Composite Effects of Cutlines and Wildfire Result in Fire Refuges for Plants and Butterflies in Boreal Treed Peatlands

Abstract

The challenge of understanding how composite disturbances affect ecosystems is a central theme of modern ecology. For instance, anthropogenic footprints and wildfire are increasing globally, but how they combine remains poorly understood. Here, we assessed how a disturbance legacy of about 10-m-wide cutlines, cleared for seismic assessments of fossil fuels, affects wildfire dynamics and species assemblages in boreal peatland forests. One year after the Fort McMurray Horse River wildfire of 2016 (Alberta, Canada), we assessed differences in plant and butterfly assemblages across forests and cutlines, from unburned and severely burned peatlands. We hypothesized that, by reducing fire severity, cutlines could support plants and butterflies in the presence of a severe wildfire (the “refuge hypothesis”). Proportion of burned duff was five times higher in burned forests compared to burned cutlines (53% vs. 11%). We found 107 plant and 46 butterfly taxa, with species richness being, respectively, about 1.4 and 1.7 times higher in lines than in forests, independently from wildfire. Models for single species demonstrated different responses to disturbance, including no responses (25% of species), dominant effects of fire or lines (50%), additive effects (10%), and interactive effects (15%). Cutline refuges occurred for 20% of plant and 70% of butterfly species. Multiple lines of evidence suggest that anthropogenic refuges from fire occur in these peatland forests, yet different patterns of responses confirm the complex effects occurring with composite disturbances. Given that cutlines dissect thousands of square kilometers of boreal forests in North America, further studies should investigate their implications on recovery trajectories of these forests’ succession after wildfire.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3

References

  1. Arienti MC, Cumming SG, Krawchuk MA, Boutin S. 2009. Road network density correlated with increased lightning fire incidence in the Canadian western boreal forest. International Journal of Wildland Fire 18:970–82.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Bergeron JAC, Pinzon J, Odsen S, Bartels S, Macdonald SE, Spence JR. 2017. Ecosystem memory of wildfires affects resilience of boreal mixedwood biodiversity after retention harvest. Oikos 126:1738–47.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Buma B. 2015. Disturbance interactions: characterization, prediction, and the potential for cascading effects. Ecosphere 6:1–15.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Burke RJ, Fitzsimmons JM, Kerr JT. 2011. A mobility index for Canadian butterfly species based on naturalists’ knowledge. Biodiversity Conservation 20:2273–95.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Burton PJ, Parisien MA, Hicke JA, Hall RJ, Freeburn JT. 2008. Large fires as agents of ecological diversity in the North American boreal forest. International Journal of Wildland Fire 17:754–67.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Certini G. 2005. Effects of fire on properties of forest soils: a review. Oecologia 143:1–10.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Côté IM, Darling ES, Brown CJ. 2016. Interactions among ecosystem stressors and their importance in conservation. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 283:20152592.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Dabros A, Pyper M, Castilla G. 2018. Seismic lines in the boreal and arctic ecosystems of North America: environmental impacts, challenges, and opportunities. Environmental Reviews 26:214–29.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Dennis RLH, Shreeve TG, Van Dyck H. 2006. Habitats and resources: The need for a resource-based definition to conserve butterflies. Biodiversity Conservation 15:1943–66.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Dornelas M. 2010. Disturbance and change in biodiversity. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. 365:3719–27.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Filicetti AT, Nielsen SE. 2018. Fire and forest recovery on seismic lines in sandy upland jack pine (Pinus banksiana) forests. Forest Ecology and Management 421:32–9.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Fisher JT, Burton AC. 2018. Wildlife winners and losers in an oil sands landscape. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 16:323–8.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Flannigan MD, Krawchuk MA, de Groot WJ, Wotton MB, Gowman LM. 2009. Implications of changing climate for global wildland fire. International Journal of Wildland Fire 18:483–507.

    Google Scholar 

  14. George EI, McCulloch RE. 1993. Variable selection via Gibbs sampling. Journal of the American Statistical Association. 88:881–9.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Haddad NM, Brudvig LA, Clobert J, Davies KF, Gonzalez A, Holt RD, Lovejoy TE, Sexton JO, Austin MP, Collins CD, Cook WM, Damschen EI, Ewers RM, Foster BL, Jenkins CN, King AJ, Laurance WF, Levey DJ, Margules CR, Melbourne BA, Nicholls AO, Orrock JL, Song D-X, Townshend JR. 2015. Habitat fragmentation and its lasting impact on Earth’s ecosystems. Science Advances 1:e1500052.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Hart SA, Chen HYH. 2008. Fire, logging, and overstory affect understory abundance, diversity, and composition in boreal forest. Ecological Monographs 78:123–40.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Heon J, Arseneault D, Parisien M-A. 2014. Resistance of the boreal forest to high burn rates. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 111:13888–93.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Hintze C, Heydel F, Hoppe C, Cunze S, König A, Tackenberg O. 2013. D3: The Dispersal and Diaspore Database - Baseline data and statistics on seed dispersal. Perspectives in Plant Ecology, Evolution and Systematics 15:180–92.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Hui FKC. 2016. boral—Bayesian ordination and regression analysis of multivariate abundance data in r. Methods in Ecology and Evolution 7:744–50.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Jaeger JAG. 2000. Landscape division, splitting index, and effective mesh size: New measures of landscape fragmentation. Landscape Ecology 15:115–30.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Jarzyna MA, Jetz W. 2016. Detecting the multiple facets of biodiversity. Trends in Ecology & Evolution. 31:527–38.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Keppel G, Van Niel KP, Wardell-Johnson GW, Yates CJ, Byrne M, Mucina L, Schut AGT, Hopper SD, Franklin SE. 2012. Refugia: identifying and understanding safe havens for biodiversity under climate change. Global Ecology and Biogeography. 21:393–404.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Kulakowski D, Veblen TT. 2007. Effect of prior disturbances on the extent and severity of wildfire in Colorado subalpine forests. Ecology 88:759–69.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Lecomte N, Simard M, Bergeron Y. 2006. Effects of fire severity and initial tree composition on stand structural development in the coniferous boreal forest of northwestern Québec, Canada. Écoscience 13:152–63.

    Google Scholar 

  25. New TR. 2014. Insects, fire and conservation. Switzerland: Springer International Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Paine RT, Tegner MJ, Johnson EA. 1998. Ecological surprises. Ecosystems 1:535–45.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Pollard E. 1977. A method for assessing changes in the abundance of butterflies. Biological Conservation 12:115–34.

    Google Scholar 

  28. R Core Team. 2019. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.

    Google Scholar 

  29. van Rensen CK, Nielsen SE, White B, Vinge T, Lieffers VJ. 2015. Natural regeneration of forest vegetation on legacy seismic lines in boreal habitats in Alberta’s oil sands region. Biological Conservation 184:127–35.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Riva F, Acorn JH, Nielsen S. 2018a. Distribution of cranberry blue butterflies (Agriades optilete) and their responses to forest disturbance from in situ oil sands and wildfires. Diversity 10:112.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Riva F, Acorn JH, Nielsen SE. 2018b. Localized disturbances from oil sands developments increase butterfly diversity and abundance in Alberta’s boreal forests. Biological Conservation 217:173–80.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Riva F, Acorn JH, Nielsen SE. 2018c. Narrow anthropogenic corridors direct the movement of a generalist boreal butterfly. Biology Letters 14:20170770.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Roberts D, Ciuti S, Barber QE, Willier C, Nielsen SE. 2018. Accelerated seed dispersal along linear disturbances in the Canadian oil sands region. Scientific Reports 8:4828.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Robinson NM, Leonard SWJ, Ritchie EG, Bassett M, Chia EK, Buckingham S, Gibb H, Bennett AF, Clarke MF. 2013. Refuges for fauna in fire-prone landscapes: Their ecological function and importance. Journal of Applied Ecology 50:1321–9.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Rosa L, Davis KF, Rulli MC, D’Odorico P. 2017. Environmental consequences of oil production from oil sands. Earth’s Future 5:158–70.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Simms CD. 2016. Canada’s Fort McMurray fire: mitigating global risks. Lancet Global Health 4:e520.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Stern E, Riva F, Nielsen S. 2018. Effects of narrow linear disturbances on light and wind patterns in fragmented boreal forests in northeastern Alberta. Forests 9:486.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Swengel AB. 2001. A literature review of insect responses to fire, compared to other conservation managements of open habitat. Biodiversity & Conservation 10:1141–69.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Thom D, Seidl R. 2016. Natural disturbance impacts on ecosystem services and biodiversity in temperate and boreal forests. Biological Reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society 91:760–81.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Turner MG. 2010. Disturbance and landscape dynamics in a changing world. Ecology 91:2833–49.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Weber MGB, Stocks J. 1998. Forest fires and sustainability in the boreal forests of Canada. Ambio 27:545–50.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank COSIA (CRDPJ 498955), Alberta Innovates—Energy and Environmental Solutions (ABIEES 2070), Alberta Agriculture and Forestry (15GRFFM12), NSERC-CRD, LRIGS via the NSERC-CREATE program (CRD 498955-16, CREATE 397892), Alberta Conservation Association via the ACA Grants in Biodiversity (RES0034641), and Xerces Society via the Joan Mosenthal DeWind Award (RES0036460) for supporting this research. We also thank Fionnuala Carrol and Marcel Schneider for participating in the project as summer undergraduate assistants, Angelo Filicetti, Francis K. C. Hui, Nick M. Haddad, Felix A. H. Sperling, and Hans Van Dyck for insightful comments on the manuscript, and Dr. Turner, Dr. Seidl and two anonymous reviewers for insightful comments on the manuscript

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Federico Riva.

Electronic supplementary material

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Riva, F., Pinzon, J., Acorn, J.H. et al. Composite Effects of Cutlines and Wildfire Result in Fire Refuges for Plants and Butterflies in Boreal Treed Peatlands. Ecosystems 23, 485–497 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10021-019-00417-2

Download citation

Keywords

  • boreal forest
  • disturbance
  • in situ oil sands
  • habitat fragmentation
  • seismic lines
  • dispersal
  • linked and compound effects
  • interactive effects
  • synergy