Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35320881›Full record

ReviewBiological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society2022

Fire as a driver and mediator of predator-prey interactions.

Tim S Doherty, William L Geary, Chris J Jolly, Kristina J Macdonald, Vivianna Miritis, Darcy J Watchorn, Michael J Cherry, L Mike Conner, Tania Marisol González, Sarah M Legge and 3 more

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

19 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Activity ofEcology and evolution · 2023
    Article
  19. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

13 authors.

Tim S DohertySchool of Life and Environmental Sciences, Heydon-Laurence Building A08, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, 2006, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-7745-0251
William L GearyBiodiversity Strategy and Knowledge Branch, Biodiversity Division, Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning, 8 Nicholson Street, East Melbourne, VIC, 3002, Australia.
Chris J JollySchool of Agricultural, Environmental and Veterinary Sciences, Charles Sturt University, Gungalman Drive, Albury, NSW, 2640, Australia.
Kristina J MacdonaldCentre for Integrative Ecology, School of Life and Environmental Sciences (Burwood Campus), Deakin University, 75 Pigdons Road, Waurn Ponds, VIC, 3216, Australia.
Vivianna MiritisSchool of Life and Environmental Sciences, Heydon-Laurence Building A08, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, 2006, Australia.
Darcy J WatchornCentre for Integrative Ecology, School of Life and Environmental Sciences (Burwood Campus), Deakin University, 75 Pigdons Road, Waurn Ponds, VIC, 3216, Australia.
Michael J CherryCaesar Kleberg Wildlife Research Institute, Texas A&M University-Kingsville, 700 University Boulevard, MSC 218, Kingsville, TX, 78363, U.S.A.
L Mike ConnerThe Jones Center at Ichauway, 3988 Jones Center Drive, Newton, GA, 39870, U.S.A.
Tania Marisol GonzálezLaboratorio de Ecología del Paisaje y Modelación de Ecosistemas ECOLMOD, Departamento de Biología, Facultad de Ciencias, Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Edificio 421, Bogotá, 111321, Colombia.
Sarah M LeggeFenner School of Environment & Society, The Australian National University, Linnaeus Way, Canberra, ACT, 2601, Australia.
Euan G RitchieCentre for Integrative Ecology, School of Life and Environmental Sciences (Burwood Campus), Deakin University, 75 Pigdons Road, Waurn Ponds, VIC, 3216, Australia.
Clare StawskiDepartment of Biology, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, NO-7491, Norway.
Chris R DickmanSchool of Life and Environmental Sciences, Heydon-Laurence Building A08, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, 2006, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Both fire and predators have strong influences on the population dynamics and behaviour of animals, and the effects of predators may either be strengthened or weakened by fire. However, knowledge of how fire drives or mediates predator-prey interactions is fragmented and has not been synthesised. Here, we review and synthesise knowledge of how fire influences predator and prey behaviour and interactions. We develop a conceptual model based on predator-prey theory and empirical examples to address four key questions: (i) how and why do predators respond to fire; (ii) how and why does prey vulnerability change post-fire; (iii) what mechanisms do prey use to reduce predation risk post-fire; and (iv) what are the outcomes of predator-fire interactions for prey populations? We then discuss these findings in the context of wildlife conservation and ecosystem management before outlining priorities for future research. Fire-induced changes in vegetation structure, resource availability, and animal behaviour influence predator-prey encounter rates, the amount of time prey are vulnerable during an encounter, and the conditional probability of prey death given an encounter. How a predator responds to fire depends on fire characteristics (e.g. season, severity), their hunting behaviour (ambush or pursuit predator), movement behaviour, territoriality, and intra-guild dynamics. Prey species that rely on habitat structure for avoiding predation often experience increased predation rates and lower survival in recently burnt areas. By contrast, some prey species benefit from the opening up of habitat after fire because it makes it easier to detect predators and to modify their behaviour appropriately. Reduced prey body condition after fire can increase predation risk either through impaired ability to escape predators, or increased need to forage in risky areas due to being energetically stressed. To reduce risk of predation in the post-fire environment, prey may change their habitat use, increase sheltering behaviour, change their movement behaviour, or use camouflage through cryptic colouring and background matching. Field experiments and population viability modelling show instances where fire either amplifies or does not amplify the impacts of predators on prey populations, and vice versa. In some instances, intense and sustained post-fire predation may lead to local extinctions of prey populations. Human disruption of fire regimes is impacting faunal communities, with consequences for predator and prey behaviour and population dynamics. Key areas for future research include: capturing data continuously before, during and after fires; teasing out the relative importance of changes in visibility and shelter availability in different contexts; documenting changes in acoustic and olfactory cues for both predators and prey; addressing taxonomic and geographic biases in the literature; and predicting and testing how changes in fire-regime characteristics reshape predator-prey interactions. Understanding and managing the consequences for predator-prey communities will be critical for effective ecosystem management and species conservation in this era of global change.

Indexed as

EcosystemFood ChainAnimalsBehavior, AnimalPopulation DynamicsPredatory Behaviorcarnivoreforaging behaviourhunting behaviourinteractionlandscape of fearmega-firemultiple threatspredation ratesprescribed burningwildfire

Identifiers

PMID35320881
PMCPMC9546118

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.