Context Amidst growing international calls for inclusive conservation and a backdrop of declining species and cultural diversity, Indigenous-led approaches that offer opportunities for biocultural benefits are of growing interest. Species prioritisation is one area that can be decolonised, shifting from quantitative, large-scale threatened species metrics to pluralistic, place-based approaches that include culturally significant species. Aim This study aimed to establish a list of priority animals of concern to Ŋaḻapaḻmi (senior knowledge holders) in the Laynhapuy Indigenous Protected Area, north-eastern Arnhem Land, Australia. This list could focus the research and management efforts of the Yirralka Rangers and collaborators. Methods Adhering to local governance structures, through six group-elicitation sessions, Ŋaḻapaḻmi were asked to identify animals of concern and describe reasons for concern. Existing occurrence records and threat status of these species were compiled to assess baseline data and guide next steps. Results The Ŋaḻapaḻmi-defined Laynhapuy Priority Animal List contained 30 animals (species/groups), with the highest-ranked animals including Marrtjinyami wäyin (walking animals), Rupu (possums), and Djanda (goannas), all mammals and varanid lizards. The list of 30 animals included 43 species from a Western-science perspective, of which 12 were also listed as threatened through Western conservation frameworks. Some animals were considered high priority locally, such as the waṉ’kurra (northern brown bandicoot, Isoodon macrourus), although not a concern from a Western-science perspective, demonstrating mismatch between local and larger-scale approaches. To help disentangle whether this mismatch is due to cultural significance and/or localised decline not captured at larger-scale assessments, we provide the animal’s publicly known Yolŋu clan connections and reasons for concern alongside existing baseline occurrence data. Recent collaborative surveys have substantially increased data for Laynhapuy Priority Animals, demonstrating the benefits of community engaged wildlife research. Conclusions Multidisciplinary research collaborations can produce Indigenous-led ‘working’ lists of priority animals to guide culturally attuned on-ground action. Approaches that draw on different cultural knowledge systems require interrogation of how knowledge is created and conveyed to ensure mutual comprehension and practical use. Implications Indigenous-led approaches offer possibilities for enhanced management of species by local groups, with anticipated co-benefits to species and cultural knowledge.
