| Title: |
Remotely Sensed Fire Heterogeneity and Biomass Recovery Predicts Empirical Biodiversity Responses. |
| Authors: |
Gibson, Rebecca K.; Driscoll, Don A.; Macdonald, Kristina J.; Williamson, Grant J.; Nolan, Rachael H.; Doherty, Tim S.; Nimmo, Dale G.; Ritchie, Euan G.; Tozer, Mark; Tasker, Liz; Greenville, Aaron; Roff, Adam; Callen, Alex; Maisey, Alex; Thomsen, Alexandria; Arriaga‐Jimenez, Alfonsina; Foster, Alison; Hewitt, Alison; Gilpin, Amy‐Marie; Denham, Andrew |
| Source: |
Global Ecology & Biogeography; Apr2025, Vol. 34 Issue 4, p1-15, 15p |
| Subject Terms: |
BIODIVERSITY; FIRE ecology; REMOTE sensing; CONSERVATION of natural resources; SPECIES diversity; FIELD research; RESTORATION ecology |
| Geographic Terms: |
AUSTRALIA; NEW South Wales |
| Abstract: |
Aim: To compare field‐based evidence of plant and animal responses to fire with remotely sensed signals of fire heterogeneity and post‐fire biomass recovery. Location: South‐eastern Australia; New South Wales. Time Period: 2019–2022. Major Taxa Studied: A total of 982 species of plants and animals, in eight taxonomic groups: amphibians, birds, fish, insects, mammals, molluscs, plants and reptiles. Methods: We collated 545,223 plant and animal response records from 47 field surveys of 4613 sites that focussed on areas burnt in 2019–2020. For each site, we calculated remotely sensed signals of fire heterogeneity and post‐fire biomass recovery, including the delayed recovery index. Meta‐regression analyses were conducted separately for species that declined after fire (negative effect sizes) and species that increased after fire (positive effect sizes) for each buffer size (250 m, 500 m, 1 km, 1.5 km, 2 km and 2.5 km radius). Results: We found that species exposed to homogenous high‐severity fire (i.e., low fire heterogeneity) were more likely to exhibit decreased abundance/occurrence or inhibited recovery. Areas with delayed recovery of biomass also had significant negative on‐ground responses, with lower abundance or occurrence in areas where biomass recovery was slower. Main Conclusions: The fire heterogeneity index and the delayed recovery index are suitable for inclusion in monitoring and reporting systems for tracking relative measures over time, particularly when field survey data is not available at the landscape scales required to support reporting and management decisions. Locations with remotely sensed signals of delayed recovery should be prioritised for protection against further disturbances that may interfere with the recovery process. Research attention must next focus on how cumulative fire heterogeneity patterns of successive fires affect the post‐fire recovery dynamics to further inform the application of remote sensing indicators as management tools for biodiversity conservation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
| : |
Copyright of Global Ecology & Biogeography is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.) |
| Database: |
Complementary Index |