Summary1. Applied ecologists continually advocate further research, under the assumption that obtaining more information will lead to better decisions. Value of information (VoI) analysis can be used to quantify how additional information may improve management outcomes: despite its potential, this method is still underused in environmental decision-making. We provide a primer on how to calculate the VoI and assess whether reducing uncertainty will change a decision. Our aim is to facilitate the application of VoI by managers who are not familiar with decision-analytic principles and notation, by increasing the technical accessibility of the tool. 2. Calculating the VoI requires explicit formulation of management objectives and actions. Uncertainty must be clearly structured and its effects on management outcomes evaluated. We present two measures of the VoI. The expected value of perfect information is a calculation of the expected improvement in management outcomes that would result from access to perfect knowledge. The expected value of sample information calculates the improvement in outcomes expected by collecting a given sample of new data. 3. We guide readers through the calculation of VoI using two case studies: (i) testing for disease when managing a frog species and (ii) learning about demographic rates for the reintroduction of an endangered turtle. We illustrate the use of Bayesian updating to incorporate new information. 4. The VoI depends on our current knowledge, the quality of the information collected and the expected outcomes of the available management actions. Collecting information can require significant investments of resources; VoI analysis assists managers in deciding whether these investments are justified.

Targeted threatened species management is a central component of efforts to prevent species extinction. Despite the development of a range of management frameworks to improve conservation outcomes over the past decade, threatened species management is still commonly characterised as ad hoc. Although there are notable successes, many management programs are ineffective, with relatively few species experiencing improvements in their conservation status. We identify underlying factors that commonly lead to ineffective and inefficient management. Drawing attention to some of the key challenges, and suggesting ways forward, may lead to improved management effectiveness and better conservation outcomes. We highlight six key areas where improvements are needed: 1) stakeholder engagement and communication; 2) fostering strong leadership and the development of achievable long-term goals; 3) knowledge of target species' biology and threats, particularly focusing on filling knowledge gaps that impede management, while noting that in many cases there will be a need for conservation management to proceed initially despite knowledge gaps; 4) setting objectives with measurable outcomes; 5) strategic monitoring to evaluate management effectiveness; and 6) greater accountability for species declines and failure to recover species to ensure timely action and guard against complacency. We demonstrate the importance of these six key areas by providing examples of innovative approaches leading to successful species management. We also discuss overarching factors outside the realm of management influence that can help or impede conservation success. Clear recognition of factors that make species' management more straightforward - or more challenging - is important for setting realistic management objectives, outlining strategic action, and prioritising resources. We also highlight the need to more clearly demonstrate the benefit of current investment, and communicate that the risk of under-investment is species extinctions. Together, improvements in conservation practice, along with increased resource allocation and re-evaluation of the prioritisation of competing interests that threaten species, will help enhance conservation outcomes for threatened species.

Aim The incidence of major fires is increasing globally, creating extraordinary challenges for governments, managers and conservation scientists. In 2019–2020, Australia experienced precedent‐setting fires that burned over several months, affecting seven states and territories and causing massive biodiversity loss. Whilst the fires were still burning, the Australian Government convened a biodiversity Expert Panel to guide its bushfire response. A pressing need was to target emergency investment and management to reduce the chance of extinctions and maximise the chances of longer‐term recovery. We describe the approach taken to rapidly prioritise fire‐affected animal species. We use the experience to consider the organisational and data requirements for evidence‐based responses to future ecological disasters. Location Forested biomes of subtropical and temperate Australia, with lessons for other regions. Methods We developed assessment frameworks to screen fire‐affected species based on their pre‐fire conservation status, the proportion of their distribution overlapping with fires, and their behavioural/ecological traits relating to fire vulnerability. Using formal and informal networks of scientists, government and non‐government staff and managers, we collated expert input and data from multiple sources, undertook the analyses, and completed the assessments in 3 weeks for vertebrates and 8 weeks for invertebrates. Results The assessments prioritised 92 vertebrate and 213 invertebrate species for urgent management response; another 147 invertebrate species were placed on a watchlist requiring further information. Conclusions The priority species lists helped focus government and non‐government investment, management and research effort, and communication to the public. Using multiple expert networks allowed the assessments to be completed rapidly using the best information available. However, the assessments highlighted substantial gaps in data availability and access, deficiencies in statutory threatened species listings, and the need for capacity‐building across the conservation science and management sectors. We outline a flexible template for using evidence effectively in emergency responses for future ecological disasters.

Aim: After environmental disasters, species with large population losses may need urgent protection to prevent extinction and support recovery. Following the 2019-2020 Australian megafires, we estimated population losses and recovery in fire-affected fauna, to inform conservation status assessments and management.Location: Temperate and subtropical Australia. Time period: 2019-2030 and beyond.Major taxa: Australian terrestrial and freshwater vertebrates; one invertebrate group. Methods:From > 1,050 fire-affected taxa, we selected 173 whose distributions substantially overlapped the fire extent. We estimated the proportion of each taxon's distribution affected by fires, using fire severity and aquatic impact mapping, and new distribution mapping. Using expert elicitation informed by evidence of responses to previous wildfires, we estimated local population responses to fires of varying severity. We combined the spatial and elicitation data to estimate overall population loss and recovery trajectories, and thus indicate potential eligibility for listing as threatened, or uplisting, under Australian legislation. Results:We estimate that the 2019-2020 Australian megafires caused, or contributed to, population declines that make 70-82 taxa eligible for listing as threatened;

No abstract