Pyrodiversity and biodiversity: A history, synthesis, and outlook. (6th May 2021)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Jones, Gavin M.; Tingley, Morgan W.
• Other Names: Nimmo Dale guestEditor.; Andersen Alan guestEditor.; Archibold Sally guestEditor.; Boer Matthias guestEditor.; Brotons Lluís guestEditor.; Parr Catherine guestEditor.; Tingley Morgan guestEditor.
• Is Part Of: Diversity & distributions. Volume 28:Number 3(2022)
• Page Start: 386
• Page End: 403
• Publication Date: 2021-05-06
• Subjects: ecological mechanisms -- fire management -- fire mosaic -- megafires -- pyrodiversity -- pyrodiversity–biodiversity hypothesis -- scale; Biodiversity -- Periodicals; Biodiversity conservation -- Periodicals; 577
• DOI: 10.1111/ddi.13280
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1366-9516

Abstract

Abstract: Aim: Pyrodiversity is the spatial or temporal variability in fire effects across a landscape. Multiple ecological hypotheses, when applied to the context of post‐fire systems, suggest that high pyrodiversity will lead to high biodiversity. This resultant "pyrodiversity–biodiversity" hypothesis has grown popular but has received mixed support by recent empirical research. In this paper, we sought to review the existing pyrodiversity literature, appraise support for the pyrodiversity–biodiversity hypothesis, examine potential mechanisms underlying the hypothesis and identify outstanding questions about pyrodiversity and future research needs. Location: Global terrestrial ecosystems. Methods: We performed a systematic literature review of research related to pyrodiversity and the pyrodiversity–biodiversity hypothesis. We also examined how two individual species with distinct relationships with fire (spotted owl Strix occidentalis and black‐backed woodpecker Picoides arcticus ) respond to pyrodiversity as case studies to illustrate underlying mechanisms. Results: We identified 41 tests of the pyrodiversity–biodiversity hypothesis reported from 33 studies; 18 (44%) presented evidence in support of the pyrodiversity–biodiversity hypothesis, while 23 (56%) did not. Our literature review suggested that support for the pyrodiversity–biodiversity hypothesis varies considerably with no consistent patterns across taxonomic groups and ecosystem types. Studies examining the pyrodiversity–biodiversity hypothesis often define pyrodiversity in different ways, examine effects at different scales and are conducted in ecosystems with different natural fire regimes, baseline levels of biodiversity, and evolutionary histories. We suggest these factors independently and jointly have led to widely varying support for the pyrodiversity–biodiversity hypothesis. Main Conclusions: Clarifying the pyrodiversity–biodiversity hypothesis will be facilitated by stronger development of the different potential mechanisms underlying pyrodiversity–biodiversity relationships, which can be aided by examining how individual species respond to pyrodiversity. Future research would benefit from a closer examination of the role of scale (e.g. scale dependence) in pyrodiversity–biodiversity relationships, standardization of pyrodiversity metrics, broad‐scale mapping of pyrodiversity, and macroecological study of pyrodiversity–biodiversity relationships.