Post‐fire development of faunal habitat depends on plant regeneration traits

• Published in: Austral ecology 2020-09, Vol.45 (6), p.800-812
• Main Authors: Rainsford, Frederick W., Kelly, Luke T., Leonard, Steve W.J., Bennett, Andrew F.
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Canopies; ecosystem; Ecosystem management; Ecosystems; Environmental changes; epicormic resprouting; eucalypt; Fauna; faunal habitat; Foothills; Ground cover; Habitats; Herbivores; Mallee; plant regeneration traits; post‐fire succession; Regeneration; Stems; Time dependence; time since fire; Vegetation; Woodlands
• ISSN: 1442-9985; 1442-9993
• DOI: 10.1111/aec.12896

The concept that vegetation structure (and faunal habitat) develops predictably with time since fire has been central to understanding the relationship between fire and fauna. However, because plants regenerate after fire in different ways (e.g. resprouting from above‐ground stems vs. underground lignotubers), use of simple categories based on time since fire might not adequately represent post‐fire habitat development in all ecosystems. We tested the hypothesis that the post‐fire development of faunal habitat structure differs between ecosystems, depending on fire regeneration traits of the dominant canopy trees. We measured 12 habitat components at sites in foothill forests (n = 38), heathy woodlands (n = 38) and mallee woodlands (n = 98) in Victoria, Australia, and used generalised additive models to predict changes in each variable with time since fire. A greater percentage of faunal habitat variables responded significantly to time since fire in mallee woodlands, where fires typically are stand‐replacing, than in foothill forests and heathy woodlands, where canopy tree stems generally persist through fire. In the ecosystem with the highest proportion of epicormic resprouters (foothill forests), only ground cover and understorey vegetation responded significantly to time since fire, compared with all but one variable in the ecosystem dominated by basal resprouters (mallee woodlands). These differences between ecosystems in the post‐fire development of key habitat components suggest there may also be fundamental differences in the role of fire in shaping the distribution of fauna. If so, this challenges the way in which many fire‐prone ecosystems currently are categorised and managed, especially the level of dependence on time since fire and other temporal surrogates such as age‐classes and successional states. Where time since fire is a poor surrogate for habitat structural development, additional complexity (e.g. fire severity, topography and prior land‐use history) could better capture processes that determine faunal occurrence in fire‐prone ecosystems.