Oecologia

pp 1–11 | Cite as

Successional changes in trophic interactions support a mechanistic model of post-fire population dynamics

Population ecology – original research

Abstract

Models based on functional traits have limited power in predicting how animal populations respond to disturbance because they do not capture the range of demographic and biological factors that drive population dynamics, including variation in trophic interactions. I tested the hypothesis that successional changes in vegetation structure, which affected invertebrate abundance, would influence growth rates and body condition in the early-successional, insectivorous gecko Nephrurus stellatus. I captured geckos at 17 woodland sites spanning a succession gradient from 2 to 48 years post-fire. Body condition and growth rates were analysed as a function of the best-fitting fire-related predictor (invertebrate abundance or time since fire) with different combinations of the co-variates age, sex and location. Body condition in the whole population was positively affected by increasing invertebrate abundance and, in the adult population, this effect was most pronounced for females. There was strong support for a decline in growth rates in weight with time since fire. The results suggest that increased early-successional invertebrate abundance has filtered through to a higher trophic level with physiological benefits for insectivorous geckos. I integrated the new findings about trophic interactions into a general conceptual model of mechanisms underlying post-fire population dynamics based on a long-term research programme. The model highlights how greater food availability during early succession could drive rapid population growth by contributing to previously reported enhanced reproduction and dispersal. This study provides a framework to understand links between ecological and physiological traits underlying post-fire population dynamics.

Keywords

Disturbance Fire management Functional traits Habitat accommodation model Pyrodiversity 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This paper is dedicated to the memory of Professor C. Michael Bull (1947–2016) and Mr Dale Burzacott (1958–2017) who ran a productive, honest and friendly research laboratory together for over 30 years. They made substantial contributions to lizard population ecology and will be missed as mentors and friends. Don Driscoll and C. Michael Bull were involved in the design of a broader project during which data for this project were collected. Over 40 volunteers were involved in field work, particularly Samantha Blight, Simone Dalgairns, Juliana Lazzari, Kevin Mayes and Catherine Whitehead. Joe Tilley and the South Australian Department of Environment, Water and Natural Resources (DEWNR) provided field support. The research was funded by the Australian Research Council (LP0776604), Native Vegetation Council of South Australia, DEWNR, Wildlife Conservation Fund, Sir Mark Mitchell Research Foundation, Lirabenda Endowment Fund, Ecological Society of Australia and Australian National University.

Author contribution statement

ALS conceived, designed and executed this study and wrote the manuscript. No other person is entitled to authorship.

Compliance with ethical standards

Ethical approval

All applicable institutional and national guidelines for the care and use of animals were followed. I followed the Australian code for the care and use of animals for scientific purposes and worked under scientific (S25589 Government of South Australian) and animal ethics (E256 Flinders University) permits.

Data accessibility

Data supporting this article have been uploaded as part of the Electronic Supplementary Material.

Supplementary material

442_2017_4016_MOESM1_ESM.xlsx (59 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (XLSX 58 kb)
442_2017_4016_MOESM2_ESM.xlsx (133 kb)
Supplementary material 2 (XLSX 133 kb)
442_2017_4016_MOESM3_ESM.pdf (2.5 mb)
Supplementary material 3 (PDF 2602 kb)

References

  1. Banks SC, Blyton MDJ, Blair D, McBurney L, Lindenmayer DB (2012) Adaptive responses and disruptive effects: how major wildfire influences kinship-based social interactions in a forest marsupial. Mol Ecol 21:673–684CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Bargmann T, Heegaard E, Hatteland BA, Chipperfield JD, Grytnes JA (2016) Species trait selection along a prescribed fire chronosequence. Insect Conserv Divers 9:446–455CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bates D, Maechler M, Bolker B (2013) lme4: linear mixed-effects models using S4 classes. R package, version 0.999999-2Google Scholar
  4. Bowman DM, Perry GL, Higgins SI, Johnson CN, Fuhlendorf SD, Murphy BP (2016) Pyrodiversity is the coupling of biodiversity and fire regimes in food webs. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 371. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2015.0169
  5. Burgess EE, Maron M (2016) Does the response of bird assemblages to fire mosaic properties vary among spatial scales and foraging guilds? Landsc Ecol 31:687–699CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Campos Z, Magnusson WE, Marques V (2013) Growth rates of Paleosuchus palpebrosus at the southern limit of its range. Herpetologica 69:405–410CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Caughley J (1985) Effect of fire on the reptile fauna of mallee. In: Grigg G, Shine R, Ehmann H (eds) Biology of Australasian frogs and reptiles. Royal Zoological Society of NSW and Surrey Beatty & Sons, Chipping Norton, pp 31–34Google Scholar
  8. Caut S, Jowers MJ, Arnan X, Pearce-Duvet J, Rodrigo A, Cerda X, Boulay RR (2014) The effects of fire on ant trophic assemblage and sex allocation. Ecol Evol 4:35–49CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Chamaillé-Jammes S, Massot M, Aragón P, Clobert J (2006) Global warming and positive fitness response in mountain populations of common lizards Lacerta vivipara. Glob Change Biol 12:392–402CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cherry MJ, Warren RJ, Mike Conner L (2016) Fear, fire, and behaviorally mediated trophic cascades in a frequently burned savanna. For Ecol Manag 368:133–139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cox RM, Parker EU, Cheney DM, Liebl AL, Martin LB, Calsbeek R (2010) Experimental evidence for physiological costs underlying the trade-off between reproduction and survival. Funct Ecol 24:1262–1269CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cunningham HR, Rissler LJ, Apodaca JJ (2009) Competition at the range boundary in the slimy salamander: using reciprocal transplants for studies on the role of biotic interactions in spatial distributions. J Anim Ecol 78:52–62CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Davies AB, Eggleton P, van Rensburg BJ, Parr CL (2012) The pyrodiversity–biodiversity hypothesis: a test with savanna termite assemblages. J Appl Ecol 49:422–430CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Di Stefano J, Ashton A, York A (2014) Diet of the silky mouse (Pseudomys apodemoides) and the heath rat (P. shortridgei) in a post-fire environment. Int J Wildland Fire 23:746–753CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Driscoll DA, Henderson MK (2008) How many common reptile species are fire specialists? A replicated natural experiment highlights the predictive weakness of a fire succession model. Biol Conserv 141:460–471CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Driscoll DA, Lindenmayer DB, Bennett AF, Bode M, Bradstock RA, Cary GJ, Clarke MF, Dexter N, Fensham R, Friend G, Gill AM, James S, Kay G, Keith DA, MacGregor C, Russell-Smith J, Salt D, Watson JEM, Williams RJ, York A (2010) Fire management for biodiversity conservation: key research questions and our capacity to answer them. Biol Conserv 143:1928–1939CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Driscoll DA, Smith AL, Blight SR, Maindonald J (2012) Reptile responses to fire and the risk of post-disturbance sampling bias. Biodivers Conserv 21:1607–1625CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Ferran A, Vallejo VR (1992) Litter dynamics in post-fire successional forests of Quercus ilex. Vegetatio 99(100):239–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Forero MG, Tella JL, Hobson KA, Bertellotti M, Blanco G (2002) Conspecific food competition explains variability in colony size: a test in magellanic penguins. Ecology 83:3466–3475CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Fox BJ (1982) Fire and mammalian secondary succession in an Australian coastal heath. Ecology 63:1332–1341CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. García Y, Castellanos MC, Pausas JG (2016) Fires can benefit plants by disrupting antagonistic interactions. Oecologia 182:1165–1173CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Gascoigne J, Berec L, Gregory S, Courchamp F (2009) Dangerously few liaisons: a review of mate-finding Allee effects. Popul Ecol 51:355–372CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gibson RK, Bradstock RA, Penman T, Keith DA, Driscoll DA (2015) Climatic, vegetation and edaphic influences on the probability of fire across mediterranean woodlands of south-eastern Australia. J Biogeogr 42:1750–1760CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Greenville AC, Wardle GM, Nguyen V, Dickman CR (2016) Spatial and temporal synchrony in reptile population dynamics in variable environments. Oecologia 182:475–485CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Hawlena D, Saltz D, Abramsky Z, Bouskila A (2010) Ecological trap for desert lizards caused by anthropogenic changes in habitat structure that favor predator activity. Conserv Biol 24:803–809CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Hegyi G, Garamszegi L (2011) Using information theory as a substitute for stepwise regression in ecology and behavior. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 65:69–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hodges KE, Boonstra R, Krebs CJ (2006) Overwinter mass loss of snowshoe hares in the Yukon: starvation, stress, adaptation or artefact? J Anim Ecol 75:1–13CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Hossack BR, Eby LA, Guscio CG, Corn PS (2009) Thermal characteristics of amphibian microhabitats in a fire-disturbed landscape. For Ecol Manag 258:1414–1421CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hu Y, Urlus J, Gillespie G, Letnic M, Jessop TS (2013) Evaluating the role of fire disturbance in structuring small reptile communities in temperate forests. Biodivers Conserv 22:1949–1963CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Jarvie S, Senior AM, Adolph SC, Seddon PJ, Cree A (2015) Captive rearing affects growth but not survival in translocated juvenile tuatara. J Zool 297:184–193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Joern A, Provin T, Behmer ST (2012) Not just the usual suspects: insect herbivore populations and communities are associated with multiple plant nutrients. Ecology 93:1002–1015CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Keith DA, Holman L, Rodoreda S, Lemmon J, Bedward M (2007) Plant functional types can predict decade-scale changes in fire-prone vegetation. J Ecol 95:1324–1337CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kelly LT, Nimmo DG, Spence-Bailey LM, Haslem A, Watson SJ, Clarke MF, Bennett AF (2011) Influence of fire history on small mammal distributions: insights from a 100-year post-fire chronosequence. Divers Distrib 17:462–473CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Leahy L, Legge SM, Tuft K, McGregor HW, Barmuta LA, Jones ME, Johnson CN (2016) Amplified predation after fire suppresses rodent populations in Australia’s tropical savannas. Wildl Res 42:705–716CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Letnic M, Dickman CR (2010) Resource pulses and mammalian dynamics: conceptual models for hummock grasslands and other Australian desert habitats. Biol Rev 85:501–521CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Liebhold A, Sharov A (1998) Testing for correlation in the presence of spatial autocorrelation in insect count data. In: Baumgartner J (ed) Population and community ecology for insect management and conservation. A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam, pp 111–117Google Scholar
  37. MacGregor HEA, While GM, Uller T (2017) Comparison of reproductive investment in native and non-native populations of common wall lizards reveals sex differences in adaptive potential. Oikos 126:1564–1574CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Mazerolle MJ (2012) AICcmodavg. R package, version 1.26Google Scholar
  39. McCoy ED, Styga JM, Rizkalla CE, Mushinsky HR (2012) Time since fire affects ectoparasite prevalence on lizards in the Florida scrub ecosystem. Fire Ecol 8:32–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. McGregor HW, Legge S, Jones ME, Johnson CN (2014) Landscape management of fire and grazing regimes alters the fine-scale habitat utilisation by feral cats. PLoS ONE 9:e109097CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  41. Meiri S (2010) Length–weight allometries in lizards. J Zool 281:218–226Google Scholar
  42. Moritz MA, Parisien M-A, Batllori E, Krawchuk MA, Van Dorn J, Ganz DJ, Hayhoe K (2012) Climate change and disruptions to global fire activity. Ecosphere 3:art49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Naulleau G, Bonnet X (1996) Body condition threshold for breeding in a viviparous snake. Oecologia 107:301–306CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Nimmo DG, Kelly LT, Spence-Bailey LM, Watson SJ, Haslem A, White JG, Clarke MF, Bennett AF (2012) Predicting the century-long post-fire responses of reptiles. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 21:1062–1073CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Nimmo DG, Kelly LT, Farnsworth LM, Watson SJ, Bennett AF (2014) Why do some species have geographically varying responses to fire history? Ecography 37:805–813CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Pausas JG (2015) Bark thickness and fire regime. Funct Ecol 29:315–327CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Phillips BL (2009) The evolution of growth rates on an expanding range edge. Biol Lett 5:802–804CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  48. Pianka ER (1969) Habitat specificity, speciation, and species density in Australian desert lizards. Ecology 50:498–502CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. R Core Team (2017) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna. http://www.R-project.org
  50. Radchuk V, Ims RA, Andreassen HP (2016) From individuals to population cycles: the role of extrinsic and intrinsic factors in rodent populations. Ecology 97:720–732CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. Ribeiro PJ Jr, Diggle PJ (2001) geoR: a package for geostatistical analysis. R News 1:14–18Google Scholar
  52. Ruffino L, Salo P, Koivisto E, Banks PB, Korpimäki E (2014) Reproductive responses of birds to experimental food supplementation: a meta-analysis. Front Zool 11:80CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  53. Santos X, Mateos E, Bros V, Brotons L, De Mas E, Herraiz JA, Herrando S, Miño À, Olmo-Vidal JM, Quesada J, Ribes J, Sabaté S, Sauras-Yera T, Serra A, Vallejo VR, Viñolas A (2014) Is response to fire influenced by dietary specialization and mobility? A comparative study with multiple animal assemblages. PLoS ONE 9:e88224CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  54. Sanz-Aguilar A, Anadón JD, Giménez A, Ballestar R, Graciá E, Oro D (2011) Coexisting with fire: the case of the terrestrial tortoise Testudo graeca in mediterranean shrublands. Biol Conserv 144:1040–1049CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Silvério DV, Brando PM, Balch JK, Putz FE, Nepstad DC, Oliveira-Santos C, Bustamante MM (2013) Testing the Amazon savannization hypothesis: fire effects on invasion of a neotropical forest by native cerrado and exotic pasture grasses. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 368. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2012.0427
  56. Smith AL, Bull CM, Driscoll DA (2012) Post-fire succession affects abundance and survival but not detectability in a knob-tailed gecko. Biol Conserv 145:139–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Smith AL, Bull CM, Driscoll DA (2013a) Skeletochronological analysis of age in three ‘fire-specialist’ lizard species. S Aust Nat 87:6–17Google Scholar
  58. Smith AL, Bull CM, Driscoll DA (2013b) Successional specialization in a reptile community cautions against widespread planned burning and complete fire suppression. J Appl Ecol 50:1178–1186Google Scholar
  59. Smith AL, Blanchard W, Blair D, McBurney L, Banks SC, Driscoll DA, Lindenmayer DB (2016a) The dynamic regeneration niche of a forest following a rare disturbance event. Divers Distrib 22:457–467CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Smith AL, Landguth EL, Bull CM, Banks SC, Gardner MG, Driscoll DA (2016b) Dispersal responses override density effects on genetic diversity during post-disturbance succession. Proc R Soc Lond B 283:20152934CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. St. Clair SB, O’Connor R, Gill R, McMillan B (2016) Biotic resistance and disturbance: rodent consumers regulate post-fire plant invasions and increase plant community diversity. Ecology 97:1700–1711CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. Teasdale LC, Smith AL, Thomas M, Whitehead CA, Driscoll DA (2013) Detecting invertebrate responses to fire depends on sampling method and taxonomic resolution. Austral Ecol 38:874–883CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Templeton AR, Brazeal H, Neuwald JL (2011) The transition from isolated patches to a metapopulation in the eastern collared lizard in response to prescribed fires. Ecology 92:1736–1747CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  64. Therrien JF, Gauthier G, Korpimäki E, Bêty J (2014) Predation pressure by avian predators suggests summer limitation of small-mammal populations in the Canadian Arctic. Ecology 95:56–67CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. Vernes K, Haydon DT (2001) Effect of fire on northern bettong (Bettongia tropica) foraging behaviour. Austral Ecol 26:649–659CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Wang Y, Zeng Z-G, Ma L, Li S-R, Du W-G (2017) Food restriction affects maternal investment but not neonate phenotypes in a viviparous lizard. Zool Res 38:81–87CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  67. Webb JK, Shine R (1998) Ecological characteristics of a threatened snake species, Hoplocephalus bungaroides (Serpentes, Elapidae). Anim Conserv 1:185–193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Westgate MJ, Driscoll DA, Lindenmayer DB (2012) Can the intermediate disturbance hypothesis and information on species traits predict anuran responses to fire? Oikos 121:1516–1524CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Wikelski M, Wrege PH (2000) Niche expansion, body size, and survival in Galápagos marine iguanas. Oecologia 124:107–115CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  70. Wright AN, Piovia-Scott J, Spiller DA, Takimoto G, Yang LH, Schoener TW (2013) Pulses of marine subsidies amplify reproductive potential of lizards by increasing individual growth rate. Oikos 122:1496–1504Google Scholar
  71. Zuur AF, Ieno EN, Walker NJ, Saveliev AA, Smith GM (2009) Mixed effects models and extensions in ecology with R. Springer, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Zoology, School of Natural SciencesTrinity College DublinDublin 2Ireland

Personalised recommendations