Generalized fire response strategies in plants and animals

Abstract

Despite the existing large body of research on plant–animal interactions, plant research and animal research are still relatively independent and asymmetrical in relation to disturbance. Animals and plants are likely to have different fire responses, yet biodiversity studies in relation to disturbance may benefit from a more integrated functional approach across kingdoms. This would also force us to go deeper into the biological mechanisms and scales for persistence than a taxonomic‐based classification. An integrated view of plant and animal responses would enable us to learn from a great variety of life forms and benefit from expertise in complementary disciplines. To achieve this integrated view, I propose a functional classification for both plants and animals in relation to their fire response strategy. This classification includes the following strategies: resistance, refugia, avoidance, dormancy, recolonization, crypsis and intolerance. Given the limited knowledge of fire responses for many organisms, and especially for many animals, this classification may require further development. However, it provides a framework that facilitates finding knowledge gaps and directing future research for gaining a better understanding of the role of fire on biodiversity.

A global synthesis of fire effects on pollinators

“…The different fire regime characteristics are key for determining species fire tolerance and diversity (Keeley, Pausas, Rundel, Bond, & Bradstock, ; Pausas, ). For instance, pollinators responded positively to a single fire event in relation to unburned habitats, and more clearly under wildfires.…”

“…Thus, our review also evidences gaps in the current knowledge (Figure ). Our synthesis was not able to include the effect of important spatial factors like fire size (García et al, , ) and the spatial heterogeneity of fire regime parameters (Brown & York, ; Lazarina et al, ; Ponisio et al, ), which are highly related to the mobility of the animals and their landscape scale persistence (Pausas, ). There are not enough studies that analyse the spatial component of the fire regime to be able to perform a global meta‐analysis.…”

“…In addition, the typical increase in flowers after fire (due to more resources and less competition) may contribute to the positive tendency. The different fire regime characteristics are key for determining species fire tolerance and diversity (Keeley, Pausas, Rundel, Bond, & Bradstock, 2011;Pausas, 2019). For instance, pollinators responded positively to a single fire event in relation to unburned habitats, and more clearly under wildfires.…”

“…Pollinators may vary in their susceptibility to fire, depending on certain traits such as the degree of mobility, sociality, nesting behaviour and feeding habits (Kelly et al, ; Kral et al, ; Pausas, ). Many pollinators are good flyers and thus likely to recolonize or to forage in the burn area quickly as flowers are available (Carbone & Aguilar, ; García et al, ; Peralta et al, ; Thom, Daniels, Kobziar, & Colburn, ).…”

Wildfire management in Mediterranean-type regions: paradigm change needed

“…human lives lost, damage to assets, estimated soil losses, GHG emissions, smoke emissions, suspended sediments in water), without creating an overall impact indicator for each wildfire. Focusing on reducing negative fire impacts may well require a multi-sectorial vision and implementation of novel solutions, such as adoption of 'coexistence strategies' as used by plants, animals and indigenous cultures in order to avoid, adapt to, and depend on fire [19,20]. Consequently, we propose that governments develop and implement an integrated policy package based on two key elements: (i) promoting less vulnerable and more fire-resilient landscapes; and (ii) minimizing risk for humans and infrastructure.…”