The Ecologist

 
Western pygmy possums use tree hollows that take decades to develop in mallee ecosystems. Photo: Lauren Brown.
Western pygmy possums use tree hollows that take decades to develop in mallee ecosystems. Photo: Lauren Brown.
More articles about
Related Articles
  • Yellow-plumed honeyeaters need patches of mallee that haven’t been burned for at least 30 years. Photo: Simon Watson.
    Yellow-plumed honeyeaters need patches of mallee that haven’t been burned for at least 30 years. Photo: Simon Watson.
  • Fires consumes spinifex clumps and tree hollows - both important animal habitats. Photo: Lauren Brown.
    Fires consumes spinifex clumps and tree hollows - both important animal habitats. Photo: Lauren Brown.
  • Burnoffs in the mallee region of Victoria may have done lasting damage to the environment. Photo: Peter Teasdale.
    Burnoffs in the mallee region of Victoria may have done lasting damage to the environment. Photo: Peter Teasdale.

Over-burning could be damaging Australia's wildlife for 100 years

Dale Nimmo, Andrew Bennett & Michael Clarke

29th August 2014

We know that Australia's dry bush has co-evolved with fire, so that means regular planned burning is a good thing? Up to a point ... some increasingly rare species depend on 'old growth' bush up to 100 years old, and over-frequent burning is putting them under long-term threat.

If we don't change our policies, we risk doing ecological harm, while at the same time making humans little safer.

The smell of smoke in the autumn and spring air is an increasingly familiar one to many Australians.

It signifies that time of year when land management agencies in southern Australia feverishly try to meet their burning targets.

But what are the consequences for biodiversity of setting such targets in Australia's ecosystems? In recent research conducted in south-eastern Australia's Murray Mallee region, our team (the Mallee Fire and Biodiversity Team) found that such policies can set in motion changes that persist for over 100 years.

It was recently announced that this research is one of three projects nominated for the Eureka Science Prize for Environmental Science, sponsored by the NSW Office of Environment and Heritage. The winners will be announced on September 10.

Fire over the long term

We found that fire dramatically changes the abundance of resources critical to animals in semi-arid ecosystems, such as spinifex hummocks and tree hollows. This doesn't just occur in the immediate aftermath of a fire; the impacts continue for a century after burning.

To put this in perspective, a fire in 1914 at the beginning of World War I would still be affecting where particular animal species occur today. Similarly, a fire lit today will influence the mallee ecosystem through to the year 2114 and beyond.

These long-term effects of fire were surprising, but equally fascinating was the post-fire preferences of the native fauna.

But Australian ecosystems love fire, right?

It often is assumed that plants and animal species in Australian environments generally benefit from fire. This view arises from the logic that if fires occur frequently within a region, then the species must have adapted to cope with frequent fire.

However, although large wildfires do occur frequently somewhere within the Murray Mallee region (typically every 10 to 20 years), substantial areas can avoid wildfire for long periods (50, 80 or even more than 100 years).

We found that these older stands of mallee vegetation are critical to many animal species. A number of species of reptiles, small mammals and particularly birds had clear preferences for sites of 30-100 years post-fire.

For instance, the Murray striped skink (Ctenotus brachyonyx) and the yellow-plumed honeyeater (Lichenostomus ornatus) are both most common in sites that have not burned for 60-100 years.

Species dependent on spinifex grass, such as the mallee emu-wren (Stipiturus mallee), mallee ningaui (Ningaui yvonneae) and southern legless lizard (Delma australis), reach their greatest abundance at 20-50 years post-fire when large amounts of spinifex cover occur.

A mismatch between ecology, policy, and management

If long-unburnt mallee vegetation is so valuable for wildlife, then it is important that this is recognised in fire management and policy.

But in Victoria, there is a blanket state-wide target of undertaking planned burning of 5% of public land annually.

Assuming no areas are burned twice within 20 years (a fairly safe assumption for the mallee), meeting this target would essentially result in all mallee vegetation in the region being less than 20 years post-fire within 20 years. If this is realised, the consequences for many species will be disastrous.

The target for burning 5% of public land annually was recommended by the Victorian Bushfires Royal Commission into the Black Saturday fires of 2009. These devastating fires swept through Victoria with tragic results: 173 people lost their lives and scores more their livelihoods.

The 5% target was proposed as a means to minimise the risk of another tragedy like Black Saturday. Planned fires can reduce fuel loads and therefore the logic is that this will reduce the risk of large wildfires.

While few would debate the need to minimise risk to human life and property from wildfire, there is a legitimate debate around how burning large tracts of land in remote regions such as the Murray Mallee will achieve this aim.

So why not burn where the risk is?

Scientists from the Department of Environment and Primary Industries have estimated that less than 3% of the statewide risk to life and property is located in the Murray Mallee region. Yet 16.9% of the planned burning by area in 2012-2013 occurred there.

Conversely, although the more populated areas closer to Melbourne accounted for 31% of risk, only around 1.6% of planned burning took place in that region.

If, and when, the next tragic loss of life occurs as a consequence of bushfires, the question will be where we burned to minimise risk, not just how much.

If we don't change our policies, we risk doing ecological harm, while at the same time making humans little safer.

We would welcome an alternative approach that identifies areas to burn on the basis of where the greatest reduction in risk to life and property can be achieved, while also minimising the risk to biodiversity.

 


 

Dale Nimmo is Alfred Deakin Postdoctoral Research Fellow at Deakin University. He receives funding from Parks Victoria and the Victorian Department of Environment and Primary Industries

Andrew Bennett is Professor, Landscape Ecology at Deakin University. He receives funding from the Department of Environment and Primary Industries (Victoria), Parks Victoria, Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC, and Goulburn Broken Catchment Management Authority.

Michael Clarke is Professor of Zoology at La Trobe University. He receives funding from the Victorian Department of Environment and Primary Industries and the Bushfires and Natural Hazards CRC.

Further reading: Explainer: backburning and fuel reduction.

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

The Conversation

 

Previous Articles...

ECOLOGIST COOKIES

Using this website means you agree to us using simple cookies.

More information here...

 

FOLLOW
THE ECOLOGIST

 

Help us keep the Ecologist platform going

Since 2012, the Ecologist has been owned and published by a small UK-based charity called the Resurgence Trust. We work hard to support the kind of independent journalism and comment that we know Ecologist readers enjoy but we need your help to keep going. We do all this on a very small budget with a very small editorial team and so joining the Trust or making a donation will show us you value our work and support the platform which is currently offered as a free service.

Join The Resurgence TrustDonate to support the Resurgence Trust