Cited by 46Freshwater macroinvertebrate diversity and ecologyFire effects on ecosystemsAquatic Ecosystems and Phytoplankton Dynamics

Multi‐trophic resilience of boreal lake ecosystems to forest fires

Open access
Lewis, Tyler L., Lindberg, Mark S., Schmutz, Joel A., Bertram, Mark R.·2014·Ecology

Abstract

Fires are the major natural disturbance in the boreal forest, and their frequency and intensity will likely increase as the climate warms. Terrestrial nutrients released by fires may be transported to boreal lakes, stimulating increased primary productivity, which may radiate through multiple trophic levels. Using a before-after-control-impact (BACI) design, with pre- and postfire data from burned and unburned areas, we examined effects of a natural fire across several trophic levels of boreal lakes, from nutrient and chlorophyll levels, to macroinvertebrates, to waterbirds. Concentrations of total nitrogen and phosphorus were not affected by the fire. Chlorophyll a levels were also unaffected, likely reflecting the stable nutrient concentrations. For aquatic invertebrates, we found that densities of three functional feeding groups did not respond to the fire (filterers, gatherers, scrapers), while two groups increased (shredders, predators). Amphipods accounted for 98% of shredder numbers, and we hypothesize that fire-mediated habitat changes may have favored their generalist feeding and habitat ecology. This increase in amphipods may, in turn, have driven increased predator densities, as amphipods were the most numerous invertebrate in our lakes and are commonly taken as prey. Finally, abundance of waterbird young, which feed primarily on aquatic invertebrates, was not affected by the fire. Overall, ecosystems of our study lakes were largely resilient to forest fires, likel…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1890/13-1170.1

Cites

2 of 2 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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Lewis, T. L., Lindberg, M. S., Schmutz, J. A., & Bertram, M. R.
Affiliations
  • University of Alaska Fairbanks (US)
  • U.S. Geological Survey, Alaska Science Center (US)
  • United States Fish and Wildlife Service (US)
Corresponding author
Lewis, Tyler L.
Venue
Ecology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2014-05
Volume
95
Issue
5
Pages
1253-1263
ISSN
  • 0012-9658 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-9170
OpenAlex
W1971937452
Cited by
46
References
2
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 1
FWCI
1.76
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Ecology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Freshwater macroinvertebrate diversity and ecology
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Fire effects on ecosystems
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Environmental Chemistry › Aquatic Ecosystems and Phytoplankton Dynamics
Keywords
boreal lakes, forest fires, ecosystem resilience, trophic levels, nutrient loading, chlorophyll a, aquatic macroinvertebrates, functional feeding groups, Amphipoda, shredders, aquatic predators, waterbirds, fire disturbance, catchment size, climate change
MeSH terms
Chlorophyll A, Animals, Chlorophyll, Feeding Behavior, Fires, Invertebrates, Nitrogen, Phosphorus, Population Dynamics, Trees, Ecosystem, Anseriformes, Lakes

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