 March 2026); in the Top End 5–100 individuals is common (Nicola Hanrahan pers. comm. 22 March 2026). On occasion in certain roosts, colonies can comprise several hundred to more than 1,000 individuals (Armstrong et al. 2023).Figure 3: The ghost bat perches in a tree (left) and uses its large ears and large eyes (right) to huntSource: © Bruce ThomsonFigure 4: Ghost bats roosting togetherSource: © Bruce Thomson

3.4 Reproductive ecology #

The ghost bat is an obligate cave-breeder with a slow reproductive rate. According to Hoyle et al. (2001), 40% of females breed in their second year (therefore, at one year old), but the majority of females (>90% breeding) breed in their third year (therefore, two years old).Males and females congregate in mating roosts during the mating season (Hanrahan et al. 2021) and females are pregnant for a minimum of 11–12 weeks (Churchill 2008), with a nearly 6-month gestation at the Mt Etna population (Eastern Queensland) recorded by Toop (1985). A study of reproductive hormones in captive pregnant bats (in Perth Zoo) reported a gestation length of 120–172 days (17.1–24.5 weeks), measured from the time the breeding male was removed from the enclosure until the females gave birth (Keeley et al. 2023). Keeley et al. (2023) suggest that this may indicate gestation length is more variable than previously reported and that ghost bats may use adaptive reproductive strategies (e.g., sperm storage, delayed implantation or embryonic diapause) to extend gestation when conditions are unfavourable.Pregnant females congregate in maternity roosts (Toop 1985; Hall et al. 1997), which is often the same roost used for mating, with each female typically giving birth to a single pup. For the first approximately three-four weeks, she carries the pup while foraging at night but later leaves it in a crèche in a maternity roost (Toop 1985; Armstrong et al. 2023). The mother may move her pup to a crèche in a different roost during its development (Toop 1985). Juvenile ghost bats fly independently at approximately seven weeks after birth (Toop 1985) but continue suckling milk and remain with their mothers for another two months (Toop 1985).The timing of breeding is poorly understood and varies across the distribution of the ghost bat (Table 2) with animals in the northern parts of the range breeding earlier in the year than those in southern parts (Ghost Bat Recovery Team pers. comm. 17 March 2026).Table 2: Variation in gestation length across the five regions where ghost bats persistPilbara | Kimberley | Top End | Gulf-Inland Qld | Eastern Qld

Mating season #

May-September (‘dry season’) (Bat Call WA 2021)UnknownApril-May (Churchill 2008)Gulf: UnknownInland Queensland: UnknownNorth: UnknownSouth: April (Toop 1985)

Parturition #

Mid-October-December (Douglas 1967; Cramer et al. 2022; Bat Call WA 2021)UnknownJuly-August (Churchill 2008)Gulf: August-September (N. Hanrahan pers. comm. 17 March 2026)Inland Queensland: UnknownNorth: UnknownSouth: September-November (Toop 1985)Gestation length | Unknown | Unknown | 11-12 weeks (Churchill 2008) | Unknown | 22-26 weeks (Toop 1985)

Note #

Embryo (~10 mm) collected from specimen August and three embryos (52–70 mm) collected from specimens in October (Douglas 1967). Females with young attached observed in November (Douglas 1967). Females with pups attached to the teat recorded in November and December 1998 (Armstrong and Anstee 2000).Small juveniles (half size of adults) observed with adults in permanent roost early March 2025 (Ryan Ellis pers. comm. 17 March 2026).Independent juvenile (~50 g) recorded in roost May 2024 Ryan Ellis pers. comm. 17 March 2026).The timing of reproduction is currently undocumented. There was an embryo from a specimen collected in late June (Douglas 1967).Female with pup attached observed late September (Ryan Ellis pers. comm. 17 March 2026)In the absence of region-specific data, the timings recorded in the most similar region, the Top End, should be used.Heavily pregnant females have been captured in early May and as late as mid-October (Nicola Hanrahan pers. comm. 08 May 2026).Estimated timing for the Gulf is based on very limited observations of pregnant individuals that were ~ 1 month behind in gestation compared to Top End individuals (N. Hanrahan pers. comm. 17 March 2026).–Source: Ghost Bat Recovery Team (pers. comm. 17 March 2026) except where specified otherwise.

3.5 Longevity #

Wild individuals have been redetected from genotyping of scats after 10 years (Ryan Ellis, unpublished data) and longevity in captivity has been recorded up to 22 years (Weigl 2005). Woinarski et al. (2014) infer that the generation time is approximately 8 years.

3.6 Activity #

The ghost bat is active year-round, foraging most nights and roosting each day. Individuals may rest during the night between feeding bouts (Tidemann et al. 1985). The ghost bat usually emerges from its roost within a few hours after dark and seeks to roost again sometime before sunrise (Douglas 1967; Tidemann et al. 1985; Augusteyn et al. 2018; Bullen et al. 2023). However, this is variable, with some individuals not departing until midnight and others returning before midnight and remaining in the roost (Bullen et al. 2023; Ghost Bat Recovery Team pers. comm. 2 October 2025). Foraging individuals may also return to a roost during the night before departing to forage again (Augusteyn et al. 2018; Bullen et al. 2023).Figure 5: A ghost bat in flight – Cape HillsboroughSource: © John Augusteyn

3.7 Movement and dispersal #

The ghost bat is physically capable of high mobility but individuals tend to have high fidelity to both their roost and foraging area (Bullen et al. 2023; Ruykys et al. 2026). Although ghost bats can fly long distances and quickly within a short period of time, individuals generally use the same roost or small number of roosts repeatedly and use the same foraging area over multiple nights. This means that an individual ghost bat is reliant on a particular area providing it with sufficient resources for both roosting and foraging.The movement and dispersal of ghost bats is poorly understood. This is complicated by movement patterns that vary across the species’ range, including seasonally in response to roost humidity, temperature and water levels, the reproductive cycle of the ghost bat, and probably also the availability and abundance of prey. For example, the Mt Etna population (in the Central Qld Coast region) converges on a cave for warmth during the cool season and females remain aggregated to give birth as the weather begins to warm. This population also converges on a dry cave during the later part of the wet season. At other times, individuals (predominantly males) can disperse up to 150 km from the colony during winter (Toop 1985).Regarding roost fidelity, the most comprehensive information available is for the Pilbara region. Here, repeat detections of individuals via scat samples from across the region over multiple years suggest individual ghost bats generally switch between 1–4 roosts that are in proximity (usually within 1–10 km), with many recaptures occurring at the same roost (Prada et al. 2024). Recaptures based on genomic analyses of scats have also occurred at longer ranges (>20 km) but are less common, albeit detections are constrained by sampling, as it occurs in relation to mining tenements (Prada et al. 2024).Broader patterns derived from analyses of genetic structure show that females show fidelity to their colony and (especially natal) area, with gene flow mainly facilitated by dispersal of males (Worthington Wilmer et al. 1994; Umbrello et al. 2025). This is supported by spatial autocorrelation analyses showing that females within 30 km are more genetically similar than males within the same distance (Umbrello et al. 2025).Regarding nightly foraging, individuals are physically capable of travelling far and fast but tend not to do so. The currently recorded commuting flight speed for GPS-tracked wild ghost bats is approximately 17–22 km/h (Bullen et al. 2023; Ruykys et al. 2026). This accords with data from two captive individuals that had a ‘maximum cruise speed’ (the maximum steady-state speed that could be sustained for medium to long periods without appreciable acceleration or slowing) of 32 km/h and a ‘maximum spurt speed’ (the maximum speed that can be maintained for short periods) of 38.9 km/h (Bullen et al. 2016). Another study in Qld also reported a maximum commuting speed of 31.9 km/h (E. Williams pers. comm. 25 February 2026). However, such commuting speeds do not necessarily represent ‘standard’ movements: a study in Katherine in the Top End region found the mean distance travelled per hour was 1.2 km (Ruykys et al. 2026). This is consistent with the species’ perch-and-ambush foraging strategy, in which individuals stay in one location for extended periods of time.There are very few records of the average or range of flight heights for the ghost bat in the wild. Some data for the Mt Etna population recorded flight height as being below 45 m, mostly below 10 m, and frequently less than 2 m (Augusteyn et al. 2018).The distances flown by individual ghost bats from their roost site to their foraging area and the average size of foraging areas are not well understood. This is compounded by factors such as individual variation, nightly conditions, seasonality, reproduction, sex, prey abundance and landscape factors that can influence movement patterns. There are also limitations in tracking ghost bats with GPS tags (nocturnal activity so no solar recharge, tag size, cave-roosting, grooming off tags; Ruykys et al. 2026) so that the distances currently recorded are almost certainly underestimates.The limited data available indicate that individuals often return to the same foraging area on consecutive nights (Tidemann et al. 1985; Augusteyn et al. 2018; Bullen et al. 2023; Ruykys et al. 2026). However, tracking has also shown individuals sometimes foraging in one area and then moving to other areas over successive nights (R. Ellis pers. comm. 25 February 2026). Data from the Top End (Ruykys et al. 2026), Pilbara (Biologic 2019; 2020; Ryan Ellis, unpublished data; Bullen et al. 2023) and Qld (Augusteyn et al. 2018) indicate a mean distance of ≈12–20 km travelled per individual per night. However, there are documented instances of individuals travelling up to 50 km in one night (Bullen et al. 2023; Ruykys et al. 2026, E. Williams pers. comm. 25 February 2026).Data on the radial (i.e., one-way) distance travelled by individuals from their roost to their foraging area(s) are also limited but suggest averages from 3–8.5 km, with recorded maximums of ≈12–25 km (Augusteyn et al. 2018; Bullen et al. 2023; Ruykys et al. 2026, E. Williams pers. comm. 25 February 2026). These ranges depend on resource availability and abundance, which is often influenced by rainfall during the preceding wet season.The home ranges of ghost bats are also poorly documented and greatly influenced by GPS/VHF tag limitations (number of fixes, number of bats tracked and short tracking duration). Home ranges are likely to vary with habitat quality intra- and inter-annually, as well as across colonies/populations. Inconsistencies in data collection and analysis also limits meaningful comparisons across studies. For example, Tidemann et al. (1985) used the minimum range method (Mohr 1947) to calculate a mean foraging area of 60.8 ha (range 28–120 ha) for five ghost bats with ≥10 VHF-tracked fixes. In contrast, Bullen et al. (2023) present data on the sizes of ‘typical foraging areas’ in the Pilbara. These were determined per individual by placing polygons over areas that had multiple GPS fixes at consecutive times. Bullen et al. (2023) identified a mean ‘foraging area’ of 105 ha (maximum of 450 ha). In contrast, Ruykys et al. (2026) calculated short-term core and home ranges for individuals with a sufficient number of GPS fixes and, where this was insufficient, populations. They identified that the size of short-term home and core ranges varied by sex and reproductive season, with core and home ranges ≈6–15 ha smaller in the mating than the maternity seasons, with the scale of this difference differing by sex and colony.

3.8 Hydration #

The ghost bat has not been observed drinking water, including in captivity. The species appears to be capable of meeting its water requirements without drinking free water, relying instead on hydration obtained from prey. Cave humidity conditions of 70–90% appear to be important for maintaining water balance and good skin health (Toop 1985; Baudinette et al. 2000).

3.9 Habitat #

The ghost bat occurs in a wide range of ecosystems: caves, rocky areas, dry grassy savanna and woodland, dry shrubland, tropical monsoon woodland, tropical monsoon forest and rainforest, riparian forests, mangroves, and agricultural land that has particular features (Duncan et al. 1999; Augusteyn et al. 2018; Armstrong et al. 2021).Habitat of the ghost bat comprises three components: Roosts for thermoregulation and protection when resting and breeding Foraging areas for energy and nutrients (i.e., prey) Areas among roosts and foraging areas that are used for movementThese components are described in detail below. Characteristics of these components determine where the ghost bat can occur and persist. The three components are not spatially independent: ghost bats require productive foraging areas an accessible distance from suitable roosts.

Roosts #

Access to suitable roosts is of critical importance to the ghost bat. All individuals require access to a roost with suitable conditions for protection from physiological stress and predators. A variety of roosts are used, ranging from shallow overhangs and crevices to deep underground caves and mines that are well insulated from weather conditions. Some roosts are used rarely, whereas others are permanently occupied. Roosts can accommodate a few individuals (Umbrello et al. 2025) up to more than 1,000 animals (Tidemann et al. 1985).There have been several attempts to classify ghost bat roosts in terms of their relative importance to the species or within a region. Local assessment, based on good understanding of occupancy patterns and movements of local ghost bat populations, is necessary to classify or assign values to roosts in any area. Sites where ghost bats have not been detected but have appropriate structural and biophysical properties may also represent prospective roosting habitat (non-detection may be a result of climatic conditions, population fluctuations, movements associated with reproduction and/or insufficient surveys).Maternity roosts, permanent roosts and regular roosts (see Glossary) are essential for the persistence and recovery of local ghost bat populations. These are not mutually exclusive – maternity roosts are either permanent or regular roosts. Occasional and opportunistic roosts (see Glossary) can vary from unimportant to essential for persistence, recovery and connectivity, depending on the local context.Roosts are usually in natural rock structures or disused underground mines (Toop 1985; Hall et al. 1997). Natural roosts for the ghost bat have been reported in weathered and exposed rock formations, including – but not limited to – limestone karst, dissected sandstone plateau, sandstone bluff and escarpment, banded iron formation, boulder field and basalt lava tube (Douglas 1967; Kavanagh 1999; Armstrong & Anstee 2000; McKenzie et al. 2019; Augusteyn et al. 2023; SET 2024; Shaw et al. in prep.). Disused underground mines may be in different geological formations.When occupied, these roosts have a stable temperature (usually 23–28^oC) and moderate to high humidity (50–90%) (Churchill & Helman 1990). Higher humidity is likely to be most important at maternal roosts, helping reduce water loss in females and their young (Ryan Ellis pers. comm. 25 February 2026). Ghost bats will also seek out caverns or other dome-like structures in caves where warmer air is trapped (Toop 1985).Ghost bats occupy roosts at night before and after foraging activity. They may also use roosts during the night to consume prey. Older pups occupy crèches in roosts both day and night (see Reproductive Ecology). For ghost bats to persist at roosting sites it is necessary for sufficient, suitable and accessible prey to be available in the surrounding landscape.Ghost bats have also been recorded roosting during the day in rail culverts (Ryan Ellis pers. comm. 25 February 2026) and rock crevices (Bat Call WA 2021). More rarely, they have been observed roosting in large trees that are structurally complex (e.g., figs) or hollow (e.g., boab) (Armstrong & Anstee 2000), as well as disused buildings, and mining and other infrastructure (AWC unpublished data; Nicola Hanrahan pers. comm. 25 February 2025; Ryan Ellis pers. comm. 25 February 2026). These may be transient roosts and are likely being used for short-term refuge or by individuals that are dispersing (Armstrong and Anstee 2000). They may also be important for supporting population connectivity or access to foraging areas that are far from natural or mine roosts.Suitable roosts for different purposes (e.g., breeding, connectivity) are limited across landscapes and regions. Loss of access to roosts can substantially interfere with the persistence and recovery of the species.Some of the largest remaining ghost bat colonies occupy disused mine adits and shafts; for example, Kohinoor, Spring Hill and Lalla Rookh (R. Ellis pers. comm. 19 March 2026, N. Hanrahan pers. comm. 19 March 2026). Consequently, preservation of these roosts is equally important to protection of natural roost sites for ghost bat recovery.Ghost bats are known to occupy artificial roosts under some circumstances; however, purpose-built artificial structures are not a substitute for natural roosts or mine roosts. Purpose-built artificial roosts may have a role in supplementing habitats for ghost bats, particularly where existing disused mines roosts are unstable and at risk of collapse, but they are not a replacement for existing roosting habitat. Research is underway to characterise the roosting characteristics of natural roosts to help inform specifications for potential artificial roosts, but further research is required to determine any potential for purpose-built artificial structures to enhance recovery of the species.

Foraging areas #

Selection of foraging habitat by ghost bats and the characteristics of foraging habitat across the species’ distribution are poorly understood. Local information about ghost bat movement patterns and diet is necessary to identify and define foraging areas.The limited information that is available indicates that ghost bats forage in a variety of ecosystems, including areas of intact native vegetation and agricultural land (Augusteyn et al. 2018). Foraging areas are likely to change in response to environmental conditions, e.g. fire regimes. The size of foraging areas and how they are used also fluctuates over time and space, due at least in part to changes in prey abundance, which is influenced by seasonal conditions.Prey abundance is often influenced by water availability. Alluvial plains, stony plains and other habitats can be rich with prey after good rainfall events (J. Augusteyn pers. comm. 19 March 2026). Waterways were often visited by VHF/GPS-tracked ghost bats from the Mt Etna and Kings Plains populations (Augusteyn et al. 2018; Williams 2025), most likely because they provided the optimum vegetation structure for hunting, including perching trees and shrubs and low-moderate ground cover (N. Hanrahan pers. comm. 19 March 2026). Permanent and ephemeral wetlands are also areas of high productivity (Queensland Museum 2022) that can provide abundant food resources for the ghost bat (Kingston 2005; Woinarski et al. 2008; Shaw et al. in review).Foraging areas can be near roosts or significantly further away (see Activity, and Movement and dispersal). Application of research methods that can detect ghost bats outside their roosts (such as GPS tracking and the landscape-scale acoustic lure method - Ruykys et al. 2024) will help to improve understanding of foraging areas.The ghost bat has been recorded foraging in a variety of ecosystems and vegetation types, including: Pilbara region: GPS-tracked foraging across plains, low hills, rocky ridgelines and drainage lines with open grassy woodlands of low scattered mulga (Acacia spp.) or eucalypt over shrubs and patchy grasses, typically with areas of clear ground (typically 30–70% clear of ground cover) (Bullen et al. 2023). Tracking data have shown that there is a preference for more sparsely vegetated habitats with reasonable visibility/access to the ground and little shrub or tree cover, with perching opportunities provided by occasional larger shrubs and trees (R. Ellis pers. comm. 23 March 2026). Foraging habitat includes alluvial plains dominated by tussock grasses and sparse eucalypts, stony and sandy plains dominated by hummock grasses, to mulga woodlands (grove – inter-grove form generally) with sparse to no ground cover between groves and drainage lines (R. Ellis. pers. comm. 23 March 2026). Kimberley region: No studies on ghost bat foraging have been conducted in this region. Anecdotal observations are from wooded areas. Top End region: Recorded in savanna woodland, shrubland, riparian vegetation and plantations (e.g., sandalwood, mango), including in pastoral lands with retained native vegetation and in remnant vegetation adjacent to horticultural crops (Ruykys et al. 2024). Pine Creek: VHF-tracked foraging in grassy woodland/open woodlands dominated by eucalypts over Cymbopogon bombycinus (lemon grass, silky oilgrass), Aristida latifolia (feathertop wiregrass), Themeda triandra (kangaroo grass), Trioda spp. (spinifex) and/or Eriachne spp. (wanderrie grass) (Tidemann et al. 1985). Eastern Queensland region: Kings Plains: Observed foraging at the edge of rainforest and open grassy woodland in a hilly granite boulderfield landscape (SET 2024). Mt Etna: Tracked in woodlands and ephemeral watercourses with Eucalyptus tereticornis (blue gum), E. platyphylla (poplar gum) and/or other Eucalyptus spp. and Corymbia spp. on alluvial plains within a matrix of simplified agricultural areas (Augusteyn et al. 2018). Edges were frequently used in these modified landscapes. Gulf-Inland Queensland and Central Arid regions: No studies on ghost bat foraging have been conducted in these regions.

3.10 Habitat critical to the survival of ghost bats #

Habitat critical to the survival of a species refers to areas necessary for the species’ continued persistence and recovery. As outlined in the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Regulations 2025 (Reg 7.09), in determining whether an area constitutes habitat critical to the survival of a species, consideration should be given to the extent to which it is: used during periods of stress – such as flood, drought, fire, used to meet essential life cycle requirements such as foraging, breeding, nesting, roosting or social behaviour, used by important populations, necessary to maintain genetic diversity and long-term evolutionary development, necessary for use as corridors to allow the species to move freely between sites that are used to meet essential life cycle requirements, necessary to ensure the long-term future of the species through reintroduction or re-colonisation, and any other way in which habitat may be critical to the survival of a listed threatened species.

Identifying habitat critical to the survival of the ghost bat #

Any action undertaken within the range of the ghost bat must avoid ‘adverse impacts to habitats critical to the survival of the ghost bat’ (MNES 1.1 guidelines).Identification of habitat critical to the survival of a species is based on the species’ life cycle requirements and habitat attributes required to support long-term survival and evolutionary development. For the ghost bat, it is necessary to consider its habitat requirements across its range to ensure that all habitat attributes required to support its life cycle requirements are met. Refer to the Distribution and Biology and ecology sections for more detail on the species’ life cycle requirements and the attributes of critical habitat.Areas of habitat critical to the survival of the ghost bat comprise the following attributes: Roost sites being a network of roosts centred around a permanent and/or regular roost(s) (which may include occasional and/or opportunistic roosts) used for mating and maternity activities, feeding and transiting. Foraging areas of adequate spatial extent and with habitat attributes suitable for foraging, i.e. an appropriate range and density of suitable prey species and vegetation structure for perching and hunting. These support viable populations and population growth through seasonal and stochastic environmental variability over the long-term. Connectivity amongst roost sites, as well as between roost sites and foraging areas. This facilitates movement and gene flow, enables population growth, and supports re-colonisation following disturbance and in response to environmental change.Areas of critical habitat for the ghost bat are unlikely to be small or isolated and may not be easily demarcated. Based on regional and local variation in habitat, home range and movement, critical habitat for the ghost bat will vary in size and composition across the species’ range.Historically, permanent and/or regularly occupied roosts have been the primary focus of management. This approach has led to the development of a roost classification scheme applied within the Pilbara region (Bat Call WA 2021). Roost sites are a fundamental attribute of critical habitat for ghost bats and protection of permanent and regular roosts is vital for ghost bat recovery. However, roost sites are not the sole component of critical habitat for the species. Rather, foraging habitat (free of, and/or managed for threats) is also essential to ghost bat persistence and recovery. Current understanding of ghost bat nightly movements indicates flights from 3 km to in excess of 25 km radial distances from the roost (Augusteyn et al. 2018; Bullen et al. 2023; Ruykys et al. 2026; E. Williams pers. comm. 25 February 2026). Individual bats may utilise multiple roosts within a regional network, with documented routine movements in one study at Mt Etna indicating up to 30 km from a day roost and occasional dispersal movements exceeding 50 km (Toop 1985). Population structure is, therefore, best understood as a network organised around roost complexes rather than discrete isolated sites (Tidemann et al. 1985; Toop 1985; Bullen et al. 2023).Noting routine foraging distances in excess of 25 km (Augusteyn et al. 2018; Bullen et al. 2023; Ruykys et al. 2026; E. Williams pers. comm. 25 February 2026), any potential impacts to ghost bats within a minimum 25 km radius of permanent and regular ghost bat roosts must be considered. This is the area in which the species is most vulnerable to threats, and where recovery action should be focused.Habitats that are not critical to survival of the ghost bat may also be important for recovery (e.g., for restoration and species re-introduction) and should be considered as part of conservation planning for the species.

Information requirements #

Determining areas of habitat critical to the survival of the ghost bat requires access to information on the ghost bat within the broader landscape. This includes but is not limited to: valid species records, including roost types and locations and their condition, trajectory and any identified threats, information on foraging, any available telemetry/movement data for the relevant region, state/ territory-based (or other) vegetation and habitat condition mapping, landscape mapping (including geological and hydrological features and mine features), mapping of land use of the area (modification, disturbances and historical uses), aerial photography to assess habitat condition, fragmentation and likely barriers, surveys to identify and assess use of foraging habitat and/or to indicate hotspots for targeted searches for roosting habitat, and targeted surveys of roosts to determine location and extent within structures, assess occupancy and seasonal usage (i.e. whether roosts are permanent and/or maternity roost or other), and determine connectivity amongst roosts and between roosts and foraging areas.

4. Threats and impacts #

4.1 Current known and suspected threatening processes #

The type, extent and impacts of threats on the ghost bat vary across the species’ broad distribution, reflecting differences in landscape characteristics, land use and activities. Threats that cause mortality or reduce fitness and reproduction are likely to be contributing to population decline and inhibiting recovery. Cumulative impacts of multiple threats may also be putting ghost bat populations under pressure.The most significant threats to ghost bats are loss and degradation of natural roosts and mine roosts (Armstrong et al. 2021) and of foraging habitat (primarily due to land clearing, habitat modification and fragmentation). Degradation of roosting habitat can include changing microclimate conditions as well as environmental disturbance such as noise, vibration, dust and artificial light. Degradation of foraging habitat primarily reduces availability and diversity of prey and thus the foraging efficacy of the ghost bat. Declines in prey lead to nutritional stress, reduce individual fitness and decrease reproductive rates. In all cases, the cumulative loss or degradation of habitat across regions must be considered.

Loss of natural roosts #

Natural roosts that provide conditions suitable for ghost bats are created through thousands to millions of years of erosion that forms cave systems (Young 1987; Grimes et al. 2003; Woodhouse et al. 2022) that cannot be replaced. The loss of one or more roosts – especially a maternity, permanent or regular roost – causes local population displacement or loss, particularly where alternative roosts are scarce or unavailable. Physical loss of natural roosts is primarily – but not exclusively – due to activities associated with industry, including mining/quarrying (including use of ordnance), construction, energy generation/development and infrastructure (e.g., Cramer et al. 2022). Associated activities involve vegetation clearing and the construction of infrastructure and extensive networks of linear features such as roads, transmission corridors, pipelines, substations and service tracks (Laurance et al. 2009; Northrup & Wittemyer 2013). Collectively, these result in cleared, fragmented and modified landscapes, reducing connectivity and foraging habitat.Regional considerations: Loss of natural roosts is a threat across the entire distribution of the ghost bat. It is particularly acute in the Pilbara region where many suitable natural roosts occur in regolith over banded iron formations that is targeted for mining activities (see Northover et al. 2023). In the Gulf-Inland Queensland region, loss of natural roosts is also occurring due to mining activities, often exacerbated by there being limited information on the species’ distribution and roosting requirements (Ghost Bat Recovery Team pers. comm. 21 March 2026).

Loss of roosts in mines and infrastructure #

Significant ghost bat populations inhabit disused underground mines, many of which are structurally unstable and have an inherent risk of collapse without ongoing maintenance. Loss of mine roosts can also occur due to mine reworking, flooding (from mining and natural events) or closure due to perceived risk to humans, as well as other industrial activities.Regional considerations: Loss of mine roosts is a major threat to ghost bats in the Pilbara (particularly areas that are prospective sites for gold mining in the Chichester subregion) and Top End regions. Loss of mine roosts has also been recorded in the Eastern Qld region. Disused underground mines are common in the Gulf-Inland and Eastern Queensland regions (Ghost Bat Recovery Team pers. comm. 21 March 2026).

Loss of foraging habitat #

The removal and fragmentation of ghost bat foraging habitat can reduce the capacity of landscapes to support the species, even when roosts remain available. Ghost bats require access to foraging habitat of sufficient extent, complexity and connectivity to support their nutritional needs and movement across the landscape.Loss of foraging habitat occurs discontinuously throughout the species’ range and at varying scales, primarily as a result of land clearing, modification and fragmentation of native vegetation associated with agriculture, mining, renewable energy developments (particularly solar farms), urbanisation and other infrastructure. Impacts include the direct removal of habitat that supports the ghost bat’s range of prey and removes vegetation that is required for the ghost bat’s perch-and-ambush hunting strategy. The removal of foraging habitat may also act as a barrier if ghost bats are reluctant to cross cleared areas. This may affect movement between roosts (Ghost Bat Recovery Team pers. comm. 21 March 2026).Evidence indicates ghost bats have fidelity to foraging areas, with individuals visiting the same sites across multiple nights (Tidemann et al. 1985; Ruykys et al. 2026; E. Williams, unpublished data). The loss of foraging habitat may directly remove sites used by certain individuals. While several ghost bats have been observed to hunt in the same foraging areas at the same time (Tidemann et al. 1985), the carrying capacity of foraging areas and the relationship between individuals that routinely hunt in proximity are poorly understood. Foraging habitat requirements of ghost bat colonies likely differs based on roost type, season and colony size.The nature of impacts on ghost bat roosting colonies of removal and fragmentation of foraging habitat is poorly understood. Levels of impact are likely determined by factors such as the types of roosts present, colony size, seasonal use, extent of cleared/fragmented area, and cumulative loss and fragmentation of foraging habitat in the region.Regional considerations: Simplification and removal of foraging habitat caused by agriculture and other industries is recorded to some degree across the ghost bat’s range (Ghost Bat Recovery Team pers. comm. 19 March 2026).

Entanglement in barbed wire #

Entanglement in barbed wire fences is a significant cause of mortality for the ghost bat throughout its range and likely contributing to ghost bat population declines at a local scale, particularly from new fences and those near permanent and regular roosts and in good foraging habitat close to suitable roosts (Armstrong & Anstee 2000; Chris Clague pers. comm. 24 November 2025). The ghost bat’s low flight height, intermittent use of echolocation in flight and a reliance on observing movement and passive listening to detect prey mean it is particularly susceptible to entanglement in barbed wire (Armstrong and Anstee 2000; Cramer et al. 2022).Regional considerations: Ghost bat mortality from entanglement in barbed wire has been reported in the Pilbara region (Armstrong and Anstee 2000; McKenzie & Bullen 2009; Bradley et al. 2023) and observed in the Kimberley (AWC & DBCA observations), Top End (N. Hanrahan pers. comm. 2 October 2025) and Eastern Queensland (SET unpublished data) regions. It is likely to be a risk across most of the range of the ghost bat (Ghost Bat Recovery Team pers. comm. 18 March 2026).

Habitat degradation due to grazing by cattle #

Cattle grazing has modified and degraded landscapes that provide habitat for the ghost bat. Habitat has also been cleared to increase areas available for grazing. Cattle grazing – particularly in conjunction with inappropriate fire regimes – simplifies vegetation structure and composition with flow-on effects on the availability and accessibility of prey for the ghost bat (Woinarski et al. 1999; Woinarski & Ash 2002; Woinarski et al. 2011). This is particularly problematic along waterways, where high cattle grazing pressure leads to complex and productive riparian ecosystems transitioning to simpler, more homogeneous ecosystems. Cattle grazing also introduces and spreads transformer weeds (e.g. buffel grass) that alter fire regimes and reduces water quality (Mihailou & Massaro 2021). Reduced vegetation cover or reduced vegetation complexity modifies the suitability of habitat for a range of ghost bat prey.Regional considerations: Cattle grazing is the primary land use across northern Australia (ABARES 2016; 2025), ranging from intensively managed grazing to seasonal or occasional mustering. Most of the distribution of the ghost bat is subject to cattle grazing, but direct threats to ghost bats from cattle grazing are unlikely in: Conservation reserves and protected areas where cattle are actively removed or excluded Areas where pastoral operations are managed to have a low ecological impact Areas that are too rocky, steep or rough for cattle and/or contain less palatable vegetationIn Cape York (Eastern Qld region), overgrazing has significantly affected quality and prey availability in foraging habitat (Ghost Bat Recovery Team pers. comm. 19 March 2026). Simplification/degradation of foraging habitat caused by grazing has been recorded in the parts of the Pilbara, Eastern Qld and Gulf-Inland Qld regions (Ghost Bat Recovery Team pers. comm. 19 March 2026). In many areas of the Pilbara where cattle numbers are low, feral donkey and wild horse populations are impacting landscapes that provide habitat for the ghost bat. This is particularly the case in the eastern Hamersley Range and northeast parts of the Chichester subregion (S. van Leeuwen, pers. comm. 17 April 2026).

Disturbance at roosts #

Ghost bats are sensitive to disturbance at their roosts (Douglas 1967). Disturbance can be caused by entry of humans, and by noise, vibration, light and dust. Disturbance can result in mortality, roost abandonment, sensory disruption and reduced fitness.Disturbance by human activity can occur due to tourism, exploration, fossicking or research activities. Disturbance from human entry has the greatest impact during the day. If disturbed, ghost bats may exit a roost during daylight when they are at an increased risk of heat stress and predation (Woinarski et al. 2014). Bats may be able to utilise alternative sites but may still be impacted energetically.Seasonal impacts are greatest during overwintering, pregnancy and lactation. During lactation, entry to maternity roosts has caused pups to be dropped by mothers or to be dislodged from walls during their mothers’ rapid take-off (Toop 1985). While disturbance may not always cause the immediate abandonment of a roost, metabolic stress levels may increase to a point of individuals abandoning roosts in the medium- to longer-term or, in extreme cases, death.Disturbance from noise, vibration, light and dust is generally associated with activities related to construction, drilling, blasting, processing, vehicle movement, earthmoving and general operations in relation to mines, quarries and renewable energy developments (Bat Call WA 2021), including installation of transmission lines. The level of impact is site-specific and is dependent on many factors, such as the proximity to the roost; the nature and scale of the disturbance e.g. amplitude, frequency, timing, schedule; landscape factors e.g., geology, orientation and complexity of roost; and colony size and season.Disturbance may also occur due to low-flying (including military) aircraft, but this is poorly understood. Research is needed to understand the potential impacts of low-flying helicopters on ghost bat behaviour and population dynamics.Electromagnetic fields are known to affect bats due to sensory disruption. For example, bat activity is reduced in areas where radars emit constant electromagnetic fields of more than 20 V/m (Nicholls & Racey 2009), and as low as 2 V/m (Nicholls & Racey 2007). Although the impacts of sensory disruption on the ghost bat are poorly understood, impacts by electromagnetic fields may be while animals are foraging or roosting. Linear electromagnetic fields (e.g., high voltage transmission lines) may restrict movement due to the ghost bat generally flying low (see Foraging behaviour).Regional considerations: Disturbance of roosts is occurring in the Eastern Qld region due to mining, recreation and infrastructure activities. Disturbance of roosts due to mining activities is also occurring in the Pilbara region. Expansion of renewable energy may be an emerging threat. Cave tourism occurs in some areas of the Top End region and disturbance of mine roosts by tourists and fossickers is likely common near human-populated areas. Disturbance by tourists at Dimalurru/Tunnel Creek (Kimberley region) may be a risk to that colony (Ghost Bat Recovery Team pers. comm. 18 March 2026).

Habitat modification due to altered hydrology #

Changes in hydrology that lower humidity and/or cause thermally challenging conditions are inferred to lead to ghost bat roosts having a lower carrying capacity (L. Ruykys pers. comm. 9 February 2025). Such changes can also reduce ghost bat reproduction/recruitment and lead to abandonment of roosts. Changes to hydrology are often associated with mining activities (e.g., groundwater drawdown), irrigated agriculture, infrastructure projects and urbanisation.Changes in hydrology can also alter the hydrodynamics of areas that are used by the ghost bat for foraging. Such changes may be caused by intermittent or permanent flooding or desiccation. Altered hydrology, such as groundwater drawdown or the rerouting of surface water bodies and surface overland flows, may affect ghost bats by changing the structure and productivity of foraging habitats and reducing prey resources. Reduced water availability can alter riparian and other water-influenced vegetation, disrupt local prey concentrations, and lower the abundance or availability of both insect and vertebrate prey. Changes to hydrology may have local impacts throughout the species’ distribution.Regional considerations: Altered hydrology is a threat in the Pilbara, Top End, Eastern Qld and Gulf-Inland Qld regions (Ghost Bat Recovery Team pers. comm. 18 March 2026).

Predation by and competition with feral cats #

Predation by feral cats (Felis catus) is a key threatening process listed under the EPBC Act (Cth DCCEEW 2024). While ghost bats have several native predators, including northern quolls, pythons and birds of prey, feral cats are the greatest predatory threat to ghost bats and could have the greatest potential to cause ghost bat population declines (L. Ruykys pers. comm. 2 February 2025). Cats can prey on ghost bats at entrances to roosts and are agile enough to capture individuals roosting or flying within roosts, where confined spaces are likely to be advantageous for cats (R. Ellis, pers. comm. 23 March 2026). The remains of ghost bats have been found at the entrances of natural roosts, on the floor of mine passages leading to roosts and at the bases of trees with signs of cat predation (Bat Call WA 2021; R. Ellis, pers. comm. 23 March 2026). Feral cats have been observed preying on ghost bats at roosts in the Pilbara region and the frequency of their visitation indicates that they have the potential to cause significant declines of ghost bat colonies, particularly where few individuals are recorded regularly roosting (R. Ellis, pers. comm. 23 March 2026).Feral cats may compete directly with ghost bats for prey, particularly for small native mammals. In addition to predation, feral cats are reservoirs for Toxoplasma gondii, a zoonotic parasite capable of reducing rodent populations and potentially altering prey availability for ghost bats. It remains unknown whether toxoplasmosis affects ghost bats directly.Regional considerations: Predation by and competition with feral cats is a threat across the range of the ghost bat; however, predation by feral cats is likely to be more impactful in the Pilbara region due to the generally smaller colony sizes. There are no direct observations in other parts of the ghost bat’s range and the level of impact is unknown but may be high (Ghost Bat Recovery Team pers. comm. 19 March 2026).

Impacts of wind turbines #

The expansion of the renewable energy industry has led to the rapid expansion of wind farms. As well as loss of foraging habitat, potential impacts of wind farms on ghost bats include sensory disruption, noise disturbance associated with the construction and operation of wind farms and direct injury or mortality when ghost bats collide with the moving blades of wind turbines (Reid and Baker 2025). A recent ecological risk assessment (Reid and Baker 2025) showed the ghost bat to be one of the species most at risk from direct and indirect impacts of wind turbines.Regional considerations: Collision with wind turbines is a significant potential threat in the Pilbara and Eastern Queensland regions, where renewable energy projects are planned or underway (Ghost Bat Recovery Team pers. comm. 27 March 2026).

Fire regimes that cause declines in biodiversity #

Fire regimes that cause declines in biodiversity is a key threatening process listed under the EPBC Act (Cth DAWE 2022). Fire regimes across much of Australia have changed over time due to a variety of factors, including the clearing and fragmentation of vegetation, the use of fire-suppression and management techniques, an increase in the number of ignition sources, a warming and drying climate and a decline in traditional burning practices by First Nations communities (Cth DAWE 2022).High frequency or high severity burning is a driver of large-scale degradation of ghost bat habitat. Frequent and/or severe fires simplify landscapes and reduce the abundance and availability of ghost bat prey, particularly small mammals (Woinarski et al. 2015; Ziembicki et al. 2015; Radford et al. 2021; Einoder et al. 2023) and some birds (Reside et al. 2011). Inappropriate fire regimes may also impact invertebrate, frog and reptile prey populations (Cth DAWE 2022). High severity fire may also threaten roosting colonies, particularly maternity roosts when females are lactating and caring for juveniles.Regional considerations: Frequent and extensive fire is a threat across most of the ghost bat’s range, except some wetter areas of coastal Northeast Queensland and Central Queensland Coast regions. In Cape York (Eastern Qld region), changes to fire regimes have caused vegetation simplification, prey shifts, and reduced integrity in rocky landscapes (Ghost Bat Recovery Team pers. comm. 19 March 2026). There are likely to be interactions between bushfires and grazing pressure in the Eastern Qld and Kimberley regions. Simplification or degradation of foraging habitat caused by changes to fire regimes is recorded in the Pilbara, Top End, Eastern Qld and Gulf-Inland Qld regions (Ghost Bat Recovery Team pers. comm. 19 March 2026).

Climate change #

Climate change is increasing the intensity of rainfall events across northern Australia and the amount of rainfall from Cape York to the Pilbara (CSIRO & BOM 2024). In arid areas, climate change is predicted to increase temperatures, heatwaves, evapotranspiration, rainfall variability, and the severity of drought, while also increasing the intensity of heavy rainfall events when they occur (CSIRO & BOM 2024). Severe rainfall events may cause mortality from inundation and temporarily obstruct access to roosts. For example, ghost bat roosts in the Camooweal area, and elsewhere in the Gulf-Mt Isa region, are likely to have been inundated during a flooding event in March 2023 (J. Augusteyn pers. comm. 2025). In the Top End, some ghost bat roosts were inundated during rainfall events in March 2026 (N. Hanrahan pers comm. 19 March 2026). Beyond causing short-term evacuation of the roost, these types of events may increase erosion and reduce the stability of some roosts. Intense rainfall events and increased seasonal rainfall can also reduce the suitability of roosts due to seepage (Toop 1985) or other changes to hydrology.More intense rainfall events across the species’ range, together with increased aridity (particularly in the southern parts of the range), are likely to affect ghost bat foraging habitat and prey availability. In southern areas, increased aridity may also reduce the suitability of some roost sites by lowering humidity levels, particularly in less complex roosts that rely more on external conditions to maintain suitable temperature and humidity. Where climate change is increasing day and night temperatures (CSIRO & BOM 2024), there may be increased risk of ghost bats experiencing heat stress.Regional considerations: Extreme events (flooding, extreme heat) caused by climate change may be a particular threat in the Gulf-Inland Qld region (and potentially other regions), particularly where they affect ghost bat prey (Ghost Bat Recovery Team pers. comm. 19 March 2026).

Habitat modification due to introduced weeds #

Habitat of the ghost bat is degraded by weeds that include buffel grass (Cenchrus ciliaris, C. setiger), grader grass (Themeda quadrivalvis), gamba grass (Andropogon gayanus), rubber vine (Cryptostegia grandiflora), leucaena (Leucaena leucocephala), Madeira vine (Andreda cordifolia) and lantana (Lantana camara). These weeds can significantly add to fuel loads and increase the severity and extent of fires within ghost bat habitat. This simplification inhibits ghost bat foraging strategies by altering the density of the ground layer, decreasing the suitability for some prey and increasing the suitability for other prey (e.g. rodents).This threat is recognised under the Novel biota and their impact on biodiversity key threatening process listed under the EPBC Act (TSSC 2013). Invasion of northern Australia by gamba grass and other introduced grasses is also a key threatening process listed under the EPBC Act (Cth DSEWPC 2012).Regional considerations: Weed infestations occur patchily across the distribution of the ghost bat. Lantana and rubber vine can form dense thickets across cave entrances, restricting access at Mt Etna (John Augusteyn, pers. comm. 24 March 2026). The Kimberley is the least impacted region (Ghost bat recovery team pers. comm. 18 March 2026).

Direct and indirect impact of cane toads #

The biological effects, including lethal toxic ingestion, caused by cane toads is a key threatening process listed under the EPBC Act (Cth DSEWPC 2011). There is some evidence that poisoning by cane toads (Rhinella marina) has impacted ghost bats; however, the extent and severity of the threat to the species is unclear. Ghost bats are known to consume cane toads, as demonstrated by the remains of toads in ghost bat droppings, and in Kakadu National Park, a deceased ghost bat was found with the decomposed remains of a small cane toad in its oesophagus (White et al. 2016). The ghost bat lacks immunity to bufotoxin secreted by the cane toad (Shine et al. 2016). However, cane toads are widespread across northern Australia, where ghost bat populations and colonies persist. For these reasons, the impact of ingestion of cane toads on ghost bats at the population level is also unclear.Secondarily, the arrival of cane toads has caused dramatic declines in large reptilian predators such as goannas and large elapid snakes (Doody et al. 2017; Ward-Fear et al. 2024). The loss of these apex predators can trigger mesopredator release, allowing mid-sized snakes—including pythons—to increase in abundance due to reduced predation and competition (Brown et al. 2013). These snakes may further compete with ghost bats for diminishing small vertebrate prey and, in some cases, may predate roosting or juvenile ghost bats. Collectively, these interacting pressures—introduced carnivores, and trophic restructuring following feral carnivore and cane toad invasion—may exacerbate other threats for the ghost bat.Regional considerations: Cane toads may be having impacts in the Eastern Qld region and possibly in the Top End and Kimberley regions; further investigation is required to clarify the extent of the impact. Infrequent monitoring has shown declines in ghost bat numbers in some areas of the Gulf-Inland Qld region and likely extinction in the Riversleigh/Boodjamulla National Park. The latter has been attributed to the arrival of the cane toad in the Gulf-Inland Qld region during the 1980s and 1990s (Ghost Bat Recovery Team pers. comm. 18 March 2026.) Canes toads are not present in the Pilbara region but are predicted to arrive between 2035 and 2055 (Dunlop et al. 2025).

Persecution #

Intentional (illegal) killing of ghost bats has occurred historically (McKean & Price 1967) and is likely to be an ongoing threat at a local scale. Intentional or inadvertent disturbance through noise, light, smoke and unwarranted visitation also occurs. Persecution can cause direct mortality, injury, roost abandonment and stress. The highest risk is at roosts.Regional considerations: Ghost bats are recorded as having been intentionally killed in the Eastern Qld region (e.g. McKean & Price 1967), and intentional disturbance is known from the Eastern Qld (Toop 1979) and Top End regions (Ghost Bat Recovery Team pers. comm. 18 March 2026).

Direct and indirect impacts of other introduced fauna #

Predation by the European red fox (Vulpes vulpes) is a key threatening process listed under the EPBC Act (Cth DEWHA 2008). Predation by the European red fox may be a threat to ghost bats in some locations as, in these locations, foxes have been detected at cave entrances (John Augusteyn pers. comm. 2025). Ghost bats and foxes co-occur at the Mt Etna, Cape Hillsborough and Hervey Range colonies, as well as in the Pilbara region. Foxes are expanding their range and there are now sightings north of Cairns (Qld) and in Broome (WA) (Atlas of Living Australia 2026).In northern Australia, large groups of pigs (Sus scrofa) take shelter inside caves during the heat of the day (Nicola Hanrahan pers. obs.). Pigs become active shortly after sunset, coinciding with the fly-out time for ghost bats. The noise, movement and smell of pigs in ghost bat roosts may affect use of these caves and the subsequent fitness of resident ghost bats. Pigs may also predate on ghost bat pups that are dislodged from the cave wall because of disturbance (L. Ruykys pers. comm. 10 February 2026).Regional considerations: Predation by foxes may be a threat where the range of the fox and the ghost bat overlaps. Feral pigs may impact ghost bats at roosts in northern parts of the ghost bat’s range, including the Kimberley, Top End, Gulf-Inland Queensland and Eastern Queensland regions (Ghost bat Recovery Team pers. comm. 18 March 2026).

4.2 Other potential threats #

Table 3: Summary of other potential threats to the ghost batThreat | Threat extent | Possible effect on ghost batsDiseaseRegionalHerpes virus-like sores and dermatitis have been observed in ghost bats in the Top End and Eastern Queensland regions (J. Augusteyn, N. Hanrahan pers comm. 18 March 2026). Dry dermatitis examined at Kings Plains (Eastern Qld) was found to be caused by an overgrowth of naturally occurring Malassezia yeast (J. Vink, pers comm. to N. Hanrahan 2026).White-nose syndrome is likely less of a concern with ghost bats than with more southern-ranging species but as a colonial, cave-dwelling species, impacts should still be monitored if white-nose syndrome is detected in Australia (N. Hanrahan pers. comm. 18 March 2026).Poisoning and bioaccumulation of contaminantsLocalisedThe ghost bat is at risk of mortality and reduced fitness from secondary exposure to anticoagulant rodenticides from ingestion/consumption of poisoned rodents (Sánchez-Barbudo et al. 2012; Hindmarch & Elliott 2017), as well as from eating contaminated insects and other arthropods, birds, and reptiles (Hughes et al. 2013; Lohr & Davis 2018; Dennis 2019). This risk is most relevant in and around crop fields, tree plantations, and urban and industrial areas. Furthermore, as a predator of insects, the ghost bat is at risk of poisoning and bioaccumulation of organochlorines and other insecticides (Clark 1981; Oliveira et al. 2021; Folador Sotero et al. 2022). This risk is relevant to foraging areas in and near horticultural and crop fields.The ghost bat may be at risk of exposure to contaminated dust at roosts that are near mining operations. Exposure to contaminated dust such as coal dust can increase the risk of emphysema in bats (dos Santos Pedros-Fidelis et al. 2020) and exposure to silica-rich iron ore is a likely cause of lung cancer in humans (Banerjee et al. 2006) so it may also impact bats. Exposure to heavy metals causes genetic abnormalities in bats (Folador Sotero et al. 2022), indicating potential risk to ghost bat populations in mining areas.Parasite load | Localised | Bat flies, ticks and mites are natural ectoparasites of ghost bats and may be present on healthy individuals. However, in compromised individuals, a high parasite load may reduce condition (N. Hanrahan pers. comm. 18 March 2026).Mortality or injury caused by grass seed embedment | Localised | In the Top End region, there have been accounts of injuries to the wing, skull and mouth of ghost bats due to grass seed embedment, leading to impairment or death of individuals. Ghost bats likely encounter grass species with sharp diaspores while foraging low, ambushing prey or exiting a roost that is obstructed by grass. Grasses with sharp, self-burying seeds include some species from the Sorghum and Heteropogon genera. Inappropriate fire regimes may increase the risk of this threat through facilitating dispersal of species such as annual sorghum (M. Archer to N. Hanrahan pers. comm. 18 March 2026).Low genetic diversity/inbreeding due to small/fragmented populations | Localised | On the central Qld coast, two small, isolated populations persist at Mt Etna and Cape Hillsborough, with no recent connectivity between the sites or to populations further north (Worthington Wilmer 1997, Worthington Wilmer et al. 1994, 1999). Mt Etna declined and then stabilised at very low numbers; Cape Hillsborough is also apparently small but stable (John Augusteyn pers. comm. 11 March 2026). Genetically isolated populations are at higher risk of inbreeding depression. Inbreeding reduces genetic diversity, which reduces adaptability to changing environments and anthropogenic impacts. Inbreeding depression increases species’ vulnerability to disease while also allowing potentially detrimental traits to surface in the population (Keller 2002). Inbreeding depression can also cause reduced fecundity and further genetic health issues (for example, chromosomal abnormalities) (Keller 2002).

5. Recovery objectives and actions #

5.1 Vision #

This national recovery plan guides conservation and recovery of the ghost bat at a national scale. It builds on work of numerous government agencies, researchers and non-government, community and First Nations organisations. The vision for this recovery plan is to:determine the species' current national population size and distribution, andincrease or maintain the population size within each region to a level that is resilient and supports the species’ long-term persistence across its range.

5.2 Objectives #

Objective 1: Population sizes are known, and trends are monitored and tracked effectivelyObjective 2: The extent, quality, and connectivity of roosting and foraging habitat are maintained or increasedObjective 3: Key threats are managed effectivelyObjective 4: Recovery actions are implemented with the participation of stakeholdersObjective 5: Key knowledge gaps are addressed, and information is used to improve decision-making, conservation and recovery

5.3 Recovery actions #

Actions to guide the protection and recovery of ghost bats are detailed in Table 4–9 below. Each recovery action is prioritised (1, 2 or 3) depending on the degree of urgency.Priority 1: Is considered an urgent action. Prompt action is needed to ensure effective coordination, to avoid or mitigate the most significant threats, or to provide crucial information for planning and management.Priority 2: Is considered an essential action over the course of the plan. Action is necessary to avoid or mitigate threats, implement planning and management, undertake research, and develop tools towards long-term recovery.Priority 3: Is considered highly beneficial. Action is desirable, and while not critical, will provide for longer-term survival and recovery.

Objective 1: Population sizes are known, and trends are monitored and tracked effectively #

Performance criteria:This objective will be considered successfully achieved if, by 2041: Management units are defined and continue to be refined because of new information A national monitoring program is designed and implemented with representative sites across regionsTable 4: Recovery actions to complete Objective 1Action | Description | Target region(s) for recovery action | Timeframe | Priority | Potential recovery partners1.1Determine whether occurrences of the species within and between regions constitute different ‘management units’Key considerations:Management units are ghost bat populations that are functionally connected through shared ecological conditions, similar threats and management, and demonstrable biological linkages (such as gene flow, dispersal patterns, or population structure), allowing conservation actions to be planned and applied at an appropriate scaleAnalyse genetic diversity, biogeography, habitat associations, threats, and conservation needs and management at different sitesEnsure that results are used to adaptively manage the speciesContinue to refine the definition of management units using results obtained from Actions 5.1-5.5 (Table 8)All (depending on feasibility)2027–20291State/ territory governmentsPlanners and managersGhost bat experts and researchers1.2Design, develop, implement and refine an informative national monitoring program for the ghost bat. Include:Known and likely natural roost sitesKnown and likely mine roost sitesKnown and likely foraging areasKey considerations:A structured monitoring design at site, region, state and national levels to ensure consistency across temporal and spatial scalesAfter defining management units, identify a representative subset of roost sites that consider feasibility, highest priorities and representative populations across all regions. These sites may be in caves, mines or other structures. Sites monitored should include both those that are considered to have stable populations and those that are under particular pressure and likely to have changes in population trajectories with management intervention/sMaximise previous efforts by identifying and including areas where monitoring has historically or currently occurredMaximise consistency of gathered information, techniques, metrics used, survey frequency and reporting approachesFor each site, ensure the survey methodology is comparable year-to-year and across sitesLiaise with Recovery Team when developing a method for monitoring to ensure the approach is appropriate for that region and across regionsIf already monitoring a site, liaise with Ghost Bat Recovery Team for inclusion of the site in the program and to ensure timing and methods are comparableImplement a baseline survey at representative roosts to estimate a baseline population size for each region. Continue over time to establish trends and trajectoriesAll (depending on feasibility)2027 (and ongoing)1Commonwealth/ state/ territory governmentsLandholders/ managersPlanners, managers and regulatorsFirst Nations groupsConservation organisationsNRM groupsGhost bat experts and researchersGhost Bat Recovery Team (co-ordination)Mining and renewable energy companies1.3Compile information from the national monitoring program every five years to assess national and regional trendsKey consideration:Analyse population trajectories, accounting for variation in survey techniques due to local constraints and opportunitiesAll (depending on feasibility)2032 (and ongoing)1Ghost Bat Recovery TeamGhost bat experts and researchersCommonwealth/ state/ territory governmentsMining and renewable energy companiesFirst Nations groups1.4Establish and maintain a centralised database pertaining to ghost batsKey considerations:Develop data-sharing agreements across tenures and data custodians, including respecting the rights, conditions and protocols set by the relevant custodiansDefine data storage requirements and establish a nationally coordinated database that is regularly maintained, quality-assured and updatedIntegrate existing state/territory and regional datasets to create a comprehensive national repositoryEnsure sensitive roost location data are protectedEnsure research priorities are targeted at key knowledge gaps and outcomes that inform and improve management actionsFacilitate secure and timely data sharing with stakeholders to inform conservation planning, monitoring, and adaptive managementAll (site selection depending on feasibility)2027–2028 for establishment and then ongoing2Ghost bat Recovery Team (initial co-ordination)Commonwealth/ state/ territory governmentsLandholders/ custodiansFirst Nations groupsConservation organisationsNRM groupsGhost bat experts and researchersMining and renewable energy companies1.5Complete an extinction probability assessment for the Central Desert populationKey considerations:Undertake appropriate management if the species is re-discovered in this region in the futureCentral Arid2028–20293Ghost bat experts and researchers

Objective 2: The extent, quality, and connectivity of roosting and foraging habitat are maintained or increased #

Performance criteria:This objective will be considered successfully achieved if, by 2041: The availability of known natural roost sites has not declined (since 2026) The availability of known mine roosts used as mating, maternity, permanent and regular roosts has not declined, subject to the feasibility of stabilising unstable sites (since 2026) The landscape is well connected, and there is no further isolation of populations due to the removal of roosting or foraging habitat, allowing adaptation to changing ecological circumstances, including the wider impact of climate changeTable 5: Recovery actions to complete Objective 2Action | Description | Target region(s) for recovery action | Timeframe | Priority | Potential recovery partners2.1Avoid the loss or disturbance of known or likely natural roost sitesKey considerations:Integrate land-use planning that prioritises protection of critical habitat attributes across both public and private landsConsider cumulative loss and degradation of habitat (including historical loss) across regions when making planning and assessment decisionsAvoid activities that may have direct or indirect impacts on natural roosts. Where avoidance is not feasible, minimise direct and indirect impacts from activities by modifying or reducing their intensity, and/or consult with experts regarding on-ground activities before undertaking themTo protect the integrity of the roost and mitigate threats, apply appropriate buffer zones around each natural roostAvoid and/or mitigate any disturbance within at least 25 km of known or likely natural roost sitesUndertake surveys and use available information to refine understanding of the spatial extent of appropriate buffer zonesInstall appropriate signage at impacted roost sites informing of the presence of the species, the importance of conservation and any access restrictionsAll2026 (and ongoing)1State/ territory/ local governmentsLandholders/ custodiansFirst Nations groupsPlanners, managers and regulatorsMining and renewable energy companies2.2Avoid the loss or disturbance of known and likely mine roost sitesKey considerations:Consider the requirements of the species in all instances of potential closure of minesEnsure all principles in Action 2.1 (above) are considered in this recovery actionPrevent loss of known and likely ghost bat roosts in historical mine workings due to deterioration or deliberate closureStabilise historical mine workings without causing disturbance to the ghost bat where feasible and safe to do soInvestigate options to stabilise entrances to mine roost sites, where feasibleInvestigate options to restrict human access to mine roost sites without restricting access by ghost batsInvestigate options to preserve and maintain part(s) of the mine in which the ghost bat roosts in circumstances where preserving the entire mine is not feasibleInstall appropriate signage at impacted roost sites informing of the presence of the species, the importance of conservation and any access restrictionsPilbara, Top End, Gulf-Inland Qld, Eastern Qld2026 (and ongoing)1State/ territory governmentsCommonwealth (where relevant)Landholders/ custodiansPlanners, managers and regulatorsFirst Nations groupsMining and renewable energy companies2.3Avoid further loss of known and likely foraging habitatKey considerations:Undertaking appropriate survey to identify and map foraging habitatUse outputs from habitat mapping to identify habitat that supports foragingEnsure avoidance and threat mitigation principles in Action 2.1 (above) are considered in this recovery actionConsider the interconnectedness of roosts and foraging areas, and manage disturbance from proposed activities occurring around and amongst roosts and amongst foraging areas, where the species is most vulnerableAvoid clearing native vegetationIntegrate land-use planning that prioritises protection of critical habitat attributes across both public and private landsConsider installation of fencing without barbed wire to exclude stock and feral herbivores in areas prioritised for protection or restorationIdentify options for incorporating areas with attributes of habitat critical to the survival of ghost bats into the National Reserve SystemAll2026 (and ongoing)1State/ territory governmentsLandholders/ custodiansFirst Nations groupsPlanners, managers and regulatorsNRM groupsConservation organisationsMining and renewable energy companies2.4Consider the need for genetic rescue of any populations identified as genetically isolatedKey considerations:Evaluate genetic management optionsAssess the viability and benefit of establishing captive populations for safeguarding the species’ genetics - e.g. unique alleles due to extreme genetic isolation of the colonyIdentify genetically fit source populations for supplementation (genetic rescue)Any2026 (and ongoing)1State/ territory governmentsGhost bat experts and researchersGhost bat recovery team (co-ordination)2.5Restore, enhance and increase foraging habitat through targeted revegetation and regeneration programsKey considerations:Prioritise revegetation in fragmented landscapes to link remnant patches, buffer reserves, and improve landscape-scale connectivity within at least 25 km of known or likely natural roost sitesIn areas identified as priorities for regeneration, plant and manage a mix of locally appropriate native species that have structural characteristics that support ghost bat prey and contain tree and shrub species suitable for perchingIncorporate ongoing weed management in all restoration activitiesSupport landholder participation through incentive programs and community engagementAll2026 (and ongoing)2State/ territory governmentsLandholders/ custodiansPlanners and managersLocal councilsFirst Nations groupsNRM groupsConservation organisationsMining and renewable energy companies

Objective 3: Key threats are managed effectively #

Performance criteria:This objective will be considered successfully achieved if, by 2041: No local extinctions of ghost bat populations have occurred Ghost bat population is stable or increasing, based on data collected at all monitored sites The extent of occurrence of the ghost bat has not declined since 2026Table 6: Recovery actions to complete Objective 3Action | Description | Target region(s) for recovery action | Timeframe | Priority | Potential recovery partners3.1Develop and implement programs to reduce or eliminate mortality due to entanglement in barbed wire fencesKey considerations:Remove barbed wire that currently exists in the immediate vicinity of any potential roosts, including occasional and opportunistic roosts. Prioritise removal of barbed wire from areas with critical habitat attributes and known foraging habitatConsider the removal or replacement of barbed wire fencing where feasibleWhere barbed wire cannot be removed, consider the use of reflective tape or tags to increase visibility to ghost batsPromote the modification of existing fences and use of new fencing design principles that will minimise impacts on the ghost batDevelop incentive programs to encourage the removal of barbed wire fencing and replacement with wildlife-friendly alternative fencing optionsAll(Prioritised sites depending on feasibility)2026 (and ongoing)1State/territory/local governmentsLandholders/custodiansConservation organisationsNRM groupsTourism operatorsRecreational users and visitors to cavesLocal communitiesFirst Nations groups3.2Control feral cats where cats are known to occur at roost entrancesKey considerations:Monitor roosts in areas of likely high impact from feral catsWhere applicable, undertake feral cat control aligned with the ‘Threat abatement plan for predation by feral cats’ (Cth DCCEEW 2024). This includes using regularly replaced bait, trapping, hunting, shooting, grooming traps or other relevant techniques more suitable to local conditionsUse strategies to hinder hunting by cats at sensitive roostsAll2027 (and ongoing)1State/territory governmentsLandholders/managersGhost bat experts and researchersLocal councilsFirst Nations groupsNRM groupsMining and renewable energy companies3.3Control feral pigs where feasibleKey considerations:Encourage landholders and managers with known important roosts on their properties to consider feral pig control optionsEnsure control is informed by relevant approved threat abatement plans, such as the ‘Threat abatement plan for predation, habitat degradation, competition and disease transmission by feral pigs (Sus scrofa)’ (Cth DEE 2017)Top End, Kimberley, Gulf-Inland Qld (northern parts) and Eastern Queensland (northern parts)2027 (and ongoing)2State/territory governmentsLandholders/custodiansGhost bat experts and researchersLocal councilsFirst Nations groupsNRM groups3.4Manage fire regimes to support the ghost batKey considerations:Inform fire management authorities of the location of critical habitat attributes and incorporate conservation priorities for the ghost bat into their fire management plansEnsure that fire management programs across the range of the species are designed to support the survival and recovery of ghost bat populations by maintaining the availability of sufficient perching vegetation and prey habitat in foraging areasMinimise fragmentation and disturbance where fire management activities are conducted in areas with critical habitat attributesProtect critical habitat attributes from high severity wildfires that cause extensive habitat loss and protect recently burnt, regenerating habitat from repeated wildfiresAll2026 (and ongoing)3State/territory governmentsFire management authoritiesLandholders/custodiansPlanners, managers and regulatorsFirst Nations groupsMining and renewable energy companies3.5Manage weedsKey considerations:Prevent weeds (or weedy native species) from impeding access to roostsMaintain vegetation heterogeneity and structure in foraging habitat by preventing the spread of weedsEnsure control of weeds is informed by relevant approved threat abatement plans, such as the ‘Threat abatement plan to reduce the impacts on northern Australia's biodiversity by the five listed grasses (Cth DSEWPC 2012)All(Prioritised sites dependent on feasibility)2026 (and ongoing)3State/territory governmentsLandholders/custodiansConservation organisationsNRM groupsFirst Nations groupsLocal communitiesMining and renewable energy companies3.6Control where feasible and prevent the spread of cane toads, in the vicinity of known/important roost sites and high use foraging habitatKey considerations:Encourage cane toad control programs, particularly as methods for control of cane toads improveSupport efforts that are attempting to prevent cane toads from reaching the Pilbara regionEnsure control is informed by relevant approved threat abatement plans, such as the ‘Threat abatement plan for the biological effects, including lethal toxic ingestion, caused by cane toads’ (Cth DSEWPC 2011)All (where relevant)2027 (and ongoing)3State/territory governmentsLandholders/custodiansGhost bat experts and researchersLocal councilsFirst Nations groupsNRM groups

Objective 4: Recovery actions are implemented with the participation of stakeholders #

Performance criteriaThis objective will be considered successfully achieved if, by 2041: Relevant data and information are regularly shared between the managers of populations Regional and local organisations are empowered to undertake conservation programs Ongoing conservation priorities are informed and supported by partnerships Traditional owners are supported and playing an active role in survey, monitoring and on ground protection and managementTable 7: Recovery actions to complete Objective 4Action | Description | Target region(s) for recovery action | Timeframe | Priority | Potential recovery partners4.1Maintain a national Ghost Bat Recovery TeamKey consideration:Support the Ghost Bat Recovery Team to involve key recovery partnersEstablish a subgroup of the recovery team or advisory group for each region, as relevantAllOngoing1Commonwealth/state/ territory governmentsGhost bat experts and researchersLandholders/custodiansFirst Nations groupsConservation organisationsNRM groups4.2Engage relevant stakeholders in the conservation of the ghost batKey considerations:Develop educational campaigns to raise awareness of the species, relevant threats and appropriate managementEncourage landholders to consider voluntary conservation agreements to protect ghost bat habitatInvolve citizen scientists and volunteers in surveys and landholders in managementAll (final site selection depending on feasibility)2026 (and ongoing)2State/territory governmentsGhost bat Recovery TeamLandholders/custodiansConservation organisationsNRM groupsLocal councilsFirst Nations groupsTourism operatorsRecreational users and visitors to caves where roosting occursLocal communitiesMining and renewable energy companies4.3Involve relevant First Nations groups in implementing recovery actionsKey considerations:Support First Nations leadership to participate in co-design and/or lead recovery actions for the ghost batSupport ranger programs to implement recovery actionsEnsure that all research is undertaken under established cultural heritage safeguards, including appropriate engagement with Traditional Owners consistent with ethics guidelines such as the AIATSIS Code of Ethics for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Research (AIATSIS 2020).Promote participatory research to better understand the cultural significance of ghost batsAllOngoing2First Nations groupsGhost bat Recovery TeamState/ territory governmentsNRM groupsConservation organisationsGhost bat experts and researchers

Objective 5: Key knowledge gaps are addressed, and information is used to improve decision-making, conservation action and recovery #

Performance criteria:This objective will be considered successfully achieved if, by 2041: Key knowledge gaps relating to the species’ distribution, biology, ecology and threats are addressed Lessons from conservation work are used to inform adaptive management programsTable 8: Mapping, surveys and monitoring actions to complete Objective 5Action | Description | Target region(s) for recovery action | Timeframe | Priority | Potential recovery partners5.1Investigate the characteristics of foraging habitat across the species’ rangeKey considerations:Investigate how the availability and quality of foraging habitat affect the carrying capacity of roostsInvestigate how prey fluctuate over time and space and in response to disturbanceInvestigate how disturbance influences the suitability of foraging habitatAll (especially Kimberley and Gulf-Inland Qld where no targeted studies have been undertaken)When possible1Ghost bat experts and researchersEcological consultantsLandholders/ custodiansConservation organisationsNRM groupsFirst Nations groups5.2Assess movement patterns, including connectivity within and amongst regionsKey considerations:Undertake studies across the ghost bat’s range and at different times of the yearAssess connectivity between islands and the mainlandConduct genetic analyses to determine connectivity. Sample intermediate roost sites between the: (1) Top End and Kimberley regions, and (2) Camooweal, Pungalina-Seven Emu (Gulf-Inland Qld), Groote Eylandt and the Edward Pellew Island group 3) from Larrimah up to Katherine in the Top End, including Gregory National Park. Collect genetic samples from Groote Eylandt and other unsurveyed areas to assess connectivity with the mainlandPilbara, Top End, Kimberley, Gulf-Inland QldWhen possible1Ghost bat experts and researchersEcological consultants5.3Develop a universal roost classification system that is peer reviewed, published and considered applicable across the species’ rangeKey considerations:What the roosts are used for i.e. mating maternity, rest, or feedingPhysical characteristics and locations (e.g. microclimate; whether natural or in mines)The number(s) of ghost bats within each congregationThe length of time roosts are occupied (continuous, periodical or occasional) and how often roosts are revisitedAllWhen possible1Ghost bat experts and researchers5.4Survey and map areas of potential ghost bat occurrenceKey considerations:Prioritise unsurveyed or poorly surveyed areas where the ghost bat is likely to occur, areas at risk of an imminent threat, and areas that may connect or expand the known distributionEstimate distribution and abundance for each region using appropriate survey methodsDetermine of roost use (e.g. whether mating, maternity, feeding, dispersal, including frequency/duration)Use locally appropriate detection survey techniques (e.g. acoustics, thermal/night vision, targeted roost searches)AllWhen possible2State/territory governmentsLandholders/custodiansFirst Nations groupsGhost bat experts and researchersConservation organisationsNRM groupsMining and renewable energy companies5.5Develop more accurate methods to determine presence, monitor population trajectories and determine roost useKey consideration:Prioritise cost-effective and non-invasive methodsAll (site selection depending on feasibility)When possible2Ghost bat experts and researchers5.6Identify barriers to dispersal to inform management within each region (and between regions, where appropriate and feasible)Key considerations:Use information from Actions 5.1-5.4 aboveTo facilitate movement, investigate options for habitat protection and/or restoration between roost sites in central Queensland (Eastern Qld region)AllWhen possible2State/territory governmentsLandholders/custodiansPlanners and managersGhost bat experts and researchersFirst Nations groupsMining and renewable energy companies5.7Develop, distribute and regularly update survey guidelines for the ghost batKey considerations:Account for variation in contexts across the ghost bat’s rangeInclude best practice methods for: Detecting the ghost bat at 1) roosts 2) foraging areas Monitoring presence/absence and regularity in use Estimating abundance/density and monitoring population trajectories Determining roost use e.g. mating, maternity and dispersalAll relevant regionsWhen possible2Commonwealth/state/ territory governmentsGhost bat experts and researchersGhost Bat Recovery Team5.8Assess, analyse and characterise microclimates of permanent and regular roosts and how changes in conditions (climate, hydrology) affect these parametersKey consideration:Incorporate seasonal variation across the ghost bat’s rangeAll (depending on feasibility)When possible2Ghost bat experts and researchersTable 9: Threat research actions to complete Objective 5Action | Description | Target region(s) for recovery action | Timeframe | Priority | Potential recovery partners5.9Investigate the impact(s) of feral cats on the ghost batKey considerations:Undertake assessments of the threats posed by feral cats at feasible sitesPrioritise sites and identify representative populations for the purpose of assessing impacts of introduced speciesInvestigate the efficacy of control and mitigation optionsInvestigate the conditions that are conducive to cat predation on ghost batsAll (depending on feasibility)When possible2State/ territory governmentsLandholders/ custodiansGhost bat expertsConservation organisationsNRM groupsFirst Nations groups5.10Investigate the susceptibility of the ghost bat to rodenticides and bioaccumulation of other toxinsKey considerations:Consider both physical (e.g. physiology, metabolism and routes of exposure) and ecological (e.g. diet, trophic position, foraging behaviour and habitat use) susceptibilityIdentify potential exposure pathways, including secondary poisoning via prey species and the accumulation of toxins within food websPrioritise study sites that are representative of different ghost bat populations, land-use contexts and potential exposure risks across the species’ rangePrioritised sites depending on feasibilityWhen possible2Ghost bat experts and researchersMining and renewable energy companies5.11Assess the susceptibility of the ghost bat to impacts from light, noise, vibration and dust at roostsKey considerations:Prioritise sites and representative population(s)Consider sources including mining, construction, wind farms, agriculture and aircraftAll (depending on feasibility)When possible2Ghost bat experts and researchersLandholders/ custodiansMining and renewable energy companiesFirst Nations groups5.12Assess the impact of fire, cattle grazing, and weeds on ghost bat on ghost bat foraging habitatKey consideration:Incorporate variation across the ghost bat’s range and at different times of the yearConsider localised impacts around roost sitesConsider impacts on resource availability within foraging habitat adjacent to or in the vicinity of roost sitesPrioritised sites depending on feasibility2027–20322Ghost bat experts and researchersLandholders/custodiansNRM groupsFirst Nations groups5.13Continue to investigate the design, use and efficacy of artificial roosts in supporting conservationKey considerations:Physical characteristics of artificial roosts vs those of natural roost sites and mine roost sitesHow microclimate conditions may change over timeDefine efficacy of artificial roosts, including breeding success and survivorship compared with natural roostsPrioritised sites depending on feasibility2027–20302Ghost bat experts and researchersLandholders/custodiansFirst Nations groupsMining and renewable energy companies5.14Share and publish researchKey considerations:Work collaboratively to research and manage ghost bats to optimise efforts and funding, prevent overlap, and promote knowledge sharingAll2026 (and ongoing)2State/territory governmentsGhost bat experts and researchersEcological consultantsConservation organisationsNRM groupsFirst Nations groups5.15Investigate the extent to which human visitation is impacting at certain sitesKey considerations:Select sites depending on tourism (e.g. known tourist and other publicly accessible sites)Visitor numbers and frequency of visits, e.g. at Dimalurru/Tunnel Creek (Kimberley region)Prioritised sites depending on tourism and visitor informationWhen possible3State/territory governmentsLandholders/ custodiansNRM bodiesFirst Nations groupsTourism operatorsRecreational visitors to caves where roosting occursLocal communities5.16Investigate the impact(s) of, and options for, control of other introduced animals on the ghost batKey consideration:Prioritise monitoring sites and representative populationsResearch the impacts of foxes, pigs, and cane toadsUndertake a before-after controlled-impact (BACI) study to determine the impact of cane toads on populations/roost sites where toads have not yet invadedMonitor potential impacts of cane toads on ghost bats, particularly under conditions of prey limitation or ecosystem stressAllPrioritised sites depending on feasibilityWhen possible3State/ territory governmentsLandholders/ custodiansGhost bat expertsConservation organisationsNRM groupsFirst Nations groupsMining and renewable energy companies

References #

ABARES (Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences) (2016) Land Use in Australia – At a Glance. Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics Statistics. Australian Government Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry.ABARES (Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences) (2025) Snapshot of Australian Agriculture 2025. Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics Statistics. Australian Government Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry.AIATSIS (Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies) (2020) AIATSIS Code of Ethics for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Research. Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies, Canberra.Armstrong KN & Anstee SD (2000) The ghost bat in the Pilbara: 100 years on. Australian Mammalogy 22, 93–101.Armstrong KN, Aplin K and Motokawa M (2020) A new species of extinct false vampire bat (Megadermatidae: Macroderma) from the Kimberley Region of Western Australia. Records of the Australian Museum 72(5), 161–174.Armstrong KN, Woinarski JCZ, Hanrahan NM & Burbidge AA (2021) Macroderma gigas (Ghost Bat) (amended version of 2019 assessment). The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2021. Accessed 16 November 2025.Armstrong KN, Augusteyn J, Hall LS & Hand SJ (2023). Ghost Bat Macroderma gigas. Pages 554–556 in AM Baker & IC Gynther (eds) The Mammals of Australia. Fourth Edition. Reed New Holland.Arteaga Claramunt AM, White NE, Bunce M, O’Connell M, Bullen RD & Mawson PR (2019) Determination of the diet of the ghost bat (Macroderma gigas) in the Pilbara region of Western Australia from dried prey remains and DNA metabarcoding. Australian Journal of Zoology 66, 195–200.Atlas of Living Australia (2026) Vulpes vulpes Linnaeus, 1758. Atlas of Living Australia. Accessed 1 April 2026.Augusteyn J, Hughes J, Armstrong G, Real K & Pacioni C (2018) Tracking and tracing central Queensland’s Macroderma – determining the size of the Mount Etna ghost bat population and potential threats. Australian Mammalogy 40, 243–253.Augusteyn J, Goetze K & Coles R (2023) A large, newly discovered ghost bat colony in Queensland. Australian Journal of Zoology 71, ZO22045.Banerjee KK, Wang H & Pisaniello D (2006) Iron-ore dust and its health impacts. Environmental Health 6, 11–16.Bat Call WA (2021) A Review of Ghost Bat Ecology, Threats and Survey Requirements. Report prepared for the Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment, Canberra. CC BY-NC-ND 4.0.Baudinette RV, Churchill SK, Christian KA, Nelson JE & Hudson PJ (2000) Energy, water balance and the roost microenvironment in three Australian cave-dwelling bats (Microchiroptera). Journal of Comparative Physiology B 170, 439–446.Biologic (2019) Warrawoona Gold Project: 2019 VHF Bat Foraging Studies. Report by Biologic Environmental Survey for Calidus Resources.Biologic (2020) Western Range Ghost Bat Scat Analysis Report. Report by Biologic Environmental Survey for Rio Tinto.Boles WE (1999) Avian prey of the Australian Ghost Bat Macroderma gigas (Microchiroptera: Megadermatidae): prey characteristics and damage from predation. Australian Zoologist 31, 82–91.Bradley HS, Bullen RD, Cross SL, Knuckey CG, O’Connell M, Ottewell K, Reiffer S, Wild S & van Leeuwen S (2023) A critical review of survey techniques and perceived threats for the threatened Pilbara ghost bat (Macroderma gigas). Journal of the Royal Society of Western Australia 106, 61–74.Brown, G. P., Ujvari, B., Madsen, T., & Shine, R. (2013). Invader impact clarifies the roles of top-down and bottom-up effects on tropical snake populations. Functional Ecology 27, 351–361. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2435.12044.Bullen RD, Reiffer S & Trainer J (2023) Satellite tracking ghost bats (Macroderma gigas) in the Pilbara, Western Australia. Records of the Western Australian Museum 38, 1–10.Burbidge AA, Johnson KA, Fuller PJ & Southgate RI (1988) Aboriginal knowledge of the mammals of the central deserts of Australia. Australian Wildlife Research 15, 9–39.Churchill S (2008) Australian Bats. Second edition. Allen & Unwin, Sydney.Churchill SK & Helman PM (1990) Distribution of the ghost bat, Macroderma gigas, (Chiroptera: Megadermatidae) in central and south Australia. Australian Mammalogy 13, 149–156.Clark DR (1981) Bats and Environmental Contaminants: A Review. Special Scientific Report – Wildlife No. 235. United States Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service.Cramer VA, Armstrong KN, Bullen RD et al. (2022). Research priorities for the ghost bat (Macroderma gigas) in the Pilbara region of Western Australia. Australian Mammalogy 45, 1–12.CSIRO & BOM (Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation and Bureau of Meteorology) (2024) State of the Climate 2024. Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation and the Bureau of Meteorology.Cth DAWE (Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment) (2022) Fire regimes that cause declines in biodiversity as a key threatening process. Australian Government, Canberra.Cth DCCEEW (Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water) (2024) Threat abatement plan for predation by feral cats. Australian Government, Canberra.Cth DCCEEW (Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water) (2025) Interim Biogeographic Regionalisation for Australia (IBRA) Version 7.1 (Subregions). Australian Government, Canberra.Cth DEE (Department of the Environment and Energy) (2017) Threat abatement plan for predation, habitat degradation, competition and disease transmission by feral pigs (Sus scrofa). Australian Government, Canberra.Cth DEWHA (Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts) (2008) Threat abatement plan for predation by the European red fox. Australian Government, Canberra.Cth DSEWPC (Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities) (2011) Threat abatement plan for the biological effects, including lethal toxic ingestion, caused by cane toads. Australian Government, Canberra.Cth DSEWPC (Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities) (2012) Threat abatement plan to reduce the impacts on northern Australia’s biodiversity by the five listed grasses. Australian Government, Canberra.Dennis GC (2019) Minimising non-target impacts of anticoagulant rodenticide use for a highly susceptible species, the New Zealand lesser short-tailed bat (Mystacina tuberculata). PhD Thesis, Massey University.Dobson GE (1880) On some new or rare species of Chiroptera in the collection of the Göttingen Museum. Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London for the Year 1880, 461–465.Doody, J. S., Rhind, D., Green, B., Castellano, C. M., McHenry, C., & Clulow, S. (2017). Chronic effects of an invasive species on an animal community. Ecology 98(8), 2093–2101. https://doi.org/10.1002/ecy.1889.dos Santos Pedros-Fidelis G, Resende Farias H, Antunes Mastella G, et al. (2020) Pulmonary oxidative stress in wild bats exposed to coal dust: A model to evaluate the impact of coal mining on health. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety 191, 110211.Douglas, AM (1962) Macroderma gigas saturata (Chiroptera, Megadermatidae) a new subspecies from the Kimberley division of Western Australia. The Western Australian Naturalist 8(3), 59–61.Douglas AM (1967) The natural history of the ghost bat, Macroderma gigas (Microchiroptera Megadermatidae), in Western Australia. The Western Australian Naturalist 10, 125–138.Duncan A, Baker GB & Montgomery N (1999) The Action Plan for Australian Bats. Environment Australia, Canberra.Dunlop J, von Takach B, Dempster T, Jolly CJ, Letnic M, Lohr C, Shine R, Ward-Fear G, Webb JK, Woinarski JCZ & Phillips BL (2025) Quantifying the potential impact of the cane toad (Rhinella marina) on biodiversity in Australia’s Pilbara region. Scientific Reports 15, 37566. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-24017-4.Einoder LD, Fisher A, Hill BM, Buckley K, de Laive AH, Woinarski JCZ & Gillespie GR (2023) Long term monitoring reveals the importance of large, long unburnt areas and smaller fires in moderating mammal declines in fire-prone Savanna of northern Australia. Journal of Applied Ecology 60, 2251–2266.Finlayson HH (1958) ‘Recurrence’ of Macroderma gigas Dobson. Nature 181, 923.Folador Sotero D, Benvindo-Souza M, de Freitas RP & de Melo e Silva D (2022) Bats and pollution: genetic approaches in ecotoxicology. Chemosphere 307, 135934.Grimes KG, Osborne A & Webb J (2003) Caves in the Australian landscape. Chapter 1 (Pages 1–52) in B Finlayson & E Hamilton-Smith (eds) Beneath the Surface: A Natural History of Australian Caves. University of New South Wales Press.Guppy A, Coles RB & Pettigrew JD (1985) Echolocation and acoustic communication in the Australian ghost bat, Macroderma gigas (Microchiroptera: Megadermatidae). Australian Mammalogy 8, 299–308.Guppy A & Coles RB (1988) Acoustic and neural aspects of hearing in the Australian gleaning bats, Macroderma gigas and Nyctophilus gouldi. Journal of Comparative Physiology A 162, 653–668.Hall L, Richards G, McKenzie N & Dunlop N (1997) The importance of abandoned mines as habitat for bats. Chapter 62 (Pages 326–333) in P Hale & D Lamb (eds) Conservation Outside Nature Reserves. Conference Proceedings from the Centre for Conservation Biology, The University of Queensland.Hand SJ (1996) New Miocene and Pliocene megadermatids (Mammalia, Microchiroptera) from Australia, with comments on broader aspects of megadermatid evolution. Geobios 29, 365–377.Hanrahan N (2020) The Acoustic Ecology of the Ghost Bat (Macroderma gigas): Form, Function and Applied Uses of Vocalisations. PhD Thesis, Western Sydney University.Hanrahan N, Turbill C, Armstrong KN, Dalziell AH & Welbergen JA (2021) Ghost bats exhibit informative daily and seasonal temporal patterns in the production of social vocalisations. Australian Journal of Zoology 67, 305–315.Hanrahan N, Dalziell AH, Turbill C, Armstrong KN & Welbergen JA (2022) Ethogram of ghost bat (Macroderma gigas) behaviours and associated social vocalisations. Acta Chiropterologica 24, 195–208.Hanrahan N, KN Armstrong, C Turbill, AH Dalziell and JA Welbergen (2026) Dialect Formation in Ghost Bats: Genetic, Geographic and Morphological Drivers of Social and Echolocation Call Divergence. Ecology and Evolution 16(1), e72797. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.72797.Hindmarch S & Elliott JE (2017) Ecological factors driving uptake of anticoagulant rodenticides in predators. Chapter 9 in NW van den Brink, JE Elliot, RE Shore & BA Rattner (eds) Anticoagulant Rodenticides and Wildlife. Emerging Topics in Ecotoxicology series. Springer Nature.Hoyle SD, Pople AR & Toop GJ (2001). Mark-recapture may reveal more about ecology than about population trends: Demography of a threatened ghost bat (Macroderma gigas) population. Austral Ecology 26, 80–92.Hudson WS & Wilson DE (1986) Macroderma gigas. Mammalian Species 260, 1–4.Hughes J, Sharp E, Taylor MJ, Melton L & Hartley G (2013) Monitoring agricultural rodenticide use and secondary exposure of raptors in Scotland. Ecotoxicology 22, 974–984.IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature) (2024) Extinction assessment tools. International Union for Conservation of Nature. Accessed 1 April 2026.Jackson S & Groves C (2015) Taxonomy of Australian Mammals. CSIRO Publishing.Johnston M, Herrod A, Little N, Bould L & Gigliotti F (2015) An opportunistic observation of ghost bat (Macroderma gigas) predation on six bird species within Karijini National Park. Journal of the Royal Society of Western Australia 98, 89–91.Kavanagh C (1999) Mitchell-Palmer Karst Expeditions. Central Queensland Speleological Society. Pages 98-102 in the Proceedings of the 22^nd Conference of the Australian Speleological Federation, Yeppoon.Keeley T, O’Connell M, Kelman L, Laming B & Knuckey C (2023) Validation of non-invasive hormone analysis techniques to assist in the future identification of maternal roosts of ghost bats (Macroderma gigas). Theriogenology Wild 3, 100060.Keller L (2002) Inbreeding effects in wild populations. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 17, 230–241.Kingston M (2005) Riparian and Upslope Influences on the Regional Avifauna of the Semi-arid Mulga Lands of South West Queensland. PhD Thesis. Griffith University.Kulzer E, Nelson JE, McKean JL & Moehres FP (1984) Prey-catching behaviour and echolocation in the Australian ghost bat, Macroderma gigas (Microchiroptera: Megadermatidae). Australian Mammalogy 7, 37–50.Laurance WF, Goosem M & Laurance SGW (2009) Impacts of roads and linear clearings on tropical forests. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 24(12), 659–669.Laurikainen Gaete, C., Dosseto, A., Arnold, L., Demuro, M., Lewis, R. and Hocknull, S., 2025. Megafauna mobility: Assessing the foraging range of an extinct macropodid from central eastern Queensland, Australia. PLOS One 20(4), p.e0319712.Lohr MT & Davis RA (2018) Anticoagulant rodenticide use, non-target impacts and regulation: a case study from Australia. Science of the Total Environment 634, 1372–1384.McKenzie NL & Bullen RD (2009) The echolocation calls, habitat relationships, foraging niches and communities of Pilbara microbats. Records of the Western Australian Museum Supplement 78, 123–155.McKenzie NL & Bullen RD (2012) An acoustic survey of zoophagic bats on islands in the Kimberley, Western Australia, including data on the echolocation ecology, organisation and habitat relationships of regional communities. Records of the Western Australian Museum Supplement 81, 67–108.McKenzie NL, Bullen RD & Gibson LA (2019) Habitat associations of zoophagic bat ensembles in north-western Australia. Australian Journal of Zoology 67, 243–259.McKean JL & WJ Price (1967) Notes on some chiroptera from Queensland, Australia. Helictite 6, 101–119.Mihailou H & Massaro M (2021) An overview of the impacts of feral cattle, water buffalo and pigs on the savannas, wetlands and biota of northern Australia. Austral Ecology 46, 699–712.Miller GS (1906) Twelve new genera of bats. Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington 19, 83–85.Mohr CO (1947) Table of Equivalent Populations of North American Small Mammals, American Mid-land Naturalist 37, 223–249.Murphy B, Ritchie E, Woinarski J, et al. (2025) The State and Future of the Northern Territory’s Savannas. Charles Darwin University and Deakin University.Nicholls B & Racey PA (2007) Bats avoid radar installations: could electromagnetic fields deter bats from colliding with wind turbines? PLOS One 2, e297.Nicholls B & Racey PA (2009) The aversive effect of electromagnetic radiation on foraging bats – a possible means of discouraging bats from approaching wind turbines. PLOS One 4, e6246.Northrup & Wittemyer (2013) Characterising the impacts of emerging energy development on wildlife, with an eye towards mitigation. Ecology Letters 16(1), 112–125.Northover A, Palmer R, Burbidge AH, Pearson D, Dziminski M, Ottewell K, Prada D, Umbrello L & Gibson L (2023) Summary of Knowledge for Six Faunal Species that are Matters of National Environmental Significance in the Pilbara, Western Australia. Western Australia Department of Biodiversity, Conservation and Attractions.Oliveira JM, Destro ALF, Freitas MB & Oliveira LL (2021) How do pesticides affect bats? A brief review of recent publications. Brazilian Journal of Biology 81, 499–507.Ottewell K, McArthur S, van Leeuwen S & Byrne M (2017) Population Genetics of the Ghost Bat (Macroderma gigas) in the Pilbara Bioregion. Western Australia Department of Biodiversity, Conservation and Attractions (unpublished report).Pettigrew J, Baker GB, Baker-Gabb D et al. (1986) The Australian Ghost Bat at Pine Creek, Northern Territory. Macroderma 2, 8–19.Prada, D., Thavornkanlapachai, R., Millar, M., Umbrello, L., Shaw, R., Ottewell, K. (2024, 17-19 April). Monitoring of the Pilbara Ghost Bat from Scat DNA [Conference Presentation]. Australasian Bat Society Conference 2024, Adelaide, SA, Australia.Queensland Museum (2022) Wetlands of Queensland. Queensland Museum.Radford IJ, Corey B, Carnes K, Shedley E, McCaw L & Woolley L-A (2021) Landscape-scale effects of fire, cats and feral livestock on threatened savanna mammals: unburnt habitat matters more than pyrodiversity. Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution 9, 739817.Reid K & Baker GB (2025) Impacts on birds and bats from onshore wind farms in Australia: an ecological risk assessment, Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water, Canberra. CC BY 4.0.Reside A, van der Wal J, Kutt A, Watson I & Williams S (2011) Fire regime shifts affect bird species distributions. Diversity and Distributions 18, 213–225.Ruykys L, Hanrahan N & Stokeld D (2024) Northern Territory Guidelines for Surveying for the Ghost Bat at the Landscape Scale. Technical Report 05/2024, Northern Territory Department of Environment, Parks and Water Security, and Charles Darwin University.Ruykys L, Hanrahan N, Leiper I & Gonsalves L (2026) Home range and movement of the ghost bat (Macroderma gigas) in the Katherine region, Northern Territory. Austral Ecology 51(3):e70193.Sánchez-Barbudo iS, Camarero PR & Mateo R (2012) Primary and secondary poisoning by anticoagulant rodenticides of non-target animals in Spain. Science of the Total Environment 420, 280–288.Schulz M (1986) Vertebrate prey of the ghost bat, Macroderma gigas, at Pine Creek, Northern Territory. Macroderma 2, 59–62.SET (South Endeavour Trust) (2024) Normanby River Boulderfields, Kings Plains Station: Biodiversity Survey Report. South Endeavour Trust.Shine R, Wang S, Madani G, Armstrong KN, Zhang L & Li YM (2016). Using genetic data to predict the vulnerability of a native predator to a toxic invader. Endangered Species Research 31, 13–17.Start AN, McKenzie NL & Bullen RD (2019) Notes on bats in the diets of Ghost Bats (Macroderma gigas: Megadermatidae) in the Pilbara region of Western Australia. Records of the Western Australian Museum 34, 51–53.Tidemann CR, Priddel DM, Nelson JE & Pettigrew JD (1985) Foraging behaviour of the Australian Ghost Bat, Macroderma gigas (Microchiroptera: Megadermatidae). Australian Journal of Zoology 33, 705–713.Toop J (1979) Ghost bat studies QNPWS–CIAE–ANPWS. 1975–1979. Unpublished Report.Toop GJ (1985) Habitat requirements, survival strategies and ecology of the ghost bat, Macroderma gigas Dobson (Microchiroptera, Megadermatidae) in central coastal Queensland. Macroderma 1, 37–41.TSSC (Threatened Species Scientific Committee) (2013), Listing advice on the Key threatening process Novel biota and their impact on biodiversity, Department of the Environment, Canberra.TSSC (Threatened Species Scientific Committee) (2016). Conservation Advice Macroderma gigas ghost bat. Threatened Species Scientific Committee, Canberra.Umbrello L, Thavornkanlapachai R, McArthur S, Prada D, Knuckey C, Shaw R, Spencer BS & Ottewell K (2025) Noninvasive sampling reveals landscape genetic structure in the threatened ghost bat (Macroderma gigas) in an ore-rich region of Western Australia. Journal of Heredity, esaf011.Ward-Fear, G., Brown, G. P., & Shine, R. (2024). Acute impacts of invasive toads on the population demography of a native predator in tropical Australia. Biological Invasions. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-024-03419-x.Weigl R (2005) Longevity of Mammals in Captivity; from the Living Collections of the World: A list of Mammalian Longevity in Captivity. Kleine Senckenberg-Reihe 48, Schweizerbart Science Publishers.White AW, Morris I, Madani G & Archer M (2016) Are cane toads Rhinella marina impacting ghost bats Macroderma gigas in northern Australia? Australian Zoologist 38, 183–191.Williams E (2025) Tracking Australian Ghost Bats in Queensland to Investigate Foraging Habitat, Movement Patterns and Roosts. Presentation at the 20^th International Bat Research Conference, 3–8 August 2025, Cairns.Woinarski JCZ & Ash AJ (2002) Responses of vertebrates to pastoralism, military land use and landscape position in an Australian tropical savanna. Austral Ecology 27, 311–323.Woinarski JCZ, Brock C, Fisher A, Milne D & Oliver B (1999) Response of birds and reptiles to fire regimes on pastoral land in the Victoria River District, Northern Territory. Rangelands Journal 21, 24–38.Woinarski JCZ, Brock C, Armstrong M, Hempel C, Cheal D & Brennan K (2008) Bird distribution in riparian vegetation in the extensive natural landscape of Australia’s tropical savanna: a broad-scale survey and analysis of a distributional data base. Journal of Biogeography 27, 843–868.Woinarski JC, Legge S, Fitzsimons JA, et al. (2011) The disappearing mammal fauna of northern Australia: context, cause, and response. Conservation Letters 4, 192–201.Woinarski JCZ, Burbidge A & Harrison P (2014) The Action Plan for Australian Mammals 2012. CSIRO publishing.Woinarski JC, Burbidge AA & Harrison PL (2015) Ongoing unravelling of a continental fauna: decline and extinction of Australian mammals since European settlement. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 112, 4531–4540.Woodhouse J, Sniderman K, Hellstrom J, et al. (2022) Timescales of speleogenesis in an evolving syngenetic karst: the Tamala Limestone, Western Australia. Geomorphology 399, 108079.Worthington Wilmer J (1997) Genetic variation and population structure in the threatened Ghost Bat (Macroderma gigas). PhD Thesis, The University of Queensland.Worthington Wilmer J, Moritz C, Hall L & Toop J (1994) Extreme population structuring in the threatened ghost bat, Macroderma gigas: evidence from mitochondrial DNA. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B Biological Sciences 257, 193–198.Worthington Wilmer J, Hall L, Barratt E & Moritz C (1999). Genetic structure and male‐mediated gene flow in the ghost bat (Macroderma gigas). Evolution 53, 1582–1591.Young RW (1987) Sandstone landforms of the tropical east Kimberley Region, northwestern Australia. The Journal of Geology 2, 205–218.Ziembicki MR, Woinarski JCZ, Webb JK, et al. (2015) Stemming the tide: progress towards resolving the causes of decline and implementing management responses for the disappearing mammal fauna of northern Australia. Therya 6(1), 169–225.

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.