Cited by 48Fire effects on ecosystemsEcology and Vegetation Dynamics StudiesPlant and animal studies

Limited Understanding of Bushfire Impacts on Australian Invertebrates

Open access
Saunders, Manu E., Barton, Philip S., Bickerstaff, James R. M., Frost, Lindsey, Latty, Tanya, Lessard, Bryan D., Lowe, Elizabeth C., Rodriguez, Juanita +2 more·2021·Insect Conservation and Diversity

Abstract

Abstract Understanding how increasing risk of frequent and severe fires affects biodiversity and ecosystem function is important for effective conservation and recovery, but large knowledge gaps exist for many taxa in many parts of the world, especially invertebrates. After Australia's 2019–2020 catastrophic bushfire disaster, estimates of biodiversity loss and government priorities for post‐fire conservation activities were focused on vertebrates and plants because of lack of knowledge about invertebrates. Our synthesis of published evidence reveals a fragmented and ambiguous body of literature on invertebrate responses to fire in Australian ecosystems, limiting the capacity of evidence to inform effective conservation policy in response to extreme fire events. Peer‐reviewed studies are available for only six of the more than 30 invertebrate phyla and 88% were on arthropods, predominantly ants. Nearly all studies (94%) were conducted in terrestrial habitats, with only four studies measuring impacts in freshwater habitats and no studies of impacts on marine invertebrates. The high variation in study designs and treatment categories, as well as the absence of key methodological details in many older observational studies, means that there is substantial opportunity to improve our approach to collating meaningful estimates of general fire effects. To understand the full ecological effects of catastrophic fire events, and design effective policies that support recovery of ecosystems now and in future, it is critical that we improve understanding of how fire regimes affect invertebrates. We list key priorities for research and policy to support invertebrate conservation and ecosystem recovery in the face of increasing fire risk.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/icad.12493

Cites

53 of 53 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Nearly all studies (94%) were conducted on land, with only four studies measuring impacts in freshwater habitats.

    “Nearly all studies (94%) were conducted on land, with only four studies measuring impacts in freshwater habitats.”

    From Sysrev: A FAIR Platform for Data Curation and Systematic Evidence Review (2021) · cites this paper as Saunders et al., 2021

  • There is very little awareness of how fire affects invertebrate communities in Australian ecosystems.

    “Our results show that there is very little awareness of how fire affects invertebrate communities in Australian ecosystems.”

    From Sysrev: A FAIR Platform for Data Curation and Systematic Evidence Review (2021) · cites this paper as Saunders et al., 2021

  • No studies of impacts on marine invertebrates in Australian waters were found.

    “We found no studies of impacts on marine invertebrates in Australian waters, which is concerning–ash and post-fire runoff can have major effects on marine ecosystems, yet we didn’t find any evidence of how this is affecting marine invertebrates.”

    From Sysrev: A FAIR Platform for Data Curation and Systematic Evidence Review (2021) · cites this paper as Saunders et al., 2021

  • Peer reviewed studies were available for only six of the more than 30 invertebrate phyla and 88% of targeted studies were on arthropods, predominantly ants.

    “Peer reviewed studies were available for only six of the more than 30 invertebrate phyla and 88% of targeted studies were on arthropods, predominantly ants.”

    From Sysrev: A FAIR Platform for Data Curation and Systematic Evidence Review (2021) · cites this paper as Saunders et al., 2021

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Saunders, M. E., Barton, P. S., Bickerstaff, J. R. M., Frost, L., Latty, T., Lessard, B. D., Lowe, E. C., Rodriguez, J., White, T. E., & Umbers, K. D. L.
Affiliations
  • University of New England (AU)
  • Federation University (AU)
  • Western Sydney University (AU)
  • The University of Sydney (AU)
  • Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (AU)
  • Macquarie University (AU)
  • Australian National Insect Collection, CSIRO Canberra ACT Australia
Corresponding author
Saunders, Manu E.
Venue
Insect Conservation and Diversity
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2021-03-12
Volume
14
Issue
3
Pages
285-293
ISSN
  • 1752-458X (ISSN-L)
  • 1752-4598
OpenAlex
W3137634943
Cited by
48
References
53
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 8
FWCI
3.59
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Insect Conservation and Diversity (publishedVersion)
  • FedUni ResearchOnline (Federation University Australia) (submittedVersion)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • RUNE (Research UNE) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Fire effects on ecosystems
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Nature and Landscape Conservation › Ecology and Vegetation Dynamics Studies
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics › Plant and animal studies
Keywords
bushfire impacts, invertebrates, fire regimes, 2019-2020 Australian bushfires, arthropods, ants, freshwater invertebrates, marine invertebrates, ecosystem recovery, biodiversity loss, conservation policy

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review