This issue highlights a range of papers dealing with important topics relevant to improved management and restoration of biodiversity in Australasia. The one that has touched me most is the interview with the late Roger Good, which provides insight into the views and contributions of one of Australia's most experienced ecological restoration pioneers and mentors. The interview took place in May 2015 and is presented here in its long form as a tribute to Roger, whose untimely death in October 2015 cut short a still-active career and surprised and saddened many. The interview chronicles a 50-year programme of restoration work in what is now Kosciuszko National Park – work that commenced in the 1960s with intensive soil stabilization and revegetation works, progressing to works to restore peat bogs and fens that continue today. One of the many projects Roger contributed to is the National Standards for the Practice of Ecological Restoration in Australia (National Standards http://www.seraustralasia.com/pages/SERARestorationStandards_15dec2015.pdf) – the public exhibition period of which coincides with the publication of this issue. Referring to his work in Kosciuszko, Roger emphasized that there is no substitute for trying to understand the specific ecosystem you are working with, a principle encapsulated in the National Standards. Indeed, this pursuit of understanding ecosystems in order to better manage them is a major preoccupation of restoration ecology – and a number of studies reported in this issue contribute to knowledge of specific ecosystems and their social context. Andrew Claridge and colleagues, for example, report on the role of exotic deer in dispersing native and introduced species; Matthew Taylor and colleagues examine the relationship between conservation and grazing; Lachlan Dennis and colleagues identify the reproductive biology and spawning cues of an important native fish species; and Rebecca Morris and colleagues examine social willingness to support bioengineering for improved marine biodiversity conservation. The National Standards also point out the need to focus not only on species and their assemblages, but also on ecosystem function. Certainly one of the important lessons for Roger and his teams at Kosciuszko has been reinstating not only the ‘look’ of an ecosystem, but also to try to reinstate its processes and functions. Such function is a primary focus for another major Australian restoration project reported by Jeremy Russell-Smith in this issue. In his guest editorial, Jeremy comments on the significance and current directions of a programme which aims to restore more appropriate natural disturbance regimes (and thereby positive biodiversity benefits) to tens of thousands of hectares in Australia's north. To comply with the National Standards, plans for ecosystems that are fire dependent or sensitive to fire would be expected to identify appropriate regimes and management recommendations for the target ecosystem. Yet, as Andrew Baker points out in a study of the Byron shire, there often seems to be a disconnect between the recognition of ecologically inappropriate fire regimes and addressing this in restoration or management plans for the area. Target-setting, say the National Standards, requires identification of a ‘reference ecosystem’, actual or conceptual. This can be informed by regional mapping. John Hunter, in his paper on validation of the Greater Hunter Native Vegetation Mapping, points out that the mapping system exhibited high levels of inaccuracy. The agency involved will be given the right of reply in a future issue, of course, but it is pertinent to point out that reference communities for offsetting or restoration at a site level cannot be taken from regional ecosystem descriptions, coarse regional mapping or regional guides, however accurate they may be. The National Standards explain that identifying compositional, structural and functional goals for restoring specific sites or local landscapes requires more detailed local observation and analysis. The National Standards also acknowledge that the causes of degradation will never be fully addressed in many regions affected by human modification, particularly at larger scales. However, degrading factors such as fragmentation and reduced habitat area can be offset to some degree by rehabilitation works (i.e. works where improvements but not full recovery is the goal), particularly if they can be applied at larger scales. Similarly, small or large scale mitigation activities that improve the quality of land and water management can reduce the impacts that are causing degradation. All these projects contribute to improving management to reduce degradation and improve the condition of ecosystems to the highest and best extent, whether or not the specific project goal is full ecological restoration. While ecological restoration is defined in as inclusive a way as possible, projects controlling or reinstating individual species are not considered ecological restoration projects per se by the National Standards if other problems also exist. They are, however, considered important components of larger projects or complementary works. In the second feature in this issue, for example, Ross Wylie and colleagues from Biosecurity Queensland report on the eradication of an invasive exotic ant in two of the five occurrences where this potentially destructive species has been found in Australia. Alan Robley and colleagues report on the control of introduced predators of a freshwater turtle species in northern Victoria, while Kathryn Lambert and colleagues assess the results and potential explanations for efforts to control a dominating bird species in wet sclerophyll forest in northern NSW. All such projects - whether restoration or rehabilitation - need to be honoured as an important part of the single pursuit of humans attempting to live within ecosystems in a more conserving and sustainable manner.