Learning to coexist with wildfire.

The impacts of escalating wildfire in many regions - the lives and homes lost, the expense of suppression and the damage to ecosystem services - necessitate a more sustainable coexistence with wildfire. Climate change and continued development on fire-prone landscapes will only compound current problems. Emerging strategies for managing ecosystems and mitigating risks to human communities provide some hope, although greater recognition of their inherent variation and links is crucial. Without a more integrated framework, fire will never operate as a natural ecosystem process, and the impact on society will continue to grow. A more coordinated approach to risk management and land-use planning in these coupled systems is needed.

The worldwide "wildfire" problem.

The worldwide "wildfire" problem is headlined by the loss of human lives and homes, but it applies generally to any adverse effects of unplanned fires, as events or regimes, on a wide range of environmental, social, and economic assets. The problem is complex and contingent, requiring continual attention to the changing circumstances of stakeholders, landscapes, and ecosystems; it occurs at a variety of temporal and spatial scales. Minimizing adverse outcomes involves controlling fires and fire regimes, increasing the resistance of assets to fires, locating or relocating assets away from the path of fires, and, as a probability of adverse impacts often remains, assisting recovery in the short-term while promoting the adaptation of societies in the long-term. There are short- and long-term aspects to each aspect of minimization. Controlling fires and fire regimes may involve fire suppression and fuel treatments such as prescribed burning or non-fire treatments but also addresses issues associated with unwanted fire starts like arson. Increasing the resistance of assets can mean addressing the design and construction materials of a house or the use of personal protective equipment. Locating or relocating assets can mean leaving an area about to be impacted by fire or choosing a suitable place to live; it can also mean the planning of land use. Assisting recovery and promoting adaptation can involve insuring assets and sharing responsibility for preparedness for an event. There is no single, simple, solution. Perverse outcomes can occur. The number of minimizing techniques used, and the breadth and depth of their application, depends on the geographic mix of asset types. Premises for policy consideration are presented.

Testing hypotheses associated with bird responses to wildfire.

Disturbance is a key ecological process influencing the distribution and abundance of many elements of the earth's biota. Predicting the response of biota to disturbance is therefore important, but it nevertheless remains difficult to make accurate forecasts of response. We tested predictions from disturbance-related theories and concepts in 10 vegetation types at Booderee National Park (southeastern Australia) using a retrospective study of bird responses to fire history (over 35 years) on 110 sites and a prospective study following a single wildfire event in 2003 at 59 of these sites. Our data did not support predictions from the intermediate-disturbance hypothesis; observed bird species richness at a site was significantly (F(1,99) = 6.30, P = 0.014) negatively related to the number of fires since 1972 and was 8.7% lower (95% CI, 1.8-15.1%) for each additional fire. In contrast to fire history effects, we found that after the 2003 fire, the vast majority of individual species and the bird assemblage per se in most vegetation types recovered within two years. Thus, recovery after a single fire did not reflect long-term effects of multiple fires on overall bird species richness at a site. We postulated that the recovery of bird species richness and bird assemblage composition after the 2003 fire would be fastest in structurally simple vegetation types and slowest in structurally complex vegetation, but observed the opposite. Although observed bird species richness in vertically heterogeneous forest and woodland had returned to prefire levels by 2006, bird species richness in structurally simple vegetation types (e.g., sedgeland) had not. Postfire vegetation regeneration, together with a paucity of early-successional specialists, would explain the speed of recovery of the bird assemblage and why it changed relatively little during our investigation.

Biophysical Mechanistic Modelling Quantifies the Effects of Plant Traits on Fire Severity: Species, Not Surface Fuel Loads, Determine Flame Dimensions in Eucalypt Forests.

The influence of plant traits on forest fire behaviour has evolutionary, ecological and management implications, but is poorly understood and frequently discounted. We use a process model to quantify that influence and provide validation in a diverse range of eucalypt forests burnt under varying conditions. Measured height of consumption was compared to heights predicted using a surface fuel fire behaviour model, then key aspects of our model were sequentially added to this with and without species-specific information. Our fully specified model had a mean absolute error 3.8 times smaller than the otherwise identical surface fuel model (p < 0.01), and correctly predicted the height of larger (≥1 m) flames 12 times more often (p < 0.001). We conclude that the primary endogenous drivers of fire severity are the species of plants present rather than the surface fuel load, and demonstrate the accuracy and versatility of the model for quantifying this.

How does ecological disturbance influence genetic diversity?

Environmental disturbance underpins the dynamics and diversity of many of the ecosystems of the world, yet its influence on the patterns and distribution of genetic diversity is poorly appreciated. We argue here that disturbance history may be the major driver that shapes patterns of genetic diversity in many natural populations. We outline how disturbance influences genetic diversity through changes in both selective processes and demographically driven, selectively neutral processes. Our review highlights the opportunities and challenges presented by genetic approaches, such as landscape genomics, for better understanding and predicting the demographic and evolutionary responses of natural populations to disturbance. Developing this understanding is now critical because disturbance regimes are changing rapidly in a human-modified world.

Land management practices associated with house loss in wildfires.

Losses to life and property from unplanned fires (wildfires) are forecast to increase because of population growth in peri-urban areas and climate change. In response, there have been moves to increase fuel reduction--clearing, prescribed burning, biomass removal and grazing--to afford greater protection to peri-urban communities in fire-prone regions. But how effective are these measures? Severe wildfires in southern Australia in 2009 presented a rare opportunity to address this question empirically. We predicted that modifying several fuels could theoretically reduce house loss by 76%-97%, which would translate to considerably fewer wildfire-related deaths. However, maximum levels of fuel reduction are unlikely to be feasible at every house for logistical and environmental reasons. Significant fuel variables in a logistic regression model we selected to predict house loss were (in order of decreasing effect): (1) the cover of trees and shrubs within 40 m of houses, (2) whether trees and shrubs within 40 m of houses was predominantly remnant or planted, (3) the upwind distance from houses to groups of trees or shrubs, (4) the upwind distance from houses to public forested land (irrespective of whether it was managed for nature conservation or logging), (5) the upwind distance from houses to prescribed burning within 5 years, and (6) the number of buildings or structures within 40 m of houses. All fuel treatments were more effective if undertaken closer to houses. For example, 15% fewer houses were destroyed if prescribed burning occurred at the observed minimum distance from houses (0.5 km) rather than the observed mean distance from houses (8.5 km). Our results imply that a shift in emphasis away from broad-scale fuel-reduction to intensive fuel treatments close to property will more effectively mitigate impacts from wildfires on peri-urban communities.