Remotely Sensed Fire Heterogeneity and Biomass Recovery Predicts Empirical Biodiversity Responses

IF 6.3 1区环境科学与生态学 Q1 ECOLOGY

Global Ecology and Biogeography Pub Date : 2025-04-14 DOI:10.1111/geb.70040

Rebecca K. Gibson, Don A. Driscoll, Kristina J. Macdonald, Grant J. Williamson, Rachael H. Nolan, Tim S. Doherty, Dale G. Nimmo, Euan G. Ritchie, Mark Tozer, Liz Tasker, Aaron Greenville, Adam Roff, Alex Callen, Alex Maisey, Alexandria Thomsen, Alfonsina Arriaga-Jimenez, Alison Foster, Alison Hewitt, Amy-Marie Gilpin, Andrew Denham, Andrew Stauber, Berin Mackenzie, Brad Law, Brad Murray, Brian Hawkins, Bridget Roberts, Chad T. Beranek, Chris Dickman, Chris J. Jolly, Chris McLean, Chris Reid, Craig Dunne, David Hancock, David Keith, Elise Pendall, Elise Verhoeven, Emma Cook, Emma Spencer, Felicity Grant, Frank Koehler, George Madani, Glenda Wardle, Grant Linley, James M. Cook, Jedda Lemmon, John Gould, Jonathan K. Webb, Joshua Lee, Julia Rayment, Karen Marsh, Kaya Klop-Toker, Laura Schweickle, Mark Ooi, Matthew Beitzel, Matthias Boer, Michael Hewins, Michael Mahony, Mikayla Green, Mike Letnic, Murraya Lane, Oliver W. Kelly, Owen Price, Renee Brawata, Rohan Bilney, Ross Crates, Ryan R. Witt, Ryan Shofner, Sally A. Power, Samantha L. Wallace, Sarah E. Stock, Shelby A. Ryan, Stephanie Pulsford, Thomas Newsome, Tom Le Breton, Vanessa Allen, Vivianna Miritis, Zac Walker

{"title":"Remotely Sensed Fire Heterogeneity and Biomass Recovery Predicts Empirical Biodiversity Responses","authors":"Rebecca K. Gibson, Don A. Driscoll, Kristina J. Macdonald, Grant J. Williamson, Rachael H. Nolan, Tim S. Doherty, Dale G. Nimmo, Euan G. Ritchie, Mark Tozer, Liz Tasker, Aaron Greenville, Adam Roff, Alex Callen, Alex Maisey, Alexandria Thomsen, Alfonsina Arriaga-Jimenez, Alison Foster, Alison Hewitt, Amy-Marie Gilpin, Andrew Denham, Andrew Stauber, Berin Mackenzie, Brad Law, Brad Murray, Brian Hawkins, Bridget Roberts, Chad T. Beranek, Chris Dickman, Chris J. Jolly, Chris McLean, Chris Reid, Craig Dunne, David Hancock, David Keith, Elise Pendall, Elise Verhoeven, Emma Cook, Emma Spencer, Felicity Grant, Frank Koehler, George Madani, Glenda Wardle, Grant Linley, James M. Cook, Jedda Lemmon, John Gould, Jonathan K. Webb, Joshua Lee, Julia Rayment, Karen Marsh, Kaya Klop-Toker, Laura Schweickle, Mark Ooi, Matthew Beitzel, Matthias Boer, Michael Hewins, Michael Mahony, Mikayla Green, Mike Letnic, Murraya Lane, Oliver W. Kelly, Owen Price, Renee Brawata, Rohan Bilney, Ross Crates, Ryan R. Witt, Ryan Shofner, Sally A. Power, Samantha L. Wallace, Sarah E. Stock, Shelby A. Ryan, Stephanie Pulsford, Thomas Newsome, Tom Le Breton, Vanessa Allen, Vivianna Miritis, Zac Walker","doi":"10.1111/geb.70040","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Aim</h3>\n \n <p>To compare field-based evidence of plant and animal responses to fire with remotely sensed signals of fire heterogeneity and post-fire biomass recovery.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Location</h3>\n \n <p>South-eastern Australia; New South Wales.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Time Period</h3>\n \n <p>2019–2022.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Major Taxa Studied</h3>\n \n <p>A total of 982 species of plants and animals, in eight taxonomic groups: amphibians, birds, fish, insects, mammals, molluscs, plants and reptiles.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>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).</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>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.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Main Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>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.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":176,"journal":{"name":"Global Ecology and Biogeography","volume":"34 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":6.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/geb.70040","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Global Ecology and Biogeography","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/geb.70040","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

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 Image

查看原文本刊更多论文

遥感火灾异质性与生物量恢复预测经验生物多样性响应

目的比较植物和动物对火灾的野外响应证据与火灾异质性和火灾后生物量恢复的遥感信号。地理位置：澳大利亚东南部；新南威尔士州。2019-2022年。主要分类群共研究了982种动植物，分属两栖类、鸟类、鱼类、昆虫、哺乳动物、软体动物、植物和爬行动物8个分类群。方法整理2019-2020年4613个地点47次野外调查的545,223条动植物反应记录。对于每个站点，我们计算了火灾异质性和火灾后生物量恢复的遥感信号，包括延迟恢复指数。对每个缓冲区大小（半径250 m、500 m、1 km、1.5 km、2 km和2.5 km）分别对火灾后减少的物种（负效应量）和火灾后增加的物种（正效应量）进行meta回归分析。结果我们发现，暴露于同质的高严重性火灾（即低火灾异质性）的物种更有可能表现出丰度/发生率下降或恢复受到抑制。生物量恢复较晚的地区也有显著的负地面响应，生物量恢复较慢的地区丰度或发生率较低。主要结论：火灾异质性指数和延迟恢复指数适合纳入监测和报告系统，以跟踪一段时间内的相关措施，特别是在缺乏支持报告和管理决策所需的景观尺度的实地调查数据时。应优先考虑有延迟恢复遥感信号的地点，以防止可能干扰恢复过程的进一步干扰。接下来的研究重点必须集中在连续火灾的累积火灾异质性模式如何影响火灾后恢复动态，以进一步为遥感指标作为生物多样性保护管理工具的应用提供信息。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Global Ecology and Biogeography 环境科学-生态学

CiteScore

12.10

自引率

3.10%

发文量

170

审稿时长

3 months

期刊介绍： Global Ecology and Biogeography (GEB) welcomes papers that investigate broad-scale (in space, time and/or taxonomy), general patterns in the organization of ecological systems and assemblages, and the processes that underlie them. In particular, GEB welcomes studies that use macroecological methods, comparative analyses, meta-analyses, reviews, spatial analyses and modelling to arrive at general, conceptual conclusions. Studies in GEB need not be global in spatial extent, but the conclusions and implications of the study must be relevant to ecologists and biogeographers globally, rather than being limited to local areas, or specific taxa. Similarly, GEB is not limited to spatial studies; we are equally interested in the general patterns of nature through time, among taxa (e.g., body sizes, dispersal abilities), through the course of evolution, etc. Further, GEB welcomes papers that investigate general impacts of human activities on ecological systems in accordance with the above criteria.