Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
Loading next page...
/lp/multidisciplinary-digital-publishing-institute/community-responses-to-fire-a-global-meta-analysis-unravels-the-DdpERxhf3G
References
References for this paper are not available at this time. We will be adding them shortly, thank you for your patience.
- Publisher
- Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute
- Copyright
- © 1996-2022 MDPI (Basel, Switzerland) unless otherwise stated Disclaimer Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. Terms and Conditions Privacy Policy
- ISSN
- 2673-4834
- DOI
- 10.3390/earth3040063
- Publisher site
- See Article on Publisher Site
Abstract
Systematic Review Community Responses to Fire: A Global Meta-Analysis Unravels the Contrasting Responses of Fauna to Fire 1,2 Sydney Moyo Department of Biology, Rhodes College, Memphis, TN 38112, USA; moyos@rhodes.edu Program in Environmental Studies and Sciences, Rhodes College, Memphis, TN 38112, USA Abstract: Globally, wildfires and prescribed fires are becoming more prevalent and are known to affect plant and animals in diverse ecosystems. Understanding the responses of animal communities to fire is a central issue in conservation and a panacea to predicting how fire regimes may affect communities and food webs. Here, a global meta-analysis of 2581 observations extracted from 208 empirical studies were used to investigate the effect of fire on aboveground and belowground fauna (e.g., bacteria, fungi, small mammals, arthropods). Overall, results revealed that fire had a negative effect on biomass, abundance, richness, evenness, and diversity of all faunas. Similarly, when con- sidering wildfires and prescribed fires the data revealed that both fire regimes have negative effects on fauna. Similarly, fire had negative impacts on aboveground and aboveground fauna across most biomes and continents of the world. Moreover, there was little evidence of changes in pH, moisture and soil depth on soil organisms suggesting that other factors may drive community changes fol- lowing a fire disturbance. Future research in fire ecology should consider the effects of fire across several species and across larger geospatial scales. In addition, fire effects on faunal community structure must be studied under contrasting global fire regimes and in light of the effects of climate change. Keywords: prescribed; wildfire; invertebrates; vertebrates; belowground; aboveground Citation: Moyo, S. Community Responses to Fire: A Global Meta-Analysis Unravels the Contrasting Responses of Fauna to 1. Introduction Fire. Earth 2022, 3, 1087–1111. Fires are a natural part of ecological function in many parts of the world, and are https://doi.org/10.3390/earth3040063 widely acknowledged as a disturbance that can affect the ecological function of soil, flora Academic Editor: and fauna in various ecosystems [1–6]. In recent decades, the incidence of fires has bur- António Dinis Ferreira geoned due to anthropogenic mediated land use changes [7,8] and natural environmental factors such as prolonged summer droughts [9], lightning strikes [10,11], high combusti- Received: 26 August 2022 bility of vegetation [12], increased net primary productivity [13], prolonged fire seasons Accepted: 23 October 2022 [14,15], and a rapidly changing climate [16,17]. The increase in fire frequency has put fire Published: 27 October 2022 regimes at the vanguard of global change, because fires can cause positive feedback loops Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neu- that potentially compound global climate change [18]. tral with regard to jurisdictional Fire prevalence and its associated effects can vary across biomes and geographical claims in published maps and institu- regions. The effects of fire on soil and organisms have been extensively examined for tional affiliations. many biomes such as savannahs [2,19], boreal forests in North America [20,21] and grass- lands [22,23]. While the role of fire on organisms at a global scale has been extensively addressed [24,25], more studies are needed to fully understand the role of fire in shaping Copyright: © 2022 by the author. Li- organism population dynamics in different biomes [25]. For instance, fires can drive the censee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. distribution and function of savannah biomes [26]. Researchers have demonstrated that This article is an open access article fire can change tree community structure and can maintain savannah biomes [27]. Simi- distributed under the terms and con- larly, varying abiotic conditions (e.g., moisture, pH) also shape biomes. For example, in ditions of the Creative Commons At- Africa, low rainfall deterministically results in savannah biomes whilst high rainfall tribution (CC BY) license (https://cre- shapes forests [28]. Consolidative studies that quantify fire effects on a range of ativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Earth 2022, 3, 1087–1111. https://doi.org/10.3390/earth3040063 www.mdpi.com/journal/earth Earth 2022, 3 1088 organisms, with a broad geographical scope (that includes ecoregions and ecosystem types worldwide) and that account for specific characteristics of these fire events (e.g., wildfires versus prescribed fires), are still lacking, even though such work is fundamental to gaining a better understanding of the environmental effects of fires globally. Several researchers have documented the effects of fire on plant communities and have revealed the links between plants and animals after a fire disturbance [5,12]. Much of these works have revealed that fire can have positive, negative, and neutral effects on soils, organisms and plants [29,30]. For instance, some researchers have demonstrated that fire of varying intensities and degrees destroy vegetation and change soil physical, chem- ical, and biological properties potentially leading to reductions in soil quality [31]. Else- where fires are documented to increase soil pH and available nutrients [32], reduce soil moisture, and reduce organic soil carbon (C) and nitrogen (N) [33]. It is plausible that the changes in soil quality may subsequently impact organisms in a particular ecosystem. Given that fires of varying degrees can affect variety of soil, faunal and floral components in an environment, it is imperative to understand the effects of fire types (prescribed ver- sus wildfires) on ecosystem structure, function, and dynamics globally. Prescribed fire is increasingly used as a sporadic disturbance agent that simulates natural disturbance regimes. This management strategy is designed to clear vegetation, encourage regeneration of trees, improve pastures for foraging, reduce wildfire hazards [34,35], and more controversially, promote the conservation of biodiversity [36,37]. The latter suggestion that prescribed fires can promote conservation and biodiversity is pred- icated on two seminal hypotheses. The first hypotheses, the Intermediate Disturbance Hy- pothesis posits that species diversity will be highest in ecosystems that are subject to mod- erate levels of disturbance, and suggest that the habitat heterogeneity created by such dis- turbance serves as a precursor for biodiversity increases [38]. Findings of the Intermediate disturbance hypothesis are widely supported in the literature [25]. The second hypothesis, the Patch Mosaic Burn Hypothesis asserts that fires are an effective way to create habitat heterogeneity, because they creates a mosaic of burned and unburned patches across space and time [39], which potentially creates habitat differences that can support a suite of organisms with different life history traits. The Intermediate Disturbance Hypothesis and Patch Mosaic Burn Hypothesis suggest that pyrodiveristy (the spatial and temporal variability in fire effects) results in increases in biodiversity [40,41]. While these concepts broadly encapsulate the basis for the management of vegetation and biodiversity support- ing evidence is contradictory (e.g., [42–45]) and confined to a limited range of taxonomic groups [46] with divergent life histories. Responses of fauna to fire are mediated by a combination of their life history traits and the characteristics of the fire regimes that they are exposed to (reviewed by Robinson et al. [47]). Life history traits that often mediate the effects of fires are reproduction mode (e.g., parthenogenesis), dispersal ability, morphological adaptations, and body size [48– 50]. Specifically, some traits include morphological adaptations to detect fire, including smoke-detecting antennae in cerambycid beetles [51], chemo-reception and visual percep- tion of smoke in reed frogs [52], and infrared radiation sensors in buprestid beetles [53,54]. Moreover, some organisms are good dispersers and can often disperse away from the fire, while others can burrow into the soil [55,56], while some can recover quickly after a fire due to their ability to reproduces via parthenogenesis (e.g., Collembola; [50]). Postfire, faunal population responses will likely vary among species with different behaviors or life history traits that allow them to persist through fire. For instance, some animals live in burrows and are thus protected from direct contact with fires. Some animals quickly disperse and recolonize sites after fire. A recent study showed that fire increases abun- dance and richness of insect and bird pollinators globally, but short fire intervals only affect a select group of Lepidoptera (butterflies and moths) [57]. Because many insects are good flyers, they are able to recolonize or forage in burnt areas as soon as flowers are available [58,59] . In addition, ground-dwelling arthropods that survive the fire, as well as those that are eusocial may benefit in burned environments due to lower competition Earth 2022, 3 1089 for floral resources and lower predation risk [60,61]. In addition, omnivorous fauna tend to recolonize burned sites faster than organisms that depend on nectar (e.g., pollinators), as the latter need specific floral resources that may not be readily available immediately following a fire [59,62]. Belowground (organisms that spend copious amounts of time un- derground) organisms such as bacteria that are below the soil surface are potentially more protected from fire, and they will often recover more rapidly after fire than fungi [30,63]. Contrariwise, aboveground organisms (organisms that spend much of their life on the surface of the soil) such as red foxes, spotted owls and grasshoppers are not affected by fires [64,65], possibly owing to their ability to disperse. Fires can have acute and chronic effects on organisms in terrestrial biomes. Acutely, fires can result in carbon monoxide poisoning, respiratory impairment, neurological im- pairment, respiratory and cardiovascular disease, oxidative stress, and immunosuppres- sion, physical injury, or deaths of organisms. For instance, small mammals that dwell in highly flammable Australian alpine habitats are highly susceptible to fires and have been documented to die during a fire and immediately following a fire [50,51]. In the long-term fire may also have prolonged indirect effects on organisms by changing patterns of vege- tation succession and the subsequent occurrence of key plants and landscape structure, which may increase the influence of biotic factors such as predation [66,67]. Concurrently, changes in organism abundance and diversity during and after a fire may change trophic interactions [41,68] in different biomes and alter the resilience of entire communities and ecosystems postfire. Because faunal communities can be differentially affected by fires, some faunal communities can be useful proxies in developing fire regimes appropriate to the maintenance of biodiversity [69–71]. However, before considering using organisms as proxies of fire effects on an ecosystem, there is a need to understand how specific group of organisms will react to fire effects. Although several studies have examined the effects of fire on animal and plant com- munities in individual ecosystems [72–74], there is a need for more data on the global effect of fires on organisms because data are only available for a few species. In addition, studies that present a global view of fire types (prescribed burning versus wildfire) and the associated effect of aboveground and belowground (living in the soil) organisms are scanty. Here, I conducted a global meta-analysis of the literature to figure out the extent to which organism biomasses, abundances, and diversity are affected by fire disturbances. Given the contrasting studies that document the effect of fires on organisms, I aimed to answer the following questions: (1) to what extent does fire disturbance affect above- ground and belowground organisms? (2) how do contrasting fire types (prescribed vs. wildfire) and fire intensities affect organisms? (3) how do fire effects vary across biomes and continental scales? (4) how do key abiotic factors such as moisture, pH, and sampling depth influence belowground organism responses to fire? Two hypotheses were tested: (A) aboveground organisms will be negatively affected to a greater extent than below- ground organism as the former tend to have the ability to move and to other habitats compared to their underground counterparts, and (B) Abiotic factors (i.e., pH, sampling depth and depth) should have differential effects on organisms (see Table 1 for expecta- tions). In addressing the preceding questions and hypothesis, I discuss the underlying mechanisms driving organism response to fires. Knowledge gaps in the literature and rec- ommended research priorities for understanding the consequences of fire regimes on or- ganisms and ecosystem function are also discussed. Earth 2022, 3 1090 Table 1. Tabular summary of the study questions, hypotheses, and expectations. See methods (Sec- tion 2.3) for statistical descriptions used to address questions in this meta-analysis. Expectations Question 1: to what extent does fire disturbance affect aboveground and belowground organisms? Effects of fire on belowground > Hypothesis A: aboveground organisms will be nega- than aboveground tively affected to a greater extent than belowground or- The effects on above aground ganism as the latter tend to have the ability to move and belowground will be taxon specific and to other habitats compared to their underground counterparts Question 2: how do contrasting fire types of in- High fire intensities should re- sult in negative effects tensities affect organisms? Question 3: how do fire effects vary across biomes No specific expectations and continental scales? Fire decreases moisture which decreases fauna Questions 4: how do key abiotic factors such as Fire effects on organism less pro- moisture, pH, and sampling depth influence be- nounced at higher depths low-ground organism responses to fire? Fire increases pH (liming effect) Hypothesis B: Abiotic factors should have differential which increases nutrients and effects on organisms possibly increase organism re- covery 2. Methods 2.1. Article Search I developed an a priori systematic search and screening protocol to find articles that investigated the effects of fires on all fauna available in the literature. I used the free soft- ware “Publish or Perish”[75] to locate articles from 1900 to 2021 in English. I conducted the search in October 2021. I used the following search terms to locate articles on fire im- pacts on animals: (“fire*” OR “wildfire*” OR “burn*” OR “pyrogenic*” OR “organic mat- ter*”) AND (“function*” OR “response*” OR “measure*” OR “abundance*” OR “biomas*” OR “diversity*”) AND (“belowground*” OR “aboveground*” OR “*organism*” OR “mi- croorganisms*” OR “soil microbe*” OR “soil biota*” OR “soil animal*” OR “soil biodiver- sity*” OR “soil fauna*” OR “soil flora*” OR “arthropod*” OR “spider*” OR “inverte- brate*” OR “snail*” OR “slug*” OR “earthworm*” OR “nematode*” OR “*protozoa*” OR “bacteria*” OR “fungi*” OR “acari*” OR “*worm*” OR “collembola*” OR “dipluran*” OR “proturan” OR “symphylan*” OR “archaea*” OR “pauropoda*” OR “arachnid*” OR “en- chytraeid*” OR “microbe*” OR “crustacea*” OR “beetle*” OR “hexapoda*” OR “hyme- noptera*” OR “ant*” OR “termite*” OR “myriapod*” OR “mollusc*” OR “mollusk*” OR “periwinkle*” OR “isopod*” OR “amphipod*” OR “polychaet*” OR “gammarid” OR “reptile*” OR “amphibians*” OR “salamanders*” OR “frogs*” OR “herpetofauna*” OR “insect*” OR “turtle*” OR “snake*” OR “vertebrate*” OR “small mammal*” OR “rodent*” OR “mole*” OR “rats*” OR “mice*” OR “squirrels*” OR “hamster*” OR “porcupine*” OR “tardigrade*” OR “rotifer*” OR “archaea*” OR “scorpion*”). The search string was created to include three main elements of my primary question (linked by the Boolean operator ‘AND’; [76,77]). Additionally, these complex group of keywords were added to avoid the inclusion of the considerable number of studies reporting general information on fire oc- currence with no associated measured effects of fire reported. Earth 2022, 3 1091 2.2. Inclusion Criteria and Screening The initial search identified over 900 articles that potentially investigated fire impacts on organisms. I removed duplicate articles and then conducted three screening steps to locate articles that included information on fire effects on fauna (See Table S1 in Supple- mentary Information). I performed forward (papers that cited each selected paper) and backward (papers cited by each selected paper) searches on all identified articles to obtain additional data. The forward and backward searches yielded an additional 500 papers. After applying the same criteria for inclusion (detailed below) to these studies, I ultimately included 50 studies in the final analyses (Table S1). Initially, I screened articles based on titles, then abstracts, and finally screened the full text of all remaining articles. A single article could contribute multiple impact measurements to the database. Using the Popu- lation, Intervention, Control, and Outcome framework inclusion criteria (PICO; [78]) and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA; [76]), the following a priori acceptance criteria were used for studies to be included in the meta- analysis: (1) studies must measure the response of one or more organisms to fire (Popula- tion); (2) all articles had to include replicate plots or study sites where fire effects were recorded (Intervention) (3) studies must compare the response(s) of said soil organism(s) between either burned and no burned, or pre-fire and post-fire areas (Control); (4) meas- ured response variables must include either biomass, abundance, richness (e.g., number of species, number of operational taxonomic units), evenness or diversity indices (Out- come; See Table 2), (5) studies must report mean responses, standard deviation or standard error, and sample size. After considering the above criteria I included 208 studies from different biomes of the world in my final analyses (see Figure 1 and Supplementary file for all data included in the final meta-analyses). Table 2. Summary of the broad categories of response variables of studies in the meta-analysis, and the specific description of response variables that comprise them. General Response Variable Specific Response Variable representation of number of organisms −2 Number of Individual per unit area/volume (e.g., ind.m , −1 −1 individual.core , individual. gram of soil , nematodes. Abundance −3 cm ) Colony Forming Units (CFU) Spores per unit of soil total mass of organisms in an area, habitat, or region −1 Biomass dry weight (mg.g , ug ergosterol/g, PLFA/Kg, ug/g dry soil, mg) number of species in a community (number of species or Richness genera, families, OTUs, morphospecies, groups) Shannon-Wiener diversity index Diversity Simpson Diversity Index McIntosh index Pielou’s evenness, Simpson’s equitability, Shannon even- Evenness ness 2.3. Data Extraction I extracted 20 pieces of data from each publication. The data extracted related to study characteristics (e.g., publication year, biome, taxon) or quantitative measurements (e.g., mean richness, sample size, and standard deviation). I documented the article’s first author, publication year, country, fire intensity, type of fire, and whether fauna occurred aboveground or belowground. When authors documented explicitly how they deter- mined the fire intensities and their associated classes [low (light), moderate, severe], I Earth 2022, 3 1092 included these in the data extraction. When documenting biomes, I listed plantations and agricultural land as disparate biomes because these landscapes experience different man- agement practices and thus the use of fire and pesticides may potentially shape the flora and faunal communities in these ecosystems. I used broad taxonomic classifications based on other systematic reviews in ecology (amphibians [N = 16], reptiles [N = 41], avian [N = 61], arthropods [N = 1181], small mammals [N = 61], mollusks [N = 33], nematodes [N = 84], annelids [N = 16], microbes [N = 328], bacteria [N = 295] and fungi [N = 465]). Annelids, some arthropods, fungi, microbes, bacteria, and nematodes were considered below- ground taxa whereas amphibians, some arthropods, birds, mammals, molluscs, and rep- tiles were considered aboveground organisms. Many of the studies only measured ‘mi- crobes’ as a group using methods that do not discriminate between organisms (e.g., using chloroform fumigation), as such I considered ‘microbial’ responses separately from other animal groups in the analyses. In addition, I also collected abiotic variables (moisture, depth, and pH) from each of the studies. After literature sources were compiled, I ex- tracted data from text, tables, or graphs. If the data were not reported in numbers, they were extracted from published diagrams using PlotDigitizer Version 3 (http://plotdigi- tizer.sourceforge.net, accessed 14 December 2022; [79]). I extracted any data that presented the central tendency (mean or median if no mean was presented) in response to fire expo- sure. If the study was an experimental manipulation, I extracted data from the treatments containing the manipulation and the control. If a study evaluated multiple treatments (e.g., two fire regimes such as low severity fires and high severity fires), I extracted all the data contained in the paper. If the authors described multiple experiments for a given response that were independent of each other, e.g., conducted over two distinct time pe- riods, or if the authors reported results of a pilot study as well as the main study, I in- cluded records from each experiment. The literature search yielded studies with a range of response variables. I only in- cluded response variables most strongly related to abundance, biomass, richness, diver- sity, and evenness (see Table 2 for detailed descriptions) and grouped different specific response variables into representative broad categories. 2.4. Effect Size Calculation and Analysis Because studies extracted often used different approaches to measure and gather abundance, biomass, and diversity data, I used the Hedges’ g as a measure of effect size to estimate the differences between experimental treatments (i.e., exposed to prescribed and wildfires) and control groups (no fire exposure). Hedges’ g effect size and variance were calculated for each observation within the global dataset (k observations in total) to estimate the differences in the response variable between control and experimental treat- ment. Hedges’ g, which is the bias corrected standardized mean difference (SMD) be- tween the treatment and control groups [80,81], weighs cases by their sample size and the inverse of their variance [82]. Overall, for all responses, effect sizes for each individual record were calculated using Hedges’ g, which is essentially Cohen’s d multiplied by a correction factor [82]. F − F Hedges g = × J SD where Ft and FC are the treatment and control fire treatment groups, respectively. The correction for bias of small sample sizes, is denoted by J, which was estimated as: J = 1 − 4(n − n − 2) − 1 SDp, which denotes the pooled standard deviation was enumerated as follows: ( ) ( ) n − 1 × SD + n − 1 × SD SD = n + n − 2 where n is the sample size and SD is the standard deviation of the treated and control groups. Given that Hedges’ g requires a pooled standard deviation estimate, if a study Earth 2022, 3 1093 reported standard error (SE), I converted it to standard deviation (SD) using SD = SE × n. If a study reported 95% confidence intervals (CI), I assumed a normal distribu- tion and converted it SD using the formula SD = CI × (converting reported results to one-way 95% CIs where necessary). Because there can be inequalities in study variances, effect sizes (Vd) were weighted using the inverse of the sampling variance for each effect site as: n + n g V = + n n 2(n n ) Because the sign of Hedges’ g tells the direction of the effect, a negative value of Hedges’ g indicates that fire has a negative effect on the specific response considered. Hedges’ g values of less than ±0.2 represent small effects, values between ±0.2 and ±0.5 represent moderate effects, with values greater than ±0.5 suggesting large effects [83]. All meta-analysis computations were done in R (version 4.1.2, Vienna, Austria)[84]. using the metafor package [85]. All statistical models were performed using the ‘rma.mv’ function of the metafor package in R. The ‘rma.mv’ function, which uses a Wald-type test to determine statistical difference among tested groups [85], is often useful for global meta-analyses [86]. Mixed effects models were run that included the study identification number (i.e., the ID of the study as reported in the dataset) and the response (abundance, biomass, diversity, evenness, richness) as random effects to account for heterogeneity and non-independence of results. Effect sizes (Hedges’ g) for each of the models including categorical fixed factors were considered to be statistically significant if their 95% confi- dence interval (CI) did not overlap with zero and if their p values were less than 0.05. To examine the effects of pH, moisture and soil depth a meta-regression was per- formed using the ‘lmer’ function from the lme4 library to perform mixed-effect regression analyses [87]. These ‘lmer’ function was selected because it assume that the sampling var- iances are not known [88]. 2.5. Publication Bias An intrinsic problem in any systematic quantitative review is the possibility of pub- lication bias, that is, studies showing significant results have a higher probability of being published. As such, potential publication bias was assessed using Egger’s regression test [89]. Potential publication bias was determined when groups studied showed evidence of funnel plot asymmetry (p ≤ 0.05). When potential bias was detected, I examined the data for potential outliers by looking at the effect sizes with standardized residual values ex- ceeding the absolute value of three [85] using the standard function in R. Potential outliers were removed to adjust for publication bias. For all the analyses adjusting for publication bias did not change the interpretation of the analyses (based on comparing fitted random- effects models with and without the influence of the potential outliers). In addition, I per- formed a “trim-and- fill” method [90,91], which is used as a sensitivity analysis that recal- culates the estimated mean effect size; this provides an estimate of how the overall effect size would change if missing studies were incorporated [92,93]. The mean effect size esti- mate for the data before trim-and-fill was identical to the estimate after trim-and-fill. Overall, the sensitivity analyses showed that the results of the models were robust against publication bias. Earth 2022, 3 1094 Figure 1. The locations of study sites (N = 208) that met all selection criteria and were used for meta- analysis. Classification of biomes is based on Olson et al. [94]. 2.6. Distribution of Data in the Literature Most studies included in the meta-analysis focused on bacteria, fungi, microbes, and arthropods, whereas a much smaller percentage focused on nematodes, annelids and Earth 2022, 3 1095 molluscs. No studies looked at Archaea alone but presumably these were all included in microbial biomass estimates. Fewer studies considered vertebrates compared to inverte- brates, with the bulk of studies focusing on small mammals and birds; with fewer studies documenting fire effects on amphibians and reptiles. Studies investigating abundance and richness were more common than studies examining aspects of diversity and evenness. While studies were distributed across different biomes, most studies were conducted in forests, shrublands and grasslands with fewer studies in the tundra. Studies investigating wildfires were more ubiquitous compared to prescribed fires. Sampling methods varied widely across all studies (see Supplementary Addendum; Table S5). 3. Results 3.1. Effect of Fire on Aboveground and Belowground Fuana (Question 1) Generally, results revealed that the effect of fires varies in aboveground and below- ground organisms (Figures 2 and 3; Supplementary Tables S2 and S3). Amphibian abun- dance and richness was positively affected by fire (effects ranged from moderate to large). Small mammal abundance and richness was not affected by fire. Bird biomass and diver- sity were not affected by fire while fire had moderate positive effects on abundance and richness of birds. Arthropod biomass and diversity were not affected by fire, while even- ness and richness were also positively affected by fire. While arthropod biomass (above- ground) and diversity (aboveground and belowground) were not affected fire had small negative effects on abundance of arthropods. Regarding reptiles, fire had no effect on abundance and diversity of reptiles but had a small positive effect on richness of reptiles. Fire had strong negative effects on abundance and richness of molluscs. Regarding belowground fauna, annelids, arthropods, bacteria, fungi, and nematodes were all negatively affected by fires, with the exception of microbes that were only affected negatively in biomass and positively in richness only (Figure 3; Tables S2 and S3). Fire had no effect on abundance, diversity, and evenness in microbes. In addition, fire had no ef- fects on biomass in nematodes and richness in bacteria. Summarizing data across all groups (Figure 4; Tables S2 and S3), revealed that fire exposure has moderately significant negative effects on abundance, biomass, diversity, evenness, and richness. Strikingly, negative fire effects were more pronounced in below- ground animals compared to aboveground animals (Figures 2, 3 and 5; Table S4), contrary to the a priori expectations (Hypothesis A). Earth 2022, 3 1096 Figure 2. Effect of fire on abundance, biomass, diversity, evenness, and richness of aboveground faunal groups. The x-axis shows overall effect size (Hedges’ g). k is the number of observations included in each analysis. Circles denote the hedges’g value and lines denote the 95% confidence intervals (CI) for each Hedges’ g value. Black circles represent significant effects whist grey circles show no significant effects the Hedges’ g value. Earth 2022, 3 1097 Figure 3. Effect of fire on abundance, biomass, diversity, evenness, and richness of belowground faunal groups. The x-axis shows overall effect size (Hedges’ g). k is the number of observations included in each analysis. Circles denote the Hedges’ g value and lines denote the 95% confidence intervals (CI) for each Hedges’ g value. Black circles represent significant effects whist grey circles show no significant effects the Hedges’ g value. Earth 2022, 3 1098 Figure 4. Overall effect of fire on abundance, biomass, diversity, evenness, and richness of all faunal groups. The x-axis shows overall effect size (Hedges’ g). k is the number of observations included in each analysis. Circles denote the Hedges’ g value and lines denote the 95% confidence intervals (CI) for each Hedges’ g value. Black circles represent significant effects whilst grey circles show no significant effects the Hedges’ g value. Figure 5. Effects of fire on aboveground and belowground fauna. Circles denote the Hedges’ g value and lines denote the 95% confidence intervals (CI) for each Hedges’ g value. Black circles are signif- icant effects whilst grey circles show no significant effects. Earth 2022, 3 1099 3.2. Effect of Fire Types and Intensity on Organisms (Question 2) Overall, fire regimes of varying intensity negatively impacted organisms (Figure 6). Different fire types had significantly different effects on all organisms. Both wildfire and prescribed fire had negative influence on terrestrial organisms. The greatest effect of fire on organisms was apparent in areas with severe fires with light fire having small negative effects on organisms. Moderate fires did not seem to influence organisms. Figure 6. Overall effect of fire regimes (a) prescribed vs. wildfire (b) Fire intensity. The x-axis shows overall effect size (Hedges’ g). k is the number of observations included in each analysis. Circles denote the Hedges’ g value and lines denote the 95% confidence intervals. In (b), Black circles are significant effects whilst grey circles show no significant effects. 3.3. Global Effect of Fires across Biomes and Continents (Question 3) Fire effects on animals differed across biomes and continents (Figure 7 and Table S4). Prescribed fires had negative effects on agricultural land, forests, grassland, savannah, and shrubland biomes. Conversely, wildfire affected organisms negatively in only forest and savannah biomes with marginal positive effects in Tundra and Grassland biomes. Negative fire effects were apparent across all continents with the exception of Africa were prescribed and wildfire did not have significant effects on fauna. Earth 2022, 3 1100 Figure 7. Overall effect of fire on (a) biomes (b) continents of all faunal groups. Circles denote the Hedges’ g value and lines denote the 95% confidence intervals (CI) for each Hedges’ g value. Earth 2022, 3 1101 3.4. Relationship between Abiotic Factors and Fire Effects (Question 4) Contrary to a priori expectations (Hypothesis B), moisture, pH and sampling depth were poor predictors of all four responses considered (p > 0.05) with one exception (Table 3), whereby moisture content has a negative effect on evenness. Table 3. Results of regression analyses between effect size (dependent variable = Hedges’ g) and three independent variables (log-transformed) extracted from the literature (moisture in %, pH, Depth in cm). Significant differences are highlighted in bold. Response Independent Variable β SE Lower-95 Upper-95 R p Abundance Moisture 322.00 276.73 −187.04 833.74 0.03 0.26 pH 1846.00 3360.23 −4341.37 8842.58 0.03 0.58 Depth 1717.50 17,212.01 −1437.74 4868.22 0.03 0.34 Biomass Moisture 0.05 0.03 0.00 0.11 0.12 0.06 pH −0.20 0.22 −0.67 0.21 0.12 0.36 Depth 0.18 0.09 0.00 0.36 0.12 0.05 Diversity Moisture 0.00 0.04 −0.06 0.06 0.13 0.95 pH 0.48 0.49 −0.37 1.03 0.13 0.41 Depth −0.16 0.22 −0.39 0.01 0.13 0.62 Evenness Moisture −0.08 0.02 −0.11 −0.05 0.72 0.03 pH −0.51 0.23 −0.85 −0.16 0.72 0.12 Depth 0.63 0.36 0.10 1.15 0.72 1.00 Richness Moisture −0.03 0.06 −0.15 0.07 0.26 0.62 pH 0.63 0.80 −1.52 1.88 0.26 0.44 Depth −0.27 0.16 −0.52 −0.02 0.26 0.20 4. Discussion Organismal responses to fire have been extensively documented, but inconsistencies among studies have impeded our ability to draw general conclusions for the conservation and management of terrestrial biomes. Here, a meta-analysis of published data was con- ducted across several taxa in different geographic areas and across several biomes, with the broad aim to improve our ability to predict how fire frequency and severity will alter aboveground and belowground fauna. In summary, abundance, biomass, diversity, even- ness, and richness declined following fires. These results were congruent with works doc- umented by other researchers, that suggest fires may alter population dynamics of organ- isms [30,63]. Contrariwise, the results contradicted findings by other meta-analyses; these studies show positive and negative responses to fire, although looking at them globally, the effects seem neutral [25,65,95]. One key result of this metanalysis is that belowground faunas were more negatively affected by fires compared to their aboveground counter- parts (as evidenced by differences in Hedges’ g values). The negative responses of the fauna considered here can be explained by several factors. For instance, in belowground organisms burning of the soils can transfer heat to soil, which leads to microbial deaths [96]. Alternatively, declines in fungi and bacteria may arise from reduction in labile car- bon. Post-fire declines in above- and belowground net primary productivity can also po- tentially decrease populations of organisms. Earth 2022, 3 1102 4.1. Belowground Fauna Are More Susceptible to Fire Than Aboveground Fauna Negative effects of fire were apparent on all belowground organisms, suggesting that belowground fauna are susceptible to the impacts of prescribed and wildfires. These find- ings are congruent to those of other researchers [97,98]. Fire eradicates fungal and bacte- rial species that cannot withstand intense heat, reducing species richness to those species that can survive fire through fire-resistant propagules [99,100]. Considering the negative effects of fire on fungal populations, the results are consistent with studies that have demonstrated that fungal diversity decreases in ecosystems exposed to fire [63]. Evidence suggests that this is due to both the lower thermal tolerance of fungi, mycorrhizal fungi, and the mortality of plant hosts during fires [101–103]. Fire did not affect abundance, di- versity and evenness of microbes affirming the notion that microbes, as a whole, are re- sistant to fire effects. It is worth noting that microbes may potentially consist of many organisms (e.g., bacteria, fungi, archaea, protozoa, nematodes) with varying resistance to fire and this may explain why there was no effect of fire on microbial diversity and abun- dance. However, microbial biomass did decrease in response to fires, an aspect that has been documented by other researchers [104,105]. The changes in the nutrient supply due to the loss of plant residues is proposed as the reason for microbial biomass reductions following a fire [102,106]. These findings suggest that fire may affect biomass, while abun- dance and diversity and evenness may not be affected substantially following a fire. Over- all, the effect of fire on belowground diversity is strongly negative, but more research is needed to validate this negative effect across different taxa and ecosystems. Soil mesofauna (e.g., nematodes) and macrofauna (e.g., annelids and arthropods) and micro- organisms all showed the negative effects of fires. The subtle differences among below- ground taxa are due in part to differences in the morphologies, physiologies and ecologies of all organisms considered; these findings may explain the differences in fire effects ob- served across taxa [107]. For instance, some belowground species are generalists (omniv- orous) though others are specialist feeders. In addition, some species are highly mobile while others (e.g., fungi) are relatively immobile [108]. Aboveground fauna appeared to be more resilient to the effects of fire exposure (Fig- ure. 2). This pattern has also been reported in different areas around the world. The resil- ience of aboveground fauna to fire effects is plausible because large, highly mobile arthro- pods and mammals can escape the negative effects of fire, compared to less mobile soil arthropods [57,109]. In addition, mobile arthropods, mammals and reptiles can take ad- vantage of the usually high availability of plant biomass in early postfire succession [110,111]. With arthropods, Gongalsky et al. [112] suggests that reduced competition could explain increases in ground beetle richness (as seen in Figure. 2). Arthropods are more agile than other invertebrates and can move around in search of more favorable conditions. The spatial heterogeneity of sites after a fire is an important control on arthro- pod community recovery with unburned sites generally having greater abundance and diversity of arthropods than burned sites [113]. Foraging behavior may also explain the low impacts of fires on arthropods and other aboveground organisms. Since omnivory is common among arthropods and many small mammals, these organisms still have many prey options available, which may allow for greater survival as prey resources become limiting after a fire [108]. Amphibians and reptiles were not affected by fire and in some cases their abundance and richness actually increased following a fire. Research on the effects of fire on herpetofauna by other researchers indicates that fire results in herpe- tofauna mortality, but has little effect on amphibian and reptile abundance, diversity, rich- ness, and in some cases results in increases in abundance for some herpetofauna [95,114,115]. The reasons for the survival of herpetofauna remains an open research ques- tion but there are some possibilities that may explain these results. First, amphibians are known to dwell in moist environments, such as plant litter, that cannot sustain fire, or in underground refuges, such as small mammal tunnels [116], that would insulate them from fire [117]. Second, reptiles may seek refuge under objects such as rocks. Third, reduced litter following a fire may increase the amount of bare ground, and removal of the Earth 2022, 3 1103 midstory within burned forest resulted in more advantageous thermoregulatory condi- tions for lizards [110]. Of all the organisms considered mollusc (mostly snails) abundance and richness was negatively affected by fire to the greatest extent, contrary to findings by other researchers who have shown that prescribed fires (via the creation of novel micro- habitats) can have positive effects on snail populations [118]. Negative effects of snail mor- tality after burning have been documented in field experiments [119] and studies [22]. The negative effects of fires on molluscs may be associated with high snail mortality which results from increased desiccation or food supply. Desiccation is recognized as the major cause of death after a fire as has been demonstrated by Ray and Bergey [119] where they showed that adding water in burnt areas increased survival of snails. Fires reduce leaf litter and exposes the soil, which consequently results in loss of leaf litter, increases in soil temperature and ultimately desiccation of snails [119]. 4.2. Fire Types and Intensities Negatively Affect Organisms Prescribed fires and wildfires both had negative effects on all animal fauna. These finding support findings by researchers [5,106,119] whereby they showed that fauna de- creased shortly after a fire. The declines under both fire types could be explained by hot temperatures that organisms cannot survive in. Consequently, because fire severity may be a crucial factor in explaining the survival and recovery rate of organisms, this factor should be considered when assessing fire effects on organisms. Strikingly, moderate fires had no effect on organisms in sharp contrast to some of the tenets of the Intermediate Disturbance Hypothesis [38]. It is not immediately apparent why moderate fires had no effect on diversity but there are some data from some biomes [42] that show that species populations are lowest at sites of moderate and high fire frequency. Fire frequency is prob- ably the most influential factor related to fire effects at local and landscape scales [120]. However, effects of fire frequency and fire intensity can be difficult to tease apart. Of the extracted studies it was always difficult to get consistent reports of fire frequency and details on fire severity. Nonetheless, considering fire intensity and fire frequency is a req- uisite when one is considering the effects of fire on fauna. Similarly, some studies [121– 123] suggest that winter prescribed burning can be efficacious for restoring grassland hab- itats compared to summer burning. As such, it may be useful to consider season in future meta-analyses on fire effects. 4.3. Fire Effects Are More Pronounced in Certain Biomes and Continents Negative fire effects were apparent on agricultural land, grasslands, forests and sa- vannahs possibly because these biomes, except for agricultural land, experience fire as fires are one of the main sources of disturbance in these landscapes [124]. Tundra fauna were not affected by fire. Recent studies on tundra biomes have shown that fires have no effects on lichens and fungi [125,126]. Negative fire effects on fauna were also observed across continents. Prescribed and wildfires had no effect on Africa. These results are sur- prising considering that 70% of the fires that occur in the world occur in Africa [127,128]. The findings may show how African fauna and flora are shaped by fires. Savannahs de- pend on lighting as a key management activity in many of the iconic protected areas of Africa. For instance, the Serengeti in Tanzania a famous wildlife tourist area has over of 50% of its grasslands burnt each year [129], yet it boasts the highest biodiversity on the continent. In the current meta-analysis, I considered different type of forests as one amalga- mated group. For example, boreal forests that have higher humidity and a historically longer fire durations were combined with temperate forests, which are drier and have a historically higher fire frequency. Analyzing forests separately (e.g., boreal forests versus temperate forests), may have given different results on the effects of fires on fauna in for- ests. However, the extracted studies did not allow for further divisions of forests into more specific classifications, which is something that should be implemented in the future when more studies have been conducted. The meta-analysis extraction showed that there are Earth 2022, 3 1104 restrictions on the taxa studied by continent. For instance, fungi studies were highly re- stricted geographically, while vertebrates showed the lowest number of studies, even though vertebrate groups are fundamental for controlling cascading effects across trophic levels. There is a need for more research on studies documenting the effects of fire on higher trophic levels 4.4. Abiotic Factors Do Not Predict Fire Effects Well Soil moisture, pH and depth were poor predictors of responses of organism to fire. It is plausible that other physical, chemical, and biological mechanisms such as organic mat- ter, soil texture, plant community composition, trophic interactions may have influenced the response of organisms to fire, but these variables were not measured or reported con- sistently across the literature and thus could not be included as moderators in my meta- analysis. 4.5. Future Research Needs in Fire Ecology The global metanalysis revealed many striking patterns and revealed some major gaps that need to be filled in future research. First, the biotic mechanisms by which food webs are influenced by fire are scant in the literature. Second, novel approaches are needed to study the responses diverse fauna to fire in the context of climate changes. As with much of the literature on fire ecology (sensu [68]), there is a clear gap in our under- standing of how multiple taxa and organisms at higher trophic levels may respond to fire [126,130]. It is necessary to consider taxa at higher trophic levels and how they interact with primary consumers, primary consumers and all food web components when devel- oping the understanding of the effects of fire on ecosystem function because food web perspectives can be useful predictors of organism vulnerability to disturbances [131]. However, the literature search showed a general paucity of studies representing particu- lar taxa. For instance, protozoa, nematodes and annelids, amphibians were fewer than microorganisms (bacteria, fungi,) and arthropods. Further, a copious number of the stud- ies considered one type of organism and when they considered multiple organisms, they did not consolidate their findings into a food web perspective. In this meta-analysis, I considered aboveground and belowground organisms in tan- dem something that is not often done by many authors. Future studies need to always consider aboveground and belowground effects of fire on fauna. An aboveground-below- ground dichotomous study is a promising approach to improve our understanding of faunal responses to fire and consequences for ecosystem function and will be useful in postfire restoration efforts [132,133]. It is worth noting that many of the studies that were extracted only focused on organisms but did not simultaneously focus on the plant com- munities that were affected by the same fires. Future studies that concomitantly assess the links between animals and plant communities will be important in predicting organism susceptibility to disturbances. For instance, fungi (i.e., mycorrhizae) are always associated with plants [134], and fire effects on fungi like affect plants and vice versa. Similarly, many pollinators have a key association with angiosperm plants and are thus concurrently af- fected by fires [135]. In this meta-analysis studies extracted often only considered the effect of single fire events on organisms. Understanding the short-term implications of a single fire on above- ground and belowground communities is important as it can give glimpse of the short- term impacts immediately following the fire, however, there is need for researchers to transcend to more long-term studies. This is particularly important because fire fre- quency, severity, size and seasonal timing is stochastic in many ecosystems as a result of climate change [136]. Therefore, there is a need for authors to consider fire effects within several climate change scenarios. As with many disturbances (e.g., floods), fire regimes do not occur independently of other global changes, therefore a multipronged approach is needed to understand the combined effects of several disturbances on organisms. Earth 2022, 3 1105 Considering some of the gaps identified in the preceding text requires future research to move from single-population (i.e., autecological) perspectives of fire effects to the ef- fects of fires at multiple trophic levels. Some of the immediate research needs are for re- searchers to: (1) incorporate multi- taxa studies that use a food web perspective, (2) con- sider using biogeochemical tracers (e.g., stable isotope analyses; [137,138]) and niche anal- yses (e.g., hypervolumes; [139,140]) to trace the subtle and chronic impacts of fires on community interactions, (3) Identify biotic and/or abiotic mechanisms that are the most important drivers of faunal communities after a fire event, (4) Investigate how multiple fire events, rather than single fire events, potentially restructure aboveground and below- ground communities, (5) Utilize both experimental (e.g., mesocosms), observational and modelling approaches to explore the interactive effects of fire with other land use changes, population growth and global climate change. (6) Include more studies on the effects of fire on fungi and lichens from understudied continents (e.g., Africa), and (7) Interdiscipli- nary work (e.g., using citizen science and traditional ecological knowledge; [141,142]) on the role of fire in shaping animal and plant communities 5. Conclusions In conclusion, the metanalyses presented an extensive global synthesis of empirical evidence across many animal groups and showed that some organisms are more resilient to fires than others. Given the ongoing global fire regime changes, it is imperative to mon- itor fire regimes across many ecosystems, as the results suggest that fire differentially af- fects belowground fauna and to a lesser extent aboveground fauna. Supplementary Materials: The following supplementary files are available online at https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/earth3040063/s1, Table S1: Modified Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA), Table S2: Overall effect of fire on abun- dance, biomass, diversity, evenness and richness of all faunal groups and aboveground animals, Table S3: Overall effect of fire on abundance, biomass, diversity, evenness and richness of all faunal groups and belowground animals, Table S4: Overall effect of fire by intensity and habitat on fauna. Analyses were conducted using a mixed-effects model, Table S5: Meat-analysis datasheet. Funding: This study was funded from start-up funds provided to Sydney Moyo by Rhodes College. Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable. Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable. Data Availability Statement: The datasets analysed for this study can be found directly from the papers used in this manuscript. Acknowledgments: I am grateful for all the authors whose arduous work made these data available for this study. I am also grateful to staff at the Rhodes College Barret Library for assistance in ac- cessing articles for this metanalysis. Conflicts of Interest: The author declares no conflict of interest. The funders (Rhodes College) had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; or in the decision to publish the results. References 1. Badejo, M.A. Effect of Accidental Fire on Soil Mite Density in a Forest Reserve in Nigeria. Exp. Appl. Acarol. 1994, 18, 703–710. 2. Abom, R.; Schwarzkopf, L. Short-Term Responses of Reptile Assemblages to Fire in Native and Weedy Tropical Savannah. Glob. Ecol. Conserv. 2016, 6, 58–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2016.02.002. 3. Anjos, D.; Campos, R.; Campos, R.; Ribeiro, S. Monitoring Effect of Fire on Ant Assemblages in Brazilian Rupestrian Grasslands: Contrasting Effects on Ground and Arboreal Fauna. Insects 2017, 8, 64. https://doi.org/10.3390/insects8030064. 4. Butler, O.M.; Lewis, T.; Rezaei Rashti, M.; Chen, C. Long-Term Fire Regime Modifies Carbon and Nutrient Dynamics in De- composing Eucalyptus Pilularis Leaf Litter. Front. For. Glob. Change 2020, 3, 22. https://doi.org/10.3389/ffgc.2020.00022. 5. Butler, A.; Davis, C.A.; Fuhlendorf, S.D.; Wilder, S.M. Effects of Fire on Ground-dwelling Arthropods in a Shrub-dominated Grassland. Ecol. Evol. 2021, 11, 427–442. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.7063. Earth 2022, 3 1106 6. Cadena-Zamudio, D.; Ruiz-Guerra, B.; Castillo, M.L.; Flores-Garnica, J.G.; Guevara, R. Prevalence of Stochastic Processes in the Fire-Mediated Reassemblage of the Soil Arthropod Community of a Pine Forest. Acta Oecologica 2022, 115, 103834. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actao.2022.103834. 7. Marlon, J.R.; Bartlein, P.J.; Carcaillet, C.; Gavin, D.G.; Harrison, S.P.; Higuera, P.E.; Joos, F.; Power, M.J.; Prentice, I.C. Climate and Human Influences on Global Biomass Burning over the Past Two Millennia. Nat. Geosci 2008, 1, 697–702. https://doi.org/10.1038/ngeo313. 8. Zennaro, P.; Kehrwald, N.; Marlon, J.; Ruddiman, W.F.; Brücher, T.; Agostinelli, C.; Dahl-Jensen, D.; Zangrando, R.; Gambaro, A.; Barbante, C. Europe on Fire Three Thousand Years Ago: Arson or Climate? Geophys. Res. Lett. 2015, 42, 5023–2033. https://doi.org/10.1002/2015GL064259. 9. Turco, M.; von Hardenberg, J.; AghaKouchak, A.; Llasat, M.C.; Provenzale, A.; Trigo, R.M. On the Key Role of Droughts in the Dynamics of Summer Fires in Mediterranean Europe. Sci. Rep. 2017, 7, 81. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-00116-9. 10. Hessilt, T.D.; Abatzoglou, J.T.; Chen, Y.; Randerson, J.T.; Scholten, R.C.; van der Werf, G.; Veraverbeke, S. Future Increases in Lightning Ignition Efficiency and Wildfire Occurrence Expected from Drier Fuels in Boreal Forest Ecosystems of Western North America. Environ. Res. Lett. 2022, 17, 054008. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ac6311. 11. van Wagtendonk, J.W.; Cayan, D.R. Temporal and Spatial Distribution of Lightning Strikes in California in Relation to Large- Scale Weather Patterns. Fire Ecol. 2008, 4, 34–56. https://doi.org/10.4996/fireecology.0401034. 12. Just, M.G.; Hohmann, M.G.; Hoffmann, W.A. Where Fire Stops: Vegetation Structure and Microclimate Influence Fire Spread along an Ecotonal Gradient. Plant Ecol. 2016, 217, 631–644. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11258-015-0545-x. 13. Yuan, Z.; Wang, Y.; Xu, J.; Wu, Z. Effects of Climatic Factors on the Net Primary Productivity in the Source Region of Yangtze River, China. Sci. Rep. 2021, 11, 1376. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-80494-9. 14. Jolly, W.M.; Cochrane, M.A.; Freeborn, P.H.; Holden, Z.A.; Brown, T.J.; Williamson, G.J.; Bowman, D.M.J.S. Climate-Induced Variations in Global Wildfire Danger from 1979 to 2013. Nat. Commun. 2015, 6, 7537. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms8537. 15. Westerling, A.L.; Hidalgo, H.G.; Cayan, D.R.; Swetnam, T.W. Warming and Earlier Spring Increase Western U.S. Forest Wildfire Activity. Science 2006, 313, 940–943. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1128834. 16. Fawzy, S.; Osman, A.I.; Doran, J.; Rooney, D.W. Strategies for Mitigation of Climate Change: A Review. Env. Chem Lett 2020, 18, 2069–2094. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10311-020-01059-w. 17. IPCC Summary for Policymakers. In Climate Change and Land: An IPCC Special Report on Climate Change, Desertification, Land Degradation, Sustainable Land Management, Food Security, and Greenhouse Gas Fluxes in Terrestrial Ecosystems; Shukla, P.R., Skea, J., Calvo Buendia, E., Masson-Delmotte, V., Pörtner, H.-O., Roberts, D.C., Zhai, P., Slade, R., Connors, S., van Diemen, R., Eds.; IPCC: Geneva, Switzerland, 2022. 18. Abram, N.J.; Henley, B.J.; Sen Gupta, A.; Lippmann, T.J.R.; Clarke, H.; Dowdy, A.J.; Sharples, J.J.; Nolan, R.H.; Zhang, T.; Wooster, M.J.; et al. Connections of Climate Change and Variability to Large and Extreme Forest Fires in Southeast Australia. Commun Earth Env. 2021, 2, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43247-020-00065-8. 19. Doamba, S.W.M.F.; Savadogo, P.; Nacro, H.B. Effects of Burning on Soil Macrofauna in a Savanna-Woodland under Different Experimental Fuel Load Treatments. Appl. Soil Ecol. 2014, 81, 37–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apsoil.2014.04.005. 20. Gongalsky, K.B.; Persson, T. Recovery of Soil Macrofauna after Wildfires in Boreal Forests. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2013, 57, 182–191. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2012.07.005. 21. Underwood, E.C.; Quinn, J.F. Response of Ants and Spiders to Prescribed Fire in Oak Woodlands of California. J. Insect Conserv. 2010, 14, 359–366. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10841-010-9265-7. 22. Ross, P.M.; Harvey, K.; Vecchio, E.M.; Beckers, D. Impact of Fire and the Recovery of Molluscs in South-East Australian Salt Marsh. Ecol. Manag. Restor. 2019, 20, 126–135. https://doi.org/10.1111/emr.12374. 23. Furukori, N.; Kishimoto-Yamada, K.; Homma, K. Impacts of Burning and Herbicide Disturbances on Soil Animals and Organic Matter Decomposition in Terraced Paddy Field Levees in Japanese Satoyama. J. Soil Sci. Plant Nutr. 2022, 22, 270–280. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42729-021-00646-2. 24. Roces-Díaz, J.V.; Santín, C.; Martínez-Vilalta, J.; Doerr, S.H. A Global Synthesis of Fire Effects on Ecosystem Services of Forests and Woodlands. Front. Ecol Env. 2022, 20, 170–178. https://doi.org/10.1002/fee.2349. 25. Viljur, M.; Abella, S.R.; Adámek, M.; Alencar, J.B.R.; Barber, N.A.; Beudert, B.; Burkle, L.A.; Cagnolo, L.; Campos, B.R.; Chao, A.; et al. The Effect of Natural Disturbances on Forest Biodiversity: An Ecological Synthesis. Biol. Rev. 2022, 97, 1930–1947. https://doi.org/10.1111/brv.12876. 26. Pennington, R.T.; Lehmann, C.E.R.; Rowland, L.M. Tropical Savannas and Dry Forests. Curr. Biol. 2018, 28, R541–R545. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2018.03.014. 27. Solofondranohatra, C.L.; Vorontsova, M.S.; Hackel, J.; Besnard, G.; Cable, S.; Williams, J.; Jeannoda, V.; Lehmann, C.E.R. Grass Functional Traits Differentiate Forest and Savanna in the Madagascar Central Highlands. Front. Ecol. Evol. 2018, 6, 184. 28. Ratnam, J.; Bond, W.J.; Fensham, R.J.; Hoffmann, W.A.; Archibald, S.; Lehmann, C.E.R.; Anderson, M.T.; Higgins, S.I.; Sankaran, M. When Is a ‘Forest’ a Savanna, and Why Does It Matter? Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 2011, 20, 653–660. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1466- 8238.2010.00634.x. 29. Coyle, D.R.; Nagendra, U.J.; Taylor, M.K.; Campbell, J.H.; Cunard, C.E.; Joslin, A.H.; Mundepi, A.; Phillips, C.A.; Callaham, M.A. Soil Fauna Responses to Natural Disturbances, Invasive Species, and Global Climate Change: Current State of the Science and a Call to Action. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2017, 110, 116–133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2017.03.008. Earth 2022, 3 1107 30. Pressler, Y.; Moore, J.C.; Cotrufo, M.F. Belowground Community Responses to Fire: Meta-Analysis Reveals Contrasting Re- sponses of Soil Microorganisms and Mesofauna. Oikos 2019, 128, 309–327. https://doi.org/10.1111/oik.05738. 31. Santín, C.; Doerr, S.H. Fire Effects on Soils: The Human Dimension. Philos. Trans. R Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 2016, 371, 20150171. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2015.0171. 32. Haimi, J.; Fritze, H.; Moilanen, P. Responses of Soil Decomposer Animals to Wood-Ash Fertilisation and Burning in a Conifer- ous Forest Stand. For. Ecol. Manag. 2000, 129, 53–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-1127(99)00158-9. 33. Pellegrini, A.F.A.; Hobbie, S.E.; Reich, P.B.; Jumpponen, A.; Brookshire, E.N.J.; Caprio, A.C.; Coetsee, C.; Jackson, R.B. Repeated Fire Shifts Carbon and Nitrogen Cycling by Changing Plant Inputs and Soil Decomposition across Ecosystems. Ecol. Monogr. 2020, 90, e01409. https://doi.org/10.1002/ecm.1409. 34. Cassagne, N.; Pimont, F.; Dupuy, J.-L.; Linn, R.R.; Mårell, A.; Oliveri, C.; Rigolot, E. Using a Fire Propagation Model to Assess the Efficiency of Prescribed Burning in Reducing the Fire Hazard. Ecol. Model. 2011, 222, 1502–1514. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2011.02.004. 35. Fernandes, P.M.; Botelho, H.S. A Review of Prescribed Burning Effectiveness in Fire Hazard Reduction. Int. J. Wildland Fire 2003, 12, 117–128. https://doi.org/10.1071/wf02042. 36. Ponisio, L.C.; Wilkin, K.; M’Gonigle, L.K.; Kulhanek, K.; Cook, L.; Thorp, R.; Griswold, T.; Kremen, C. Pyrodiversity Begets Plant–Pollinator Community Diversity. Glob. Change Biol. 2016, 22, 1794–1808. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.13236. 37. Parr, C.L.; Brockett, B.H. Patch-Mosaic Burning: A New Paradigm for Savanna Fire Management in Protected Areas? Koedoe Afr. Prot. Area Conserv. Sci. 1999, 42, 117–130. http://dx.doi.org/10.4102/koedoe.v42i2.237. 38. Connell, J.H. Diversity in Tropical Rain Forests and Coral Reefs. Science 1978, 199, 1302–1310. https://doi.org/10.1126/sci- ence.199.4335.1302. 39. Brockett, B.H.; Biggs, H.C.; Wilgen, B.W. van A Patch Mosaic Burning System for Conservation Areas in Southern African Savannas. Int. J. Wildland Fire 2001, 10, 169–183. https://doi.org/10.1071/wf01024. 40. Jones, G.M.; Tingley, M.W. Pyrodiversity and Biodiversity: A History, Synthesis, and Outlook. Divers. Distrib. 2022, 28, 386–403. https://doi.org/10.1111/ddi.13280. 41. Bowman, D.M.J.S.; Perry, G.L.W.; Higgins, S.I.; Johnson, C.N.; Fuhlendorf, S.D.; Murphy, B.P. Pyrodiversity Is the Coupling of Biodiversity and Fire Regimes in Food Webs. Philos. Trans. R Soc Lond. B Biol. Sci. 2016, 371, 20150169. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2015.0169. 42. Schwilk, D.W.; Keeley, J.E.; Bond, W.J. The Intermediate Disturbance Hypothesis Does Not Explain Fire and Diversity Pattern in Fynbos. Plant Ecol. 1997, 132, 77–84. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009755320731. 43. Pastro, L.A.; Dickman, C.R.; Letnic, M. Burning for Biodiversity or Burning Biodiversity? Prescribed Burn vs. Wildfire Impacts on Plants, Lizards, and Mammals. Ecol. Appl. 2011, 21, 3238–3253. https://doi.org/10.1890/10-2351.1. 44. Mooney, S.D.; Harrison, S.P.; Bartlein, P.J.; Daniau, A.-L.; Stevenson, J.; Brownlie, K.C.; Buckman, S.; Cupper, M.; Luly, J.; Black, M.; et al. Late Quaternary Fire Regimes of Australasia. Quat. Sci. Rev. 2011, 30, 28–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quasci- rev.2010.10.010. 45. Durigan, G.; Pilon, N.A.L.; Abreu, R.C.R.; Hoffmann, W.A.; Martins, M.; Fiorillo, B.F.; Antunes, A.Z.; Carmignotto, A.P.; Mara- valhas, J.B.; Vieira, J.; et al. No Net Loss of Species Diversity After Prescribed Fires in the Brazilian Savanna. Front. For. Glob. Change 2020, 3, 13. 46. Giorgis, M.A.; Zeballos, S.R.; Carbone, L.; Zimmermann, H.; von Wehrden, H.; Aguilar, R.; Ferreras, A.E.; Tecco, P.A.; Kow- aljow, E.; Barri, F.; et al. A Review of Fire Effects across South American Ecosystems: The Role of Climate and Time since Fire. Fire Ecol. 2021, 17, 11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s42408-021-00100-9. 47. Robinson, N.M.; Leonard, S.W.J.; Ritchie, E.G.; Bassett, M.; Chia, E.K.; Buckingham, S.; Gibb, H.; Bennett, A.F.; Clarke, M.F. REVIEW: Refuges for Fauna in Fire-Prone Landscapes: Their Ecological Function and Importance. J. Appl. Ecol. 2013, 50, 1321– 1329. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.12153. 48. Najbar, A.; Konowalik, A.; Halupka, K.; Najbar, B.; Ogielska, M. Body Size and Life History Traits of the Fire Salamander Sala- mandra Salamandra from Poland. Amphib. -Reptil. 2020, 41, 63–74. https://doi.org/10.1163/15685381-20191135. 49. González, T.M.; González-Trujillo, J.D.; Muñoz, A.; Armenteras, D. Differential Effects of Fire on the Occupancy of Small Mam- mals in Neotropical Savanna-Gallery Forests. Perspect. Ecol. Conserv. 2021, 19, 179–188. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pecon.2021.03.005. 50. Malmström, A. Life-History Traits Predict Recovery Patterns in Collembola Species after Fire: A 10 Year Study. Appl. Soil Ecol. 2012, 56, 35–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apsoil.2012.02.007. 51. Álvarez, G.; Ammagarahalli, B.; Hall, D.R.; Pajares, J.A.; Gemeno, C. Smoke, Pheromone and Kairomone Olfactory Receptor Neurons in Males and Females of the Pine Sawyer Monochamus Galloprovincialis (Olivier) (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae). J. Insect Physiol. 2015, 82, 46–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jinsphys.2015.08.004. 52. Grafe, T.U.; Döbler, S.; Linsenmair, K.E. Frogs Flee from the Sound of Fire. Proc. Biol. Sci. 2002, 269, 999–1003. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2002.1974. 53. Klocke, D.; Schmitz, A.; Soltner, H.; Bousack, H.; Schmitz, H. Infrared Receptors in Pyrophilous (“Fire Loving”) Insects as Model for New Un-Cooled Infrared Sensors. Beilstein J. Nanotechnol. 2011, 2, 186–197. https://doi.org/10.3762/bjnano.2.22. 54. Schmitz, H.; Schmitz, A.; Schneider, E.S. Matched Filter Properties of Infrared Receptors Used for Fire and Heat Detection in Insects. In The Ecology of Animal Senses: Matched Filters for Economical Sensing; von der Emde, G., Warrant, E., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2016; pp. 207–234, ISBN 978-3-319-25492-0. Earth 2022, 3 1108 55. Dell, J.; O’Brien, J.; Doan, L.; Richards, L.; Dyer, L. An Arthropod Survival Strategy in a Frequently Burned Forest. Ecology 2017, 98, 2972–2974. https://doi.org/10.1002/ecy.1939. 56. Korobushkin, D.I.; Gorbunova, A.Yu.; Zaitsev, A.S.; Gongalsky, K.B. Trait-Specific Response of Soil Macrofauna to Forest Burn- ing along a Macrogeographic Gradient. Appl. Soil Ecol. 2017, 112, 97–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apsoil.2016.12.004. 57. Carbone, L.M.; Tavella, J.; Pausas, J.G.; Aguilar, R. A Global Synthesis of Fire Effects on Pollinators. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 2019, 28, 1487–1498. https://doi.org/10.1111/geb.12939. 58. Peralta, G.; Stevani, E.L.; Chacoff, N.P.; Dorado, J.; Vázquez, D.P. Fire Influences the Structure of Plant–Bee Networks. J. Anim. Ecol. 2017, 86, 1372–1379. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2656.12731. 59. García, Y.; Clara Castellanos, M.; Pausas, J.G. Differential Pollinator Response Underlies Plant Reproductive Resilience after Fires. Ann. Bot. 2018, 122, 961–971. https://doi.org/10.1093/aob/mcy122. 60. Mola, J.M.; Miller, M.R.; O’Rourke, S.M.; Williams, N.M. Wildfire Reveals Transient Changes to Individual Traits and Popula- tion Responses of a Native Bumble Bee Bombus Vosnesenskii. J. Anim. Ecol. 2020, 89, 1799–1810. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365- 2656.13244. 61. Karpestam, E.; Merilaita, S.; Forsman, A. Reduced Predation Risk for Melanistic Pygmy Grasshoppers in Post-Fire Environ- ments. Ecol. Evol. 2012, 2, 2204–2212. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.338. 62. Kelly, L.T.; Brotons, L.; Giljohann, K.M.; McCarthy, M.A.; Pausas, J.G.; Smith, A.L. Bridging the Divide: Integrating Animal and Plant Paradigms to Secure the Future of Biodiversity in Fire-Prone Ecosystems. Fire 2018, 1, 29. https://doi.org/10.3390/fire1020029. 63. Dove, N.C.; Hart, S.C. Fire Reduces Fungal Species Richness and In Situ Mycorrhizal Colonization: A Meta-Analysis. Fire Ecol. 2017, 13, 37–65. https://doi.org/10.4996/fireecology.130237746. 64. Knight, T.M.; Holt, R.D. Fire Generates Spatial Gradients in Herbivory: An Example from a Florida Sandhill Ecosystem. Ecology 2005, 86, 587–593. https://doi.org/10.1890/04-1069. 65. Geary, W.L.; Doherty, T.S.; Nimmo, D.G.; Tulloch, A.I.T.; Ritchie, E.G. Predator Responses to Fire: A Global Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. J. Anim. Ecol. 2020, 89, 955–971. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2656.13153. 66. Doherty, T.S.; Geary, W.L.; Jolly, C.J.; Macdonald, K.J.; Miritis, V.; Watchorn, D.J.; Cherry, M.J.; Conner, L.M.; González, T.M.; Legge, S.M.; et al. Fire as a Driver and Mediator of Predator-Prey Interactions. Biol. Rev. Camb. Philos. Soc. 2022, 97, 1539–1558. https://doi.org/10.1111/brv.12853. 67. Letnic, M.; Tischler, M.; Gordon, C. Desert Small Mammal Responses to Wildfire and Predation in the Aftermath of a La Nińa Driven Resource Pulse. Austral Ecol. 2013, 38, 841–849. https://doi.org/10.1111/aec.12063. 68. McLauchlan, K.K.; Higuera, P.E.; Miesel, J.; Rogers, B.M.; Schweitzer, J.; Shuman, J.K.; Tepley, A.J.; Varner, J.M.; Veblen, T.T.; Adalsteinsson, S.A.; et al. Fire as a Fundamental Ecological Process: Research Advances and Frontiers. J. Ecol. 2020, 108, 2047– 2069. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2745.13403. 69. Burrows, N.D.; Friend, G. Biological Indicators of Appropriate Fire Regimes in Southwest Australian Ecosystems. In Fire in Ecosystem Management: Shifting the Paradigm from Suppression to Prescription; Tall Timbers Fire Ecology Conference Proceedings, No. 20; Tall Timbers Research Station: Tallahassee, Florida, 1998; pp. 413–421. 70. Solascasas, P.; Azcárate, F.M.; Hevia, V. Edaphic Arthropods as Indicators of the Ecological Condition of Temperate Grassland Ecosystems: A Systematic Review. Ecol. Indic. 2022, 142, 109277. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2022.109277. 71. Mantoni, C.; Di Musciano, M.; Fattorini, S. Use of Microarthropods to Evaluate the Impact of Fire on Soil Biological Quality. J. Environ. Manag. 2020, 266, 110624. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.110624. 72. Lacki, M.J.; Cox, D.R.; Dodd, L.E.; Dickinson, M.B. Response of Northern Bats (Myotis Septentrionalis) to Prescribed Fires in Eastern Kentucky Forests. J. Mammal. 2009, 90, 1165–1175. https://doi.org/10.1644/08-MAMM-A-349.1. 73. Miller, R.G.; Tangney, R.; Enright, N.J.; Fontaine, J.B.; Merritt, D.J.; Ooi, M.K.J.; Ruthrof, K.X.; Miller, B.P. Mechanisms of Fire Seasonality Effects on Plant Populations. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2019, 34, 1104–1117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2019.07.009. 74. Keith, D.A.; Dunker, B.; Driscoll, D.A. Dispersal: The Eighth Fire Seasonality Effect on Plants. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2020, 35, 305– 307. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2019.12.001. 75. Harzing, A.W. Publish or Perish on MacOS 2007. Available online: https://harzing.com/resources/publish-or-perish (accessed on 1 October 2021). 76. Moher, D.; Liberati, A.; Tetzlaff, J.; Altman, D.G. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement. BMJ 2009, 339, b2535. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.b2535. 77. Pullin, A.S.; Stewart, G.B. Guidelines for Systematic Review in Conservation and Environmental Management. Conserv. Biol. 2006, 20, 1647–1656. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2006.00485.x. 78. Huang, X.; Lin, J.; Demner-Fushman, D. Evaluation of PICO as a Knowledge Representation for Clinical Questions. AMIA Annu. Symp. Proc. 2006, 2006, 359–363. 79. Rohatgi, A. Plotdigitizer: Version 3 2021. Available online: http://plotdigitizer.sourceforge.net (accessed on 14 December 2021). 80. Hedges, L.V. Distribution Theory for Glass’s Estimator of Effect Size and Related Estimators. J. Educ. Stat. 1981, 6, 107–128. https://doi.org/10.2307/1164588. 81. Buck, R.J.; Fieberg, J.; Larkin, D.J. The Use of Weighted Averages of Hedges’ d in Meta-Analysis: Is It Worth It? Methods Ecol. Evol. 2022, 13, 1093–1105. https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.13818. 82. Rosenberg, M.S.; Rothstein, H.R.; Gurevitch, J. Effect Sizes: Conventional Choices and Calculations. In Handbook of Meta-analysis in Ecology and Evolution; Princeton University Press: Princeton, NJ, USA, 2013; pp. 61–71, ISBN 978-0-691-13728-5. Earth 2022, 3 1109 83. Borenstein, M.; Hedges, L.V.; Higgins, J.P.T.; Rothstein, H.R. A Basic Introduction to Fixed-Effect and Random-Effects Models for Meta-Analysis. Res. Synth. Methods 2010, 1, 97–111. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.12. 84. R Core Team. A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing; R Foundation for Statistical Computing: Vienna, Austria, 85. Viechtbauer, W. Conducting Meta-Analyses in R with the Metafor Package. J. Stat. Softw. 2010, 36, 1–48. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v036.i03. 86. Salerno, M.; Berlino, M.; Mangano, M.C.; Sarà, G. Microplastics and the Functional Traits of Fishes: A Global Meta-analysis. Glob. Change Biol. 2021, 27, 2645–2655. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.15570. 87. Bates, D.; Maechler, M. Lme4: Linear Mixed-Effects Models Using S4 Classes. CRAN. 2019. Available online: https://cran.r- project.org/package=lme4 (accessed on 25 August 2022). 88. Bates, D.; Mächler, M.; Bolker, B.; Walker, S. Fitting Linear Mixed-Effects Models Using Lme4. J. Statis-Tical Softw. 2015, 67, 1– 48, https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01 89. Egger, M.; Smith, G.D.; Schneider, M.; Minder, C. Bias in Meta-Analysis Detected by a Simple, Graphical Test. BMJ 1997, 315, 629–634. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.315.7109.629. 90. Duval, S. The Trim and Fill Method. In Publication Bias in Meta-Analysis: Prevention, Assessment and Adjustments; Rothstein, H.R., Sutton, A.J., Borenstein, M., Eds.; John Wiley & Sons, Ltd: West Sussex, UK, 2005; pp. 127–144, ISBN 978-0-470-87016-7. 91. Duval, S.; Tweedie, R. Trim and Fill: A Simple Funnel-Plot-Based Method of Testing and Adjusting for Publication Bias in Meta- Analysis. Biometrics 2000, 56, 455–463. 92. Luo, C.; Marks-Anglin, A.; Duan, R.; Lin, L.; Hong, C.; Chu, H.; Chen, Y. Accounting for Publication Bias Using a Bivariate Trim and Fill Meta-Analysis Procedure. Stat. Med. 2022, 41, 3466–3478. https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.9428. 93. Fernández-Castilla, B.; Declercq, L.; Jamshidi, L.; Beretvas, S.N.; Onghena, P.; Van den Noortgate, W. Detecting Selection Bias in Meta-Analyses with Multiple Outcomes: A Simulation Study. J. Exp. Educ. 2021, 89, 125–144. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.2019.1582470. 94. Olson, D.M.; Dinerstein, E.; Wikramanayake, E.D.; Burgess, N.D.; Powell, G.V.N.; Underwood, E.C.; D’amico, J.A.; Itoua, I.; Strand, H.E.; Morrison, J.C.; et al. Terrestrial Ecoregions of the World: A New Map of Life on Earth: A New Global Map of Terrestrial Ecoregions Provides an Innovative Tool for Conserving Biodiversity. BioScience 2001, 51, 933–938. https://doi.org/10.1641/0006-3568(2001)051[0933:TEOTWA]2.0.CO;2. 95. dos Anjos, A.G.; Solé, M.; Benchimol, M. Fire Effects on Anurans: What We Know so Far? For. Ecol. Manag. 2021, 495, 119338. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2021.119338. 96. Cairney, J.W.G.; Bastias, B.A. Influences of Fire on Forest Soil Fungal Communities This Article Is One of a Selection of Papers Published in the Special Forum on Towards Sustainable Forestry—The Living Soil: Soil Biodiversity and Ecosystem Function. Can. J. For. Res. 2007, 37, 207–215. https://doi.org/10.1139/x06-190. 97. Grady, K.C.; Hart, S.C. Influences of Thinning, Prescribed Burning, and Wildfire on Soil Processes and Properties in Southwest- ern Ponderosa Pine Forests: A Retrospective Study. For. Ecol. Manag. 2006, 234, 123–135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2006.06.031. 98. Waldrop, M.P.; Harden, J.W. Interactive Effects of Wildfire and Permafrost on Microbial Communities and Soil Processes in an Alaskan Black Spruce Forest. Glob. Change Biol. 2008, 14, 2591–2602. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2008.01661.x. 99. Whitman, T.; Whitman, E.; Woolet, J.; Flannigan, M.D.; Thompson, D.K.; Parisien, M.-A. Soil Bacterial and Fungal Response to Wildfires in the Canadian Boreal Forest across a Burn Severity Gradient. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2019, 138, 107571. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2019.107571. 100. Day, N.J.; Cumming, S.G.; Dunfield, K.E.; Johnstone, J.F.; Mack, M.C.; Reid, K.A.; Turetsky, M.R.; Walker, X.J.; Baltzer, J.L. Identifying Functional Impacts of Heat-Resistant Fungi on Boreal Forest Recovery After Wildfire. Front. For. Glob. Change 2020, 3, 68. 101. Neary, D.G.; Klopatek, C.C.; DeBano, L.F.; Ffolliott, P.F. Fire Effects on Belowground Sustainability: A Review and Synthesis. For. Ecol. Manag. 1999, 122, 51–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-1127(99)00032-8. 102. Smith, G.R.; Edy, L.C.; Peay, K.G. Contrasting Fungal Responses to Wildfire across Different Ecosystem Types. Mol. Ecol. 2021, 30, 844–854. https://doi.org/10.1111/mec.15767. 103. Pulido-Chavez, M.F.; Alvarado, E.C.; DeLuca, T.H.; Edmonds, R.L.; Glassman, S.I. High-Severity Wildfire Reduces Richness and Alters Composition of Ectomycorrhizal Fungi in Low-Severity Adapted Ponderosa Pine Forests. For. Ecol. Manag. 2021, 485, 118923. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2021.118923. 104. Wang, Q.; Zhong, M.; Wang, S. A Meta-Analysis on the Response of Microbial Biomass, Dissolved Organic Matter, Respiration, and N Mineralization in Mineral Soil to Fire in Forest Ecosystems. For. Ecol. Manag. 2012, 271, 91–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2012.02.006. 105. Singh, D.; Sharma, P.; Kumar, U.; Daverey, A.; Arunachalam, K. Effect of Forest Fire on Soil Microbial Biomass and Enzymatic Activity in Oak and Pine Forests of Uttarakhand Himalaya, India. Ecol. Process. 2021, 10, 29. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13717-021- 00293-6. 106. Mabuhay, J.A.; Nakagoshi, N.; Isagi, Y. Soil Microbial Biomass, Abundance, and Diversity in a Japanese Red Pine Forest: First Year after Fire. J. For. Res. 2006, 11, 165–173. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10310-005-0201-8. 107. Pechenik, J. Biology of the Invertebrates, 7th ed.; McGraw Hill: New York, NY, USA, 2014; ISBN 978-0-07-352418-4. Earth 2022, 3 1110 108. Santos, X.; Mateos, E.; Bros, V.; Brotons, L.; De Mas, E.; Herraiz, J.A.; Herrando, S.; Miño, À.; Olmo-Vidal, J.M.; Quesada, J.; et al. Is Response to Fire Influenced by Dietary Specialization and Mobility? A Comparative Study with Multiple Animal Assem- blages. PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e88224. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0088224. 109. Griffiths, A.D.; Brook, B.W.; Griffiths, A.D.; Brook, B.W. Effect of Fire on Small Mammals: A Systematic Review. Int. J. Wildland Fire 2014, 23, 1034–1043. https://doi.org/10.1071/WF14026. 110. Renken, R.B. Does Fire Affect Amphibians and Reptiles in Eastern U.S. Oak Forests? In Fire in Eastern Oak Forests: Delivering Science to Land Managers. U.S. Forest Service General Technical Report NRS-P-1; Dickinson, M.B., Ed.; U.S. Department of Agricul- ture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station: Newton Square, PA, USA, 2006; pp. 158–166. 111. Hoffmann, B.D.; Andersen, A.N. Responses of Ants to Disturbance in Australia, with Particular Reference to Functional Groups. Austral Ecol. 2003, 28, 444–464. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1442-9993.2003.01301.x. 112. Gongalsky, K.B.; Cividanes, F.J. Distribution of Carabid Beetles in Agroecosystems across Spatial Scales—A Review. Balt. J. Coleopterol. 2008, 8, 15–30. 113. Gongalsky, K.B.; Zaitsev, A.S.; Korobushkin, D.I.; Saifutdinov, R.A.; Butenko, K.O.; de Vries, F.T.; Ekschmitt, K.; Degtyarev, M.I.; Gorbunova, A.Yu.; Kostina, N.V.; et al. Forest Fire Induces Short-Term Shifts in Soil Food Webs with Consequences for Carbon Cycling. Ecol. Lett. 2021, 24, 438–450. https://doi.org/10.1111/ele.13657. 114. Floyd, T.M.; Russell, K.R.; Moorman, C.E.; Van Lear, D.H.; Guynn, D.C.J.; Lanham, J.D. Effects of Prescribed Fire on Herpe- tofauna within Hardwood Forests of the Upper Piedmont of South Carolina: A Preliminary Analysis. In Proceedings of the elev- enth biennial southern silvicultural research conference. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-48; Outcalt, K.W., Ed.; U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station: Asheville, NC, USA, 2002; pp. 123–127. 115. Greenberg, C.H.; Waldrop, T.A. Short-Term Response of Reptiles and Amphibians to Prescribed Fire and Mechanical Fuel Re- duction in a Southern Appalachian Upland Hardwood Forest. For. Ecol. Manag. 2008, 255, 2883–2893. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2008.01.064. 116. Greenberg, C.H. Fire, Habitat Structure and Herpetofauna in the Southeast. In Proceedings of a Special Workshop on the Role of Fire for Nongame Wildlife Management and Community Restoration: Traditional Uses and New Directions; Ford, W.M., Ford, K.R., Moor- man, C.E., Eds.; USDA Forest Service General Technical Report NE-288; Northern Research Station: Newtown Square, PA, USA, 2000; pp. 91–99. 117. Hankins, D.L. The Effects of Indigenous Prescribed Fire on Herpetofauna and Small Mammals in Two Central Valley California Riparian Ecosystems. Calif. Geogr. 2009, 49, 31–50. 118. Gaines, W.L.; Lyons, A.L.; Weaver, K.; Sprague, A. Monitoring the Short-Term Effects of Prescribed Fire on an Endemic Mollusk in the Dry Forests of the Eastern Cascades, Washington, USA. For. Ecol. Manag. 2011, 261, 1460–1465. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2011.01.034. 119. Ray, E.J.; Bergey, E.A. After the Burn: Factors Affecting Land Snail Survival in Post-Prescribed-Burn Woodlands. J. Molluscan Stud. 2015, 81, 44–50. https://doi.org/10.1093/mollus/eyu051. 120. Nowacki, G.J.; Abrams, M.D. The Demise of Fire and “Mesophication” of Forests in the Eastern United States. BioScience 2008, 58, 123–138. https://doi.org/10.1641/B580207. 121. Adams, D.E.; Anderson, R.C.; Collins, S.L. Differential Response of Woody and Herbaceous Species to Summer and Winter Burning in an Oklahoma Grassland. Southwest. Nat. 1982, 27, 55–61. https://doi.org/10.2307/3671407. 122. Holmes, P. A Comparison of the Impacts of Winter versus Summer Burning of Slash Fuel in Alien-Invaded Fynbos Areas in the Western Cape. South. Afr. For. J. 2001, 192, 41–50. https://doi.org/10.1080/20702620.2001.10434132. 123. Gabrey, S.W.; Afton, A.D.; Wilson, B.C. Effects of Structural Marsh Management and Winter Burning on Plant and Bird Com- munities during Summer in the Gulf Coast Chenier Plain. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 2001, 29, 218–231. 124. Bond, W.J.; Keeley, J.E. Fire as a Global ‘Herbivore’: The Ecology and Evolution of Flammable Ecosystems. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2005, 20, 387–394. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2005.04.025. 125. Hewitt, R.E.; Bent, E.; Hollingsworth, T.N.; Chapin, F.S.; Taylor, D.L. Resilience of Arctic Mycorrhizal Fungal Communities after Wildfire Facilitated by Resprouting Shrubs. Écoscience 2013, 20, 296–310. https://doi.org/10.2980/20-3-3620. 126. Heim, R.J.; Heim, W.; Bültmann, H.; Kamp, J.; Rieker, D.; Yurtaev, A.; Hölzel, N. Fire Disturbance Promotes Biodiversity of Plants, Lichens and Birds in the Siberian Subarctic Tundra. Glob. Change Biol. 2022, 28, 1048–1062. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.15963. 127. Ramo, R.; Roteta, E.; Bistinas, I.; van Wees, D.; Bastarrika, A.; Chuvieco, E.; van der Werf, G.R. African Burned Area and Fire Carbon Emissions Are Strongly Impacted by Small Fires Undetected by Coarse Resolution Satellite Data. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2021, 118, e2011160118. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2011160118. 128. Tosca, M. The Impact of Savanna Fires on Africa’s Rainfall Patterns. Available online: http://theconversation.com/the-impact- of-savanna-fires-on-africas-rainfall-patterns-46942 (accessed on 24 August 2022). 129. Probert, J.R.; Parr, C.L.; Holdo, R.M.; Anderson, T.M.; Archibald, S.; Courtney Mustaphi, C.J.; Dobson, A.P.; Donaldson, J.E.; Hopcraft, G.C.; Hempson, G.P.; et al. Anthropogenic Modifications to Fire Regimes in the Wider Serengeti-Mara Ecosystem. Glob. Change Biol. 2019, 25, 3406–3423. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.14711. 130. Regos, A.; Tapia, L.; Arenas-Castro, S.; Gil-Carrera, A.; Domínguez, J. Ecosystem Functioning Influences Species Fitness at Up- per Trophic Levels. Ecosystems 2022, 25, 1037–1051. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10021-021-00699-5. 131. Calizza, E.; Costantini, M.L.; Rossi, L. Effect of Multiple Disturbances on Food Web Vulnerability to Biodiversity Loss in Detri- tus-Based Systems. Ecosphere 2015, 6, art124. https://doi.org/10.1890/ES14-00489.1. Earth 2022, 3 1111 132. Vallejo, V.R.; Arianoutsou, M.; Moreira, F. Fire Ecology and Post-Fire Restoration Approaches in Southern European Forest Types. In Post-Fire Management and Restoration of Southern European Forests; Moreira, F., Arianoutsou, M., Corona, P., De las Heras, J., Eds.; Managing Forest Ecosystems; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2012; pp. 93–119, ISBN 978-94-007-2208-8. 133. de las Heras, J.; Moya, D.; Vega, J.A.; Daskalakou, E.; Vallejo, V.R.; Grigoriadis, N.; Tsitsoni, T.; Baeza, J.; Valdecantos, A.; Fer- nández, C.; et al. Post-Fire Management of Serotinous Pine Forests. In Post-Fire Management and Restoration of Southern European Forests; Moreira, F., Arianoutsou, M., Corona, P., De las Heras, J., Eds.; Managing Forest Ecosystems; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2012; pp. 121–150, ISBN 978-94-007-2208-8. 134. Glassman, S.I.; Levine, C.R.; DiRocco, A.M.; Battles, J.J.; Bruns, T.D. Ectomycorrhizal Fungal Spore Bank Recovery after a Severe Forest Fire: Some like It Hot. ISME J 2016, 10, 1228–1239. https://doi.org/10.1038/ismej.2015.182. 135. Burkle, L.A.; Simanonok, M.P.; Durney, J.S.; Myers, J.A.; Belote, R.T. Wildfires Influence Abundance, Diversity, and Intraspecific and Interspecific Trait Variation of Native Bees and Flowering Plants Across Burned and Unburned Landscapes. Front. Ecol. Evol. 2019, 7, 252. 136. Moritz, M.A.; Parisien, M.-A.; Batllori, E.; Krawchuk, M.A.; Van Dorn, J.; Ganz, D.J.; Hayhoe, K. Climate Change and Disrup- tions to Global Fire Activity. Ecosphere 2012, 3, art49. https://doi.org/10.1890/ES11-00345.1. 137. Hong, J.; Zhang, J.; Ma, Y.; Gu, B.; Lee, R. The Fates of Nitrogen in an Experimental Wetland Food Web: A Stable Isotope Study. Wetlands 2019, 39, 303–310. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13157-018-1085-7. 138. Chasar, L.C.; Chanton, J.P.; Koenig, C.C.; Coleman, F.C. Evaluating the Effect of Environmental Disturbance on the Trophic Structure of Florida Bay, U.S.A.: Multiple Stable Isotope Analyses of Contemporary and Historical Specimens. Limnol. Oceanogr. 2005, 50, 1059–1072. https://doi.org/10.4319/lo.2005.50.4.1059. 139. Blonder, B.; Lamanna, C.; Violle, C.; Enquist, B.J. The N-Dimensional Hypervolume. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 2014, 23, 595–609. https://doi.org/10.1111/geb.12146. 140. Blonder, B.; Morrow, C.B.; Maitner, B.; Harris, D.J.; Lamanna, C.; Violle, C.; Enquist, B.J.; Kerkhoff, A.J. New Approaches for Delineating N-Dimensional Hypervolumes. Methods Ecol. Evol. 2018, 9, 305–319. https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.12865. 141. Whyte, K.P. On the Role of Traditional Ecological Knowledge as a Collaborative Concept: A Philosophical Study. Ecol. Process. 2013, 2, 7. https://doi.org/10.1186/2192-1709-2-7. 142. Ganey, J.L.; Iniguez, J.M.; Sanderlin, J.S.; Block, W.M. Developing a Monitoring Program for Bird Populations in the Chiricahua Moun- tains, Arizona, Using Citizen Observers: Initial Stages; General Technical Report (GTR) RMRS-GTR-368; U.S, Department of Agri- culture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: Fort Collins, CO, USA, 2017.
Journal
Earth – Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute
Published: Oct 27, 2022
Keywords: prescribed; wildfire; invertebrates; vertebrates; belowground; aboveground