Bridging the Divide - MDPI

Download PDF
1 downloads 0 Views 3MB Size Report
Comment
Aug 10, 2018 - Bridging the Divide: Integrating Animal and Plant ... Received: 18 July 2018; Accepted: 8 August 2018; Published: 10 .... Harmonization of global biodiversity monitoring using Essential Biodiversity Variables (EBVs) [20].
fire Perspective

Bridging the Divide: Integrating Animal and Plant Paradigms to Secure the Future of Biodiversity in Fire-Prone Ecosystems Luke T. Kelly 1, *, Lluís Brotons 2,3,4 ID , Katherine M. Giljohann 5 , Michael A. McCarthy 5 Juli G. Pausas 6 and Annabel L. Smith 7 ID 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

*

ID

,

School of Ecosystem and Forest Sciences, University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC 30105, Australia InForest Joint Research Unit (CREAF-CTFC), Crta. de Sant Llorenç de Morunys, Km. 2, 25280 Solsona, Spain; [email protected] CREAF, Campus de Bellaterra (UAB) Edifici C 08193 Cerdanyola del Vallès, Spain CSIC, 08193 Cerdanyola del Vallès, Spain School of BioSciences, University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC 3010, Australia; [email protected] (K.M.G.); [email protected] (M.A.M.) CIDE-CSIC, Ctra. Naquera Km. 4.5, 46113 Montcada, Valencia, Spain; [email protected] Department of Zoology, School of Natural Sciences, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin 2, Ireland; [email protected] Correspondence: [email protected]

Received: 18 July 2018; Accepted: 8 August 2018; Published: 10 August 2018

 

Abstract: Conserving animals and plants in fire-prone landscapes requires evidence of how fires affect modified ecosystems. Despite progress on this front, fire ecology is restricted by a dissonance between two dominant paradigms: ‘fire mosaics’ and ‘functional types’. The fire mosaic paradigm focuses on animal responses to fire events and spatial variation, whereas the functional type paradigm focuses on plant responses to recurrent fires and temporal variation. Fire management for biodiversity conservation requires input from each paradigm because animals and plants are interdependent and influenced by spatial and temporal dimensions of fire regimes. We propose that better integration of animal-based and plant-based approaches can be achieved by identifying common metrics that describe changes in multiple taxa; linking multiple components of the fire regime with animal and plant data; understanding plant-animal interactions; and incorporating spatial and temporal characteristics of fires into conservation management. Our vision for a more integrated fire ecology could be implemented via a collaborative and global network of research and monitoring sites, where measures of animals and plants are linked to real-time data on fire regimes. Keywords: biodiversity monitoring; fire ecology; fire management; fire mosaic; functional trait; life-history; plant functional type; plant-animal interactions; pyrodiversity; wildfire

1. Introduction Historical fire regimes have shaped biodiversity, but conserving animals and plants in contemporary landscapes requires evidence of how fires affect ecosystems that are modified by and subject to new threats [1]. Although progress has been made on this front, fire ecology is still restricted by a dissonance between two dominant paradigms that differ in theory and application: ‘fire mosaics’ and ‘functional types’ [2]. The fire mosaic paradigm focuses on animal responses to fire events. Fire management under this paradigm typically aims to create spatially diverse fire mosaics to promote biodiversity or the persistence of a small number of focal species [3]. By contrast, the functional type paradigm focuses on plant responses to recurrent fires. Fire management under Fire 2018, 1, 29; doi:10.3390/fire1020029

www.mdpi.com/journal/fire

Fire 2018, 1, 29

2 of 8

Fire 2018, 1, x FOR PEER REVIEW

2 of 8

this paradigm is guided by the life-history traits of plants and aims for temporal variation within acceptable intervals [4]. under this paradigm is guided by the life-history traits of plants and aims recurrent fires.fire Fire management Fire management for biodiversity conservation cannot be achieved by applying either paradigm for temporal variation within acceptable fire intervals [4]. inFire isolation: it requires input from each because animals and are both of value, either interdependent, management for biodiversity conservation cannot beplants achieved by applying paradigm in and influenced by the spatial and temporal dimensions of fire regimes. We propose that betterand isolation: it requires input from each because animals and plants are both of value, interdependent, integration of animal-based and plant-based approaches can be We achieved bythat identifying common of influenced by the spatial and temporal dimensions of fire regimes. propose better integration metrics that describe changes in multiple taxa, linking multiple components of the fire regime animal-based and plant-based approaches can be achieved by identifying common metrics that describe with measures of animals and plants, understanding mechanisms underpinning animal andand changes in multiple taxa, linking multiple components shared of the fire regime with measures of animals plantunderstanding associations with fires, and incorporating spatialanimal and temporal characteristics fires intoand plants, shared mechanisms underpinning and plant associations of with fires, conservation management. incorporating spatial and temporal characteristics of fires into conservation management. 2. Animal Plant Paradigms in Fire Ecology 2. Animal andand Plant Paradigms in Fire Ecology science management vary greatly between continents and ecosystems but there value FireFire science andand management vary greatly between continents and ecosystems but there is is value in in condensing knowledge of both animals and plants to enhance application of fire ecology. To this end, condensing knowledge of both animals and plants to enhance application of fire ecology. To this end, we we identify four general characteristics of animal and plant paradigms and how they differ (Figure 1). identify four general characteristics of animal and plant paradigms and how they differ (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Fire mosaic and functional type paradigms can be defined by the following characteristics: (i) Figure 1. Fire mosaic and functional type paradigms can be defined by the following characteristics: taxonomic focus (animal-based vs. plant-based); (ii) how they characterize fire regimes (fire events vs. (i) taxonomic focus (animal-based vs. plant-based); (ii) how they characterize fire regimes (fire events vs. recurrent fires); (iii) the (habitatchange changevs. vs.life-history life-history traits); implications recurrent fires); (iii) themode modeofofgeneralization generalization (habitat traits); andand (iv)(iv) implications for for firefire management (spatial mosaics vs. temporal intervals). A more integrated approach would management (spatial mosaics vs. temporal intervals). A more integrated approach would emphasize: multiple taxonomic groups and their interactions emphasize: multiple taxonomic groups and their interactions(biodiversity); (biodiversity);different differentcomponents componentsof of the the fire regime acting in concert (fire regimes); comprehensive understanding of mechanisms underpinning biotic fire regime acting in concert (fire regimes); comprehensive understanding of mechanisms underpinning associations with fire and interdependency between different taxa (shared mechanisms); biotic associations with fire and interdependency between different taxa (shared mechanisms);and decision-making that considers how how bothboth spatial and offire fire regimes influence and decision-making that considers spatial andtemporal temporal dimensions dimensions of regimes influence biodiversity (spatio-temporal management). biodiversity (spatio-temporal management).

2.1. Taxonomic Focus 2.1. Taxonomic Focus The different ecology and evolution of plants and animals in fire-prone ecosystems partly explains the The different ecology and evolution of plants and animals in fire-prone ecosystems partly explains distinct management approaches and underpinning research [5]. Plants are immobile throughout much of the distinct management approaches and underpinning research [5]. Plants are immobile throughout their life-cycle and many have endogenous means of reproduction from seedbanks or vegetative buds that much of their life-cycle and many have endogenous means of reproduction from seedbanks or promote in situ persistence after a fire [6]. Individual animals are more mobile and some can survive fires vegetative buds that promote in situ persistence after a fire [6]. Individual animals are more mobile by moving to refuges or recolonize from surrounding areas after being extirpated from burnt areas [7]. and some can survive fires by moving to refuges or recolonize from surrounding areas after being Some differences in management and research are also likely to stem from the separate developments of extirpated from burnt areas [7]. Some differences in management and research are also likely to stem the animal and plant sciences. We reviewed the ten most recent papers on fire ecology published in each of from the separate developments of the animal and plant sciences. We reviewed the ten most recent five exemplar journals (Biological Conservation, Ecology, Forest Ecology and Management, Global Ecology and papers on fire ecology published in each of five exemplar journals (Biological Conservation, Ecology, Biogeography and International Journal of Wildland Fire; n = 50 papers) and found that 78% were solely Forest Ecology and Management, Global Ecology and Biogeography and International Journal of Wildland Fire; animal-based or plant-based, and only 22% investigated both animal and plant associations with fire n = 50 papers) and found that 78% were solely animal-based or plant-based, and only 22% investigated [Supplementary Material]. This suggests research culture and training play a part in forming different both animal and plant associations with fire [Supplementary Material]. This suggests research culture perspectives. and training play a part in forming different perspectives. 2.2. Measures of Fire A central concept in fire ecology is the fire regime, which describes the repeated pattern of fires in a given area and their characteristics [8,9]. For animals, commonly measured components of the fire regime

Fire 2018, 1, 29

3 of 8

2.2. Measures of Fire A central concept in fire ecology is the fire regime, which describes the repeated pattern of fires in a given area and their characteristics [8,9]. For animals, commonly measured components of the fire regime include those representing fire events, including severity and patchiness, and time since the last fire [2]. These components can affect animals’ capacity to survive fire and their subsequent ability to find food, find shelter, and recolonize regenerating habitats. For plants, fire frequency and the interval between successive fires have been of central importance to research [10]. The time between fires sets the window for growth and reproduction in many plants. Studies of animals and plants that explore combinations of fire regime characteristics are increasing [11] and represent an important development in fire ecology. 2.3. Mode of Generalization Generalization assists both ecological understanding and prediction across taxa, times, and places. Theories of post-fire succession underpin much animal research in fire ecology. For example, the ‘habitat accommodation model’ (Fox 1982) predicts that faunal species enter the post-fire succession when vegetation structure and floristic resources becomes suitable for them. As the vegetation changes and becomes less suitable for a species, it will be excluded from the succession or decline in abundance from competition [12]. In search of unifying trends, fire response patterns have been linked to animal life-history, including shelter, food, fecundity, and mobility; such approaches have provided informative descriptions but have often met with little predictive success [13]. Life-history approaches have been widely used for generalization in plant ecology [6]. For example, Noble and Slatyer (1980) derived an important method for predicting plant dynamics in relation to recurrent fires using three groups of traits or ‘vital attributes’: method of arrival or persistence at a site during and after fire, the ability to establish and grow to maturity, and time taken to reach critical life stages [14]. Grouping plants into functional types, i.e., sets of species that share traits, has been used repeatedly to examine post-fire responses of plants with considerable predictive success [6,15]. 2.4. Management Emphasis A focus on fire events, vegetation succession, and accompanying changes in habitat structure has translated into management for animals that aims for spatially diverse fire mosaics [2]. A widespread expectation is that ‘pyrodiversity promotes biodiversity’, which is a prediction based on linking the persistence of individual species, and the coexistence of multiple species, to variation in the composition and configuration of fire mosaics [3]. This perspective highlights threats to animal conservation triggered by large, severe, and uniform fires, which, in some locations, have been linked to a build-up of fuels under fire suppression. Management to achieve spatially diverse fire regimes varies between continents and ecosystems. In Australia, South Africa, and increasingly in Europe and South America, patch-mosaic burning or planned burning have been implemented [3,6]. In North America, there has been a strong focus on restoration of fire regimes to historical conditions [1,16], and, more recently, on encouraging natural patterns of ignitions that result in mixed-severity fires [17]. The fire mosaic paradigm and pyrodiversity hypothesis have been criticized for their simplistic representation of fire regimes and animal habitat [2,3]. An emphasis on functional types has translated into management for plants that aims for variation in fire intervals over time. An influential approach uses plant life-history traits, such as time to reproductive maturity, life-spans of established plants, and seed longevity to determine minimum and maximum fire intervals, beyond which a significant decline of species populations is predicted [8]. Accordingly, domains of tolerable fire intervals are derived and used to guide vegetation management [4]. This perspective highlights two main threats: immaturity risk, where fire intervals are shorter than the time needed for plants to mature and accumulate seed; and senescence risk, where fire

Fire 2018, 1, 29

4 of 8

intervals are longer than seed and plant life-spans [6]. Plant life-history and demographic data have been used widely to guide fire management in Australia [4] and South Africa [18], with examples from other locations, such as North America [19], growing. Useful approaches have also been developed that consider multiple measures of fire regimes—‘thresholds of particular concern’ and ‘bounded ranges of variation’ [16]—but in practice are rarely linked to requirements of plants. 3. Towards a More Integrated Fire Ecology We propose practical ways to achieve better integration of animal and plant perspectives in fire ecology and management (Figure 1: Integrated approach). Our aim is to identify a small set of opportunities to advance fire ecology and management regardless of the focal ecosystem or taxa. 3.1. Common Measures of Biodiversity A simple way to enhance management and learning is to directly measure plants, animals, and habitat elements. While some measures of biodiversity will be context specific, recording observations in a standardized way to allow comparisons between taxa and ecosystems is valuable. Harmonization of global biodiversity monitoring using Essential Biodiversity Variables (EBVs) [20] could be adapted to fire-prone ecosystems. Under the EBVs framework, six dimensions of biodiversity have been identified—including genetic composition, species population, species traits, community composition, ecosystem function, and ecosystem structure—to assess biodiversity change [20]. As a first step, essential variables used to inform knowledge of species persistence in fire-prone landscapes could include the occurrence and abundance of animals and plants at key life stages [13], traits that mediate fire responses at different levels of ecological organization [15], and elements of habitat structure, such as tree size and density [17]. Systematic measures of species occurrence or abundance could be pooled to provide multi-species indicators of biodiversity, and models used to extrapolate observations from sites to landscapes. Monitoring multiple species and taxa will help to avoid some of the pitfalls of single-species management, such as when a focal or indicator species is incorrectly assumed to represent biodiversity more broadly [1]. An ongoing challenge is the complexity in measuring multiple taxonomic groups, from invertebrates and herbs to larger vertebrates and trees, which show great variation in size, diversity, and detectability. 3.2. Multiple Components of Fire Regimes Rapid progress in satellite remote sensing and aerial photography has already produced valuable resources that aid choices about when and where to conduct fuel management and fire suppression [2]. One practical challenge is describing variation in fire regimes over space and time in a consistent way so that studies can be compared at different times and places. Several metrics of pyrodiveristy have been developed, and the synthesis and testing of these approaches would facilitate advances globally. Another challenge is the coupling of growing spatial data on fire with the sampling of animals and plants. New work on spatially explicit power analysis shows how the location and level of sampling required to detect changes in animal and plant populations can be identified [21]. In combination with common measures of plants, animals, and fire regimes, power analysis could be used to design the assessment and monitoring of fire management and boost the understanding of multiple components of fire regimes. 3.3. Shared Mechanisms Approaches for generalization in animal and plant ecology usually concentrate on resource change (e.g., food, light) or traits, but rarely both. One way to formally bridge resource change and trait-based approaches is to incorporate functional traits into models of species-fire relationships. For example, Thomas and Vesk (2017) built a hierarchical multi-species model to predict tree species growth trajectories at different times since fire as a function of their traits (stem density, seed size, and specific leaf area) [22]. This approach could be extended to animal data, and can be combined

Fire 2018, 1, 29

5 of 8

with new measures of ecological, behavioral, and physiological traits [5], to provide a mechanistic understanding of animal succession and better integration with plant functional trait frameworks. Fire not only affects animals and plants but also their interactions. Interactions such as pollination and seed dispersal play an essential role in the maintenance of biodiversity, and explicit consideration of plant-animal interactions will provide new insights and benefit fire management and conservation (Table 1). In addition to revealing shared mechanisms, a focus on interactions between trophic levels will help to understand the evolution of life-history strategies and traits in fire-prone ecosystems. For example, Talluto and Benkman (2014) showed that the frequency of serotiny in lodgepole pine across Yellowstone National Park reflects selection pressure from fire and seed predation by the red Fire 2018, 1, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 8 2018, This 1, x FORhighlights PEER REVIEW that ecosystem structure and function vary as a result5 of squirrel Fire [23]. of8 spatial and Fire 2018, 1, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 8 Benkman showed the frequency interactions. of serotiny in lodgepole pine across Yellowstone National Fire 2018, 1, x FOR(2014) PEER REVIEW 5 of 8 temporaland variation in fires and that plant-animal Fire 2018, 1, x FOR(2014) PEER REVIEW 5 of 8 and Benkman showed that the fire frequency of serotiny in by lodgepole across Yellowstone National Park reflects selection pressure from and seed predation the red pine squirrel [23]. This highlights Fire 1, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5that of 8 and2018, Benkman (2014) showed that the fire frequency of serotiny inby lodgepole pine across Yellowstone National Park reflects selection pressure from and seed predation the red squirrel [23]. This highlights that ecosystem structure and function vary as a result of spatial and temporal variation in fires and Benkman (2014) showed that the frequency of serotiny in lodgepole pine across Yellowstone National Fire 2018, 1, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5and of 8 Park reflects selection pressure from fire and seed predation by the red squirrel [23]. This highlights that Table 1. Consideration of both animals and plants provides new insights and benefits fire management and Benkman (2014) showed that the frequency of serotiny in lodgepole pine across Yellowstone National ecosystem structure and function vary as a result of spatial and temporal variation in fires and plant-animal interactions. ParkBenkman reflectsstructure selection pressure from fire and seed predation theand red temporal squirrel [23]. This highlights that and (2014) showed that thevary frequency of serotiny in by lodgepole pine across Yellowstone National ecosystem and function as a result of spatial variation in fires and Park reflectsstructure selection pressure from vary fire and predation by theand red squirrel [23]. This highlights that plant-animal interactions. for biodiversity conservation. ecosystem and function as seed a of result of spatial variation in fires and and Benkman (2014) showed that the fire frequency serotiny inby lodgepole pine across Yellowstone National Park reflects selection pressure from and seed predation the red temporal squirrel [23]. This highlights that plant-animal interactions. ecosystem and function as aand result of spatial and temporal in fires Table structure 1.interactions. Consideration of bothvary animals plants provides new insightsvariation and benefits fire and plant-animal ParkTable reflectsstructure selection pressure from fire and seed predation by the red squirrel [23]. This highlights that ecosystem and function vary as a result of spatial and temporal variation in fires and 1.interactions. Consideration of both animals and plants provides new insights and benefits fire plant-animal management for biodiversity conservation. Benefit toas Ecological Understanding and Fire ecosystem structure and function vary aand result of spatial and temporal in fires plant-animal Table Process 1.interactions. Consideration of both animals plants provides new insightsvariation and benefits fire and management for biodiversity conservation. Management Table 1. Consideration of both animals and plants provides new insights and benefits fire plant-animal interactions. Process Benefit to Ecological Understanding and Fire Management management for biodiversity conservation. Table 1. Consideration of both animals and plants provides new insights and benefits fire management for biodiversity conservation. Considering structural changes of plants provided Process Benefit to Ecological Understanding and Fire Management Table 1. Consideration of both animals plants provides new new insights structural changes ofand plants provided new understanding of and benefits fire managementConsidering for biodiversity conservation. Process Benefit to Ecological Understanding andover Fire Management understanding of habitat provision century-long time of and benefits fire Considering structural changes of and plants provided new understanding Habitat habitat provision over century-long time scales and showed that insights tolerable Table 1. Consideration of both animals plants provides new management for biodiversity conservation. Process Benefit to Ecological Understanding and Fire Management scales andcentury-long showed that tolerable fire intervals based solely of Habitat development Considering structural changes of plants provided new understanding Habitat provision over time scales showed that tolerable development fire based solely onUnderstanding plant occurrence were too short for animal Process Benefit to Ecological andand Fire Management managementhabitat forintervals biodiversity conservation. Considering structural changes ofwere plants new understanding on plant occurrence tooprovided short for animal conservation of

Habitat Process development Habitat development Process Habitat development Habitat development development Habitat Pollination development Pollination Pollination Pollination Pollination Pollination Pollination Pollination Decomposition

habitat provision over century-long time scales and that Benefit to Ecological Understanding andwere Fireshowed Management fire intervals based solely plant occurrence too short fortolerable animal conservation (Haslem et al.on 2011) *.plants Considering structural changes of*. provided understanding of habitat provision over century-long time scales andnew showed that (Haslem et al. 2011) fire intervals based solely plant occurrence were too short fortolerable animal Considering structural changes of*. plants provided new understanding of Benefit to Ecological Understanding and Fire Management conservation (Haslem et al.on 2011) location and floral resource use mediate pollinator responses to fire. Nest habitat provision over century-long time scales and showed that tolerable fire intervals based solely on plant occurrence were too short for animal conservation (Haslem et al.and 2011) *.plants Nest location floral resource use mediate pollinator habitat provision over century-long time scales and showed that tolerable Considering structural changes ofuse provided new understanding of location andas floral resource mediate pollinator responses to fire. Nest Plant traits such growth form, phenology and bud influence fire intervals based solely on plant occurrence were toolocation short for animal conservation (Haslem et al. 2011) *. responses toresource fire. Plant traits suchand as growth form, location andas floral use mediate pollinator responses to fire. Nest fire intervals based solely on plant occurrence were toolocation short for animal habitat provision over century-long time scales and showed that tolerable Plant traits such growth form, phenology bud influence flowering responses to fire. Pollinators most vulnerable to changing fire conservation (Haslem et al. 2011) *. andasfloral resource use mediate pollinator responses to fire. Nest location phenology and bud location influence flowering responses Plant traitsresponses such growth form, phenology and bud influence conservation (Haslem al. 2011) *. fire intervals based solely on plant occurrence were toolocation short for animal flowering toet fire. Pollinators mostabove-ground vulnerable to changing fire regimes are such predicted to be those that nest and have one floral resource use mediate pollinator responses to fire. Nest toand fire. Pollinators most vulnerable to changing fire regimes Plantlocation traits as growth form, phenology and bud location influence flowering responses toet fire. Pollinators mostabove-ground vulnerable toand changing fire location and floral resource use mediate pollinator responses to fire. Nest conservation (Haslem al. 2011) *. regimes are predicted to be those that nest have brood per year etfire. al. 2017). Plant traits such as growth phenology and bud location are(Brown predicted toform, be those that nestvulnerable above-ground andinfluence haveone flowering responses to Pollinators most to changing fire regimes predicted to be 2017). thoseuse that nest above-ground and influence have one Plant traits such asfloral growth form, phenology and bud location and resource mediate pollinator responses to fire. Nest location brood perare year (Brown et al. Fossorial mammals affected fire behavior via an increase in the rate of flowering responses to fire. Pollinators most vulnerable to changing fire one brood per year (Brown et al. 2017). regimes are predicted to be Pollinators those that nest above-ground and have one brood per year (Brown et al. 2017). flowering responses to fire. most vulnerable to changing fire Plant traits such as affected growth form, phenology and bud location influence Fossorial mammals fire behavior an increase in the rateone of organic matter breakdown. Reintroducing fossorial mammal species to regimes are predicted to be those that nestvia above-ground and have brood per year (Brown et al. 2017). Fossorial mammals affected fire behavior via an increase in Fossorial mammals affected fire behavior via an increase in the rateone of regimes are predicted be 2017). those that nest above-ground have flowering responses toto fire. Pollinators most vulnerable to and changing fire organic matter breakdown. Reintroducing fossorial mammal species to landscapes where they have previously been extinct offers ain new way brood per year al. the(Brown rate of et organic matter breakdown. Reintroducing Fossorial mammals affected fire behavior via an increase the rate to of organic matter breakdown. Reintroducing fossorial mammal species brood per year (Brown et al. regimes are predicted to be 2017). those thatofnest above-ground and have one Decomposition landscapes where they have previously been extinct offers athey new way to modify fire regimes for the benefit plant and animal conservation Fossorial mammals affected fire behavior via an increase in the rate of fossorial mammal species to landscapes where have organic matter breakdown. Reintroducing fossorial mammal species to Decomposition landscapes where they have previously been extinct offers a new way to Decompositionmodify Fossorial mammals affected fire behavior via an increase in the rate of brood per year (Brown et al. 2017). fire regimes forbeen theReintroducing benefitoffers of plant and conservation (Hayward etwhere al. breakdown. 2016). organic matter mammal species previously extinct a fossorial new wayanimal to modify fireway to Decomposition landscapes theyfor have previously extinct offers aconservation new to modify fire regimes theReintroducing benefit of been plant andincrease animal organic breakdown. fossorial mammal species to Fossorialmatter mammals affected fire behavior via an indispersal the rate by of (Hayward etwhere al. 2016). regimes for the benefit of plant and animal conservation Colonization of holm oak in burnt forest is mediated by acorn Decomposition landscapes they have previously been extinct offers a new way to modify fireetwhere regimes for thepreviously benefit of been plantextinct and animal conservation (Hayward al.holm 2016). Decomposition landscapes they have offers a new way to organic matter breakdown. Reintroducing fossorial mammal species (Hayward et al. 2016). Colonization of oak in burnt forest is mediated by acorn dispersal by Eurasian jays. Post-fire logging theanimal strengthconservation of this key modify fire regimes forsalvage the benefit of reduced plant and (Hayward et al. 2016). Colonization ofPost-fire holm oak in forest mediated by acornaconservation dispersal by modify fire regimes forhave theburnt benefit of is plant and animal Decomposition landscapes they previously been extinct offers new way to Eurasian jays. salvage logging reduced strength of this key Seed dispersal plant-animal interaction. Management ofthe non-intervention (Hayward etwhere al. 2016). Colonization ofburnt holm oak inpolicies burnt forest is acorn mediated by after Colonization of holm oak in forest is mediated by dispersal by Eurasian jays. Post-fire logging reduced strengthconservation of thisafter key (Hayward et regimes al. 2016). modify fire forsalvage the benefit ofpolicies plant and animal Seed dispersal plant-animal interaction. Management ofthe non-intervention forest fire are likely to increase the resilience of the ecosystem (Castro et al. Colonization of holm oak in burnt forest is mediated by acorn dispersal by acorn dispersal by Eurasian jays. Post-fire salvage logging Eurasian jays.of Post-fire salvage logging reduced strength of thisafter key Seed dispersal plant-animal interaction. Management ofthe non-intervention Colonization holm in burnt forest is mediated by acorn dispersal by (Hayward et reduced al. 2016). forest fire jays. are likely to oak increase the resilience ofplant-animal the ecosystem (Castro al. the strength of thispolicies key interaction. 2012). Post-fire salvage logging reduced strength of thiset key SeedSeed dispersal plant-animal interaction. Management policies ofthe non-intervention after dispersal Eurasian forest firejays. areManagement likely tooak increase the resilience of the ecosystem (Castro et al. Eurasian Post-fire salvage logging reduced the strength of this key Colonization of holm in burnt forest is mediated by acorn dispersal by policies of non-intervention after forest fire are 2012). Mediterranean gorse seeds are predated upon by the weevil Exapion Seed dispersal plant-animal interaction. Management policies of non-intervention after forest fire are interaction. likely to increase the resilience of the ecosystem (Castro after et al. 2012). Seed dispersal plant-animal Management policies ofecosystem non-intervention likely to increase the resilience of the (Castro et al. Eurasian jays. Post-fire salvage logging reduced the strength of in this key Mediterranean gorse seeds are predated upon by the weevil Exapion fasciolatum. Mediterranean gorse experienced lower seed damage burnt forest fire are likely to increase the resilience of the ecosystem (Castro et al. 2012). fire are2012). Mediterranean gorse seeds are predated upon thedamage weevil Exapion forest to increase theexperienced resilience ofbenefit the ecosystem (Castro et al. Seed dispersal plant-animal interaction. Management policies ofby non-intervention after fasciolatum. Mediterranean gorse lower seed in burnt compared tolikely unburnt areas. can upon from fire through 2012). Mediterranean gorse seeds arePlants predated byseed thedamage weevil Exapion Seed predation fasciolatum. Mediterranean gorse experienced lower in burnt 2012). forest fire are likely to increase the resilience ofbenefit the ecosystem (Castro et al. compared to unburnt areas. Plants canpredated from fire through Mediterranean gorse seeds are upon by the weevil disruption of antagonistic interactions with seed predators and this might Mediterranean gorse seeds are predated upon by the weevil Exapion fasciolatum. Mediterranean gorse experienced lower seed damage in burnt Seed predation compared toExapion unburnt areas. Plants canseed benefit from firethis through Mediterranean gorse seeds are predated upon byseed the weevil Exapion 2012). fasciolatum. Mediterranean gorse experienced lower disruption of antagonistic interactions with predators and might be one mechanism promoting success ofcan fire-adapted plants (García et al. fasciolatum. Mediterranean gorse experienced lower damage in burnt Seed predation compared toantagonistic unburnt areas. Plants benefit from fire through disruption of interactions with seed predators and this might fasciolatum. Mediterranean gorse experienced lower damage in burnt seed damage in burnt compared to unburnt areas. Plants canal. Mediterranean gorse seeds are predated upon byseed the weevil Exapion Seed predation be one mechanism promoting success of fire-adapted plants (García et 2016). compared to unburnt areas. Plants can benefit from fire through disruption of antagonistic interactions with seed predators and this might SeedSeed predation be one mechanism promoting success ofcan fire-adapted plants (García et al. predation2016). benefit fromareas. fire through disruption of antagonistic compared to unburnt Plants benefit from fire through fasciolatum. Mediterranean gorse experienced lower seed damage inmight burnt In periods ofantagonistic low rainfall, grazing by kangaroos and feral herbivores disruption of interactions with seed predators and this Seed predation be one mechanism promoting success of fire-adapted plants (García et al. with seed predators and this might be one 2016). disruption of antagonistic interactions with seed predators and this might compared tointeractions unburnt areas. Plants can benefit from fire through In periods of low rainfall, grazing by kangaroos and feral herbivores following prescribed fire had a large effect on the survival of seedlings be one mechanism promoting success of fire-adapted plants (García et al. Seed predation 2016). mechanism promoting success of fire-adapted plants (García In periods of low rainfall, grazing by kangaroos and feral herbivores be one mechanism promoting success of fire-adapted plants (García et al. disruption of antagonistic interactions with seed predators and this might following prescribed fire This had aindicates large effect on the survival seedlings and resprouting plants. that conservation ofofplants and 2016). et al. 2016). In periods of low rainfall, grazing by kangaroos and feral herbivores Grazing following prescribed fireThis had indicates a large of effect on the survival ofplants seedlings 2016). be one mechanism promoting success fire-adapted plants (García et al. and resprouting plants. that conservation of and animals will benefit from fire management that considers how herbivore In periodsprescribed of low rainfall, grazing kangaroos and feralofherbivores following fire had a largeby effect on the survival seedlings Grazing Inlow periods ofThis low rainfall, grazing byconsiders kangaroos feral and and resprouting plants. indicates that conservation ofand plants In periods ofbenefit rainfall, grazing by kangaroos and feral herbivores 2016). animals will from fire management that how herbivore management influences a foundation species of semi-arid Australia following prescribed fire had a large effect on the survival of seedlings Grazing and resprouting plants. This thatthat conservation of plants and herbivores following prescribed fire had asemi-arid large effect on the animals will benefit from fire management considers how herbivore following prescribed fire aindicates large effect on the seedlings In periods low rainfall, grazing by kangaroos and feral herbivores Grazing management influences ahad foundation species of survival Australia (Giljohann etofbenefit al. 2017). and resprouting plants. This indicates that conservation ofofplants and animals will from firefoundation management that considers how herbivore survival of seedlings and resprouting plants. This indicates Grazing management influences ahad species of semi-arid Australia and resprouting plants. This indicates that conservation of ofplants and following prescribed fire a in large effect on the survival seedlings (Giljohann et al. 2017). Spatial and temporal variation fires influences community assembly animals will benefit from fire management that considers how herbivore Grazing Grazing that conservation of plants and animals benefit from fire management influences a foundation species ofwill semi-arid Australia (Giljohann ettemporal al. 2017). animals will benefit from management that considers how herbivore and resprouting plants. This indicates that conservation ofbiodiversity plants and Spatial and variation inand fires influences assembly globally (Kelly &2017). Brotons 2017), feedback among fires, management influences afire foundation species ofcommunity semi-arid Australia management that considers how herbivore management Grazing (Giljohann ettemporal al. Spatial and variation in fires influences community assembly management influences a foundation species of semi-arid Australia animals will benefit from fire management that considers how herbivore globally (Kelly &2017). Brotons 2017), andspecies feedback among fires, biodiversity and ecological processes are central to understanding community-level (Giljohann et al. influences a foundation of semi-arid Australia Spatial and variation inand fires influences community assembly globally (Kelly & Brotons 2017), feedback among fires, biodiversity (Giljohann ettemporal al. 2017). management influences aal. foundation speciesfire ofcommunity Australia and ecological processes central to understanding community-level (Giljohann 2017). Community changes (Bowman et variation al.etare 2016). For example, insemi-arid combination with Spatial and temporal in fires influences assembly globally (Kelly & Brotons 2017), and feedback among fires, biodiversity and ecological processes are central to understanding community-level Spatial and temporal variation in fires influences community assembly (Giljohann et al. 2017). Community changes (Bowman et al. 2016). For example, fire in combination with assembly experimental exclusion of seed-eating rodents shifted a fires, desert shrubland globally (Kelly & Brotons 2017), and feedback among biodiversity Spatial and temporal variation in fires influences community and ecological processes are central to understanding community-level Community changes (Bowman et variation al. 2016). For example, fire inacombination with globally (Kelly & Brotons 2017), and feedback among fires, biodiversity Spatial and temporal in fires influences community assembly assembly experimental exclusion of are seed-eating shifted desert shrubland to a ecological low-diversity, invasive grassland. In areas where they remained, and processes central to understanding community-level assembly globally (Kelly &rodents Brotons 2017), feedback Community changes (Bowman et al. 2016). For example, fire in aand combination with assembly experimental exclusion ofare seed-eating rodents shifted desert shrubland and processes central to understanding community-level globally (Kelly & Brotons 2017), and feedback among fires, to a ecological low-diversity, invasive grassland. Inecological areas where theybiodiversity remained, rodents created biotic resistance to invasive plants, with cascading effects Community changes (Bowman et al. 2016). For example, fire in combination with among fires, biodiversity and processes are assembly experimental exclusion of 2016). seed-eating rodents shifted desert to a ecological low-diversity, invasive grassland. In plants, areas they shrubland remained, Community changes (Bowman et al. For example, firewhere in aacombination with andplant processes are central to understanding community-level rodents created biotic resistance to invasive with cascading effects central to understanding community-level changes on diversity (St. Clair et al. 2016). assembly experimental exclusion of seed-eating rodents shifted desert shrubland to a low-diversity, invasive grassland. In plants, areas where they shrubland remained, rodents created biotic resistance to invasive with cascading effects assembly experimental exclusion seed-eating rodents shifted acombination desert Community changes (Bowman al. 2016). For fire in combination with on plant diversity (St. Clair et2016). al. (Bowman etofal. example, firewhere in with to a low-diversity, invasive grassland. In areas they247–256; remained, * Additionalassembly references in Table 1:et Haslem, A.2016). etFor al.example, J. Appl. Ecol. 2011, 48, Brown, J. et al. J. Appl. Community rodents created biotic resistance invasive plants, with cascading effects on plant diversity (St. Clair et grassland. al. to 2016). to a low-diversity, invasive In areas where they remained, assembly experimental exclusion of seed-eating rodents shifted a desert shrubland experimental exclusion of seed-eating rodents shifted aeffects *Ecol. Additional in Table 1: Haslem, A. et al. J. Appl. Ecol. 2011, 48, 247–256; Brown, et al. J. Appl. rodents created biotic resistance to invasive plants, with cascading 2017, 54,references 313–322; Hayward, M.W. et al. Anim. Conserv. 2016, 19, 490–497; Castro, J. et al. J. Ecosphere 2012, on plant diversity (St. Clair et al. 2016). desert shrubland to a low-diversity, invasive grassland. In rodents created biotic resistance to with cascading effects * Additional in Table 1:M.W. Haslem, A. etinvasive al. J. Appl. Ecol.where 2011, 48, Brown, J. et al. J. 2012, Appl. to a low-diversity, invasive grassland. In plants, areas they247–256; remained, on plant (St. Clair etal.al. 2016). Ecol. 2017, 54,references 313–322; Hayward, et Anim. Conserv. 2016, 19, 490–497; Castro, J. et al. Ecosphere 3, 1–12; García, Y. et al.diversity Oecologia, 2016, 182, 1165–1173; Giljohann, K.M. J. Ecol. 2017, 105, 1562–1570; Kelly, *Ecol. Additional references in Table 1: Haslem, A. et al. J. Appl. Ecol. 2011, 48, 247–256; Brown, J. et al. J. Appl. areas where they remained, rodents created biotic resistance on plant created diversity (St. Clair etal.al. 2016). rodents biotic resistance to invasive plants, with cascading effects 2017, 54,references 313–322; Hayward, M.W. et Anim. Conserv. 2016, 19, 490–497; Castro, J. et al. Ecosphere 2012, 3, 1–12; García, Y. L. et al. Oecologia, 2016, 182, 1165–1173; Giljohann, K.M. J. Ecol. 2017, 105, 1562–1570; Kelly, *Ecol. Additional in Table 1: Haslem, A. et al. J. Appl. Ecol. 2011, 48, 247–256; Brown, J. et al. J. Appl. L.T. and Brotons, Science, 2017, 355, 1264–1265; Bowman, D.M.J.S. et al. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B. 2016, 371, to invasive plants, with cascading effects on plant diversity 2017, 54, 313–322; Hayward, M.W. et al. Anim. Conserv. 2016, 19, 490–497; Castro, J. et al. Ecosphere 2012, on plant diversity (St. Clair et al. 2016). *L.T. Additional references in Table 1: Haslem, A. et al. J. Appl. Ecol. 2011, 48, 247–256; Brown, J. et al. J. Appl. 3, 1–12; García, Y. L. et Science, al.Hayward, Oecologia, 2016, 182, 1165–1173; Giljohann, 2017, 105, 1562–1570; and Brotons, 2017, 355, Bowman, D.M.J.S. et J. al.Ecol. Phil. Trans. R.al. Soc. B. 2016,Kelly, 371, Ecol. 2017, 54,Clair, 313–322; M.W. et al. Anim. Conserv. 2016, 19,K.M. 490–497; Castro, J. et Ecosphere 2012, (St.Ecology Clair et al.1264–1265; 2016). 20150169; St. S.B. etOecologia, al. 2016, 97,1165–1173; 1700–1711. 3, 1–12; García, Y. et al. 2016, 182, Giljohann, K.M. J. Ecol. 2017, 105, 1562–1570; Kelly, * Additional references in Table 1:M.W. Haslem, A. et al. J. Appl.2016, Ecol. 2011, 247–256; Brown, J. et J. 2012, Appl. Ecol. 2017,Brotons, 54,Clair, 313–322; Hayward, et al. Anim. Conserv. 19, 490–497; Castro, J. et Ecosphere L.T. and Science, 2017, 355, 1264–1265; Bowman, D.M.J.S. et48, al.Ecol. Phil. Trans. R.al. Soc. B. al. 2016, 371, 20150169; St. S.B. etOecologia, al. Ecology 2016, 97,1165–1173; 1700–1711. 3, 1–12; García, Y. L. et al. 2016, 182, Giljohann, K.M. 2017, 105, 1562–1570; Kelly, L.T. and Brotons, L. Science, 2017, 355, 1264–1265; D.M.J.S. et J. Phil. Trans. R.al. Soc. B. 2016, 371, * Additional references Table Haslem, A. et al. Bowman, J. Appl. Ecol. 2011, 48, 247–256; Brown, J. Kelly, et al. J. Appl. Ecol. Ecol. 2017, 54,Clair, 313–322; Hayward, M.W. et al. Anim. Conserv. 2016, 19, 490–497; Castro, J. et Ecosphere 2012, 3, 1–12; García, Y.in etS.B. al. Oecologia, 2016, 182, Giljohann, K.M. J.al.Ecol. 2017, 105, 1562–1570; 20150169; St. et al.1: Ecology 2016, 97,1165–1173; 1700–1711. L.T. and Brotons, L. Science, 2017, 355, 1264–1265; Bowman, D.M.J.S. et al. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B. 2016, 371, 20150169; St. Clair, S.B. al. Ecology 2016, 97,1165–1173; 1700–1711. 2017, 54, L.T. 313–322; Hayward, M.W. et al. Anim. Conserv. 2016,D.M.J.S. 19, 490–497; Castro, J.R.et al.B.Ecosphere 3, 1–12; Y. L. et al. et Oecologia, 2016, 182, Giljohann, K.M. 2017, 105, 1562–1570; andGarcía, Brotons, Science, 2017, 355, 1264–1265; Bowman, et J. al.Ecol. Phil. Trans. Soc. 2016,Kelly, 371, 2012, 3, 1–12; St. Clair, S.B. et al. Ecology 2016, 97, 1700–1711. García, Y.20150169; et al. Oecologia, 2016, 1165–1173; K.M.D.M.J.S. J. Ecol.et2017, 105, 1562–1570; L.T. and Brotons, L.T. and Brotons, Science, 2017, 355, 1264–1265; Bowman, al. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B.Kelly, 2016, 371, 20150169; St. Clair,L. S.B. et 182, al. Ecology 2016, 97,Giljohann, 1700–1711. L. Science,20150169; 2017, 355, Bowman, D.M.J.S. et al. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B. 2016, 371, 20150169; St. Clair, S.B. et al. St. 1264–1265; Clair, S.B. et al. Ecology 2016, 97, 1700–1711.

Ecology 2016, 97, 1700–1711.

Fire 2018, 1, 29

6 of 8

3.4. Spatio-Temporal Fire Management There is broad agreement that spatial and temporal dimensions of fire regimes matter but it is rare that interconnections between the two are explicitly incorporated into management for biodiversity. One reason is that data on plants, animals, and spatio-temporal mosaics has been lacking [11]. In part, this is being addressed by a surge of new studies on fire regimes and biodiversity [3]. A continuing issue is that results of studies are rarely available as mapped outputs that can directly inform spatial-temporal management. To complement maps of fire history, we recommend mapping outputs from models that directly link biodiversity with measures of fires (e.g., species distribution and population models) [24]. This would facilitate comparisons of fire impacts across different taxa and in different places, help to identify when and where key populations of plants and animals will be located, and strengthen efforts to define management thresholds in different components of fire regimes. We are already using linked fire and biodiversity data to inform decision making across large areas of southern Australia and northern Spain ([3,25] and references therein). Useful extensions could include mapping interactions and interdependencies between plants and animals, such as pollinator networks (Table 1); linking spatial models to fire simulations and management strategies to predict future changes in plant and animal populations; and producing real-time environmental data to aid the urgent decisions that affect people and biodiversity during fire events. We have only touched on some important debates that span animal and plant ecology such as single- vs. multi-species management, historical range and variability vs. contemporary fire management, and correlative vs. mechanistic approaches. Insights from these other approaches are likely to produce ideas additional to those proposed in this paper. 4. Conclusions Many animals and plants show different responses to fires but we argue that searching for commonality and links will enhance learning about both groups. Our vision for a more integrated fire ecology could be implemented via a collaborative and global network of research and monitoring sites in fire-prone ecosystems, where measures of animals and plants are linked to real-time data on the spatial and temporal dimensions of fires. Well-designed monitoring would provide the following: opportunities to reveal new ecological patterns, processes, and interactions between animals and plants; a more robust understanding of the effect of fire regimes on biodiversity; and a strong basis for choosing between alternative fire management strategies. This proposal would be strengthened by collaborations between animal and plant ecologists, using emerging approaches for generalization such as trait-based models. Finally, bringing together animal and plant perspectives will benefit from other recent developments in fire ecology, notably, frameworks that recognize the importance of socio-ecological linkages, adaptive resilience, and decision making under uncertainty [3,16]. Supplementary Materials: The following are available online at http://www.mdpi.com/2571-6255/1/2/29/s1. Author Contributions: L.K. conceived the idea for the paper and led the writing. All authors made substantial contributions to the development of ideas and drafts. Funding: Kelly was funded by the Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence for Environmental Decisions and a Victorian Postdoctoral Research Fellowship delivered by veski on behalf of the Victorian Government. Brotons and Pausas were funded by the Government of Spain on Project CGL2017-89999-C2 and CGL2015-64086-P, respectively. Smith was supported by Marie Skłodowska-Curie Individual Fellowship FIRESCAPE-746191 under the EU H2020 Programme for Research and Innovation. Acknowledgments: Many thanks to Clare Kelly who co-designed Figure 1 and Table 1. We appreciate the useful comments and suggestions provided by the reviewers of this paper. Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Fire 2018, 1, 29

7 of 8

References 1. 2.

3. 4.

5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15.

16. 17.

18.

19. 20.

Freeman, J.; Kobziar, L.; Rose, E.W.; Cropper, W. A critical evaluation of the historical fire regime concept in conservation. Conserv. Biol. 2017, 31, 976–985. [CrossRef] [PubMed] Bradstock, R.A.; Williams, R.J.; Gill, A.M. Future fire regimes of Australian ecosystems: new perspectives on enduring questions of management. In Flammable Australia: Fire Regimes, Biodiversity and Ecosystems in a Changing World; Bradstock, R.A., Gill, A.M., Williams, R.J., Eds.; CSIRO Publishing: Collingwood, Australia, 2012; pp. 307–324. ISBN 9780643104846. Kelly, L.T.; Brotons, L.; McCarthy, M.A. Putting pyrodiversity to work for animal conservation. Conserv. Biol. 2017, 31, 952–955. [CrossRef] [PubMed] Shedley, E.; Burrows, N.; Yates, C.J.; Coates, D.J. Using bioregional variation in fire history and fire response attributes as a basis for managing threatened flora in a fire-prone Mediterranean climate biodiversity hotspot. Aust. J. Bot. 2018, 66, 134–143. [CrossRef] Pausas, J.G.; Parr, C.L. Towards an understanding of the evolutionary role of fire in animals. Evol. Ecol. 2018, 1–13. [CrossRef] Keeley, J.E.; Bond, W.J.; Bradstock, R.A.; Pausas, J.G.; Rundel, P.W. Fire in Mediterranean Ecosystems: Ecology, Evolution and Management; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2012; ISBN 9780521824910. Puig-Gironès, R.; Clavero, M.; Pons, P. Importance of internal refuges and the external unburnt area in the recovery of rodent populations after wildfire. Int. J. Wildl. Fire 2018, 27, 425–436. [CrossRef] Gill, A.M.; McCarthy, M.A. Intervals between prescribed fires in Australia: What intrinsic variation should apply? Biol. Conserv. 1998, 85, 161–169. [CrossRef] Baker, W.L. Fire Ecology in Rocky Mountain Landscapes; Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2009; ISBN 9781597261821. Bond, W.J.; van Wilgen, B.W. Fire and Plants; Chapman and Hall: London, UK, 1996; ISBN 9789400914995. Foster, C.N.; Barton, P.S.; Robinson, N.M.; MacGregor, C.I.; Lindenmayer, D.B. Effects of a large wildfire on vegetation structure in a variable fire mosaic. Ecol. Appl. 2017, 27, 2369–2381. [CrossRef] [PubMed] Fox, B.J. Fire and mammalian secondary succession in an Australian coastal heath. Ecology 1982, 63, 1332–1341. [CrossRef] Smith, A.L. Successional changes in trophic interactions support a mechanistic model of post-fire population dynamics. Oecologia 2018, 186, 129–139. [CrossRef] [PubMed] Noble, I.R.; Slatyer, R.O. The use of vital attributes to predict successional changes in plant communities subject to recurrent disturbances. Vegetatio 1980, 43, 5–21. [CrossRef] Keith, D.A. Functional traits: their roles in understanding and predicting biotic responses to fire regimes from individuals to landscapes. In Flammable Australia: Fire Regimes, Biodiversity and Ecosystems in a Changing World; Bradstock, R.A., Gill, A.M., Williams, R.J., Eds.; CSIRO Publishing: Collingwood, Australia, 2012; pp. 97–125. ISBN 9780643104846. Moritz, M.A.; Hurteau, M.D.; Suding, K.N.; D’Antonio, C.M. Bounded ranges of variation as a framework for future conservation and fire management. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 2013, 1286, 92–107. [CrossRef] [PubMed] Hessburg, P.F.; Spies, T.A.; Perry, D.A.; Skinner, C.N.; Taylor, A.H.; Brown, P.M.; Stephens, S.L.; Larson, A.J.; Churchill, D.J.; Povak, N.A.; et al. Tamm review: management of mixed-severity fire regime forests in Oregon, Washington, and Northern California. For. Ecol. Manag. 2016, 366, 221–250. [CrossRef] Kraaij, T.; Cowling, R.M.; van Wilgen, B.W.; Schutte-Vlok, A. Proteaceae juvenile periods and post-fire recruitment as indicators of minimum fire return interval in eastern coastal fynbos. Appl. Veg. Sci. 2013, 16, 84–94. [CrossRef] Menges, E.S. Integrating demography and fire management: An example from Florida scrub. Aust. J. Bot. 2007, 55, 261–272. [CrossRef] Pereira, H.M.; Ferrier, S.; Walters, M.; Geller, G.N.; Jongman, R.H.G.; Scholes, R.J.; Bruford, M.W.; Brummitt, N.; Butchart, S.H.M.; Cardoso, A.C.; et al. Essential biodiversity variables. Science 2013, 339, 277–278. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

Fire 2018, 1, 29

21.

22. 23.

24.

25.

8 of 8

Einoder, L.D.; Southwell, D.M.; Gillespie, G.R.; Monfort, J.J.L.; Wintle, B.A. Optimising broad-scale monitoring for trend detection: review and re-design of a long-term program in northern Australia. In Monitoring Threatened Species and Ecological Communities; Legge, S., Lindenmayer, D., Robinson, N., Scheele, B., Southwell, D., Wintle, B., Eds.; CSIRO Publishing: Collingwood, Australia, 2018; pp. 271–280. ISBN 9781486307715. Thomas, F.M.; Vesk, P.A. Growth races in the Mallee: Height growth in woody plants examined with a trait-based model. Austral Ecol. 2017, 42, 790–800. [CrossRef] Talluto, M.V.; Benkman, C.W. Conflicting selection from fire and seed predation drives fine-scaled phenotypic variation in a widespread North American conifer. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2014, 111, 9543–9548. [CrossRef] [PubMed] Franklin, J.; Regan, H.M.; Syphard, A.D. Linking spatially explicit species distribution and population models to plan for the persistence of plant species under global change. Environ. Conserv. 2013, 41, 97–109. [CrossRef] Brotons, L.; De Cáceres, M.; Fall, A.; Fortin, M.J. Modeling bird species distribution change in fire prone Mediterranean landscapes: incorporating species dispersal and landscape dynamics. Ecography 2012, 35, 458–467. [CrossRef] © 2018 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).