Towards a Process for Integrating
Vertebrate Fauna into Fire Management
Planning
J. MacHunter, P. Menkhorst and R. Loyn
2009
Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research
Technical Report Series No. 192
Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research Technical Series No. 192
Towards a process for integrating vertebrate fauna
into fire management planning
J. MacHunter, P. Menkhorst and R. Loyn
Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research
123 Brown Street, Heidelberg, Victoria 3084
September 2009
Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research
Department of Sustainability and Environment
Heidelberg, Victoria
Report produced by:
Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research
Department of Sustainability and Environment
PO Box 137
Heidelberg, Victoria 3084
Phone (03) 9450 8600
Website: www.dse.vic.gov.au/ari
© State of Victoria, Department of Sustainability and Environment 2009
This publication is copyright. Apart from fair dealing for the purposes of private study, research, criticism or review as
permitted under the Copyright Act 1968, no part may be reproduced, copied, transmitted in any form or by any means
(electronic, mechanical or graphic) without the prior written permission of the State of Victoria, Department of
Sustainability and Environment. All requests and enquires should be directed to the Customer Service Centre, 136 186
or email customer.service@dse.vic.gov.au
Citation: MacHunter, J., Menkhorst, P., Loyn, R. (2009) Towards a Process for Integrating Vertebrate Fauna into Fire
Management Planning. Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research Technical Report Series No. 192. Department
of Sustainability and Environment, Heidelberg, Victoria.
ISSN 1835-3835 (print)
ISSN 1835-3827 (online)
ISBN 978-1-74242-189-6 (print)
ISBN 978-1-74242-190-2 (online)
Disclaimer: This publication may be of assistance to you but the State of Victoria and its employees do not guarantee
that the publication is without flaw of any kind or is wholly appropriate for your particular purposes and therefore
disclaims all liability for any error, loss or other consequence which may arise from you relying on any information in
this publication.
Front cover photo: Mistletoebird Dicaeum hirundinaceum (P. Menkhorst); Grass Trees, Xanthoria australis, Victoria
Valley, Grampians, 2006 (D. Cheal).
Authorised by: Victorian Government, Melbourne
Printed by: NMIT Printroom, 77-91 Georges Road, Preston 3072
Printed on 100% recycled paper
ii
Contents
List of tables and figures ....................................................................................................................iv
Glossary and abbreviations ................................................................................................................iv
Acknowledgements .............................................................................................................................v
Summary .............................................................................................................................................7
1
1.1
Introduction ...............................................................................................................................9
Ecological burning: a Victorian perspective .............................................................................9
1.2
Scope and context of this report................................................................................................9
1.3
Knowledge regarding the effects of fire on fauna...................................................................10
1.4
Ecological burning in other areas of Australia........................................................................11
2
2.1
Model development, components and application ..................................................................11
Research approach ..................................................................................................................11
2.2
Outcomes of the 2008 workshop ............................................................................................12
2.3
Identification, estimation and use of habitat parameters .........................................................12
2.4
Relative abundance of faunal species according to vegetation growth stage .........................13
2.5
Fauna response categorisation ................................................................................................14
2.6
Identification of key fire response species for fauna ..............................................................16
2.7
Summary of steps used to devise key fire response species ...................................................17
3
3.1
Further considerations and future directions ...........................................................................18
Caveats ....................................................................................................................................18
3.2
Future research ........................................................................................................................21
References .........................................................................................................................................23
Appendices ........................................................................................................................................25
Appendix 1. Database of scientific articles regarding the effects of fire on fauna ...........................25
Appendix 2. Ecological Vegetation Divisions considered in the model ...........................................27
Appendix 3. Database of habitat parameters .....................................................................................28
Appendix 4. Database of key fire response species for fauna ...........................................................33
Appendix 5. Decision framework: modification of the 17 steps .......................................................43
Appendix 6. Summary of ecological burn planning in other states and territories ...........................45
iii
List of tables and figures
List of tables
Table 1. Explanation of key steps involved in the model for integrating fauna into fire management
planning ..................................................................................................................................17
Table 2. A sample of the database relating to a bibliography of articles on the effects of fire on
fauna........................................................................................................................................25
Table 3. EVDs that were selected for the fauna database and for estimation of the habitat
parameters ...............................................................................................................................27
Table 4. Estimates of habitat parameters for a selection of Ecological Vegetation Divisions ..........28
Table 5. Database of expert estimations depicting predicted fauna responses to fire for a selection
of ecological vegetation divisions ...........................................................................................33
Table 6. Key for fauna guilds ............................................................................................................37
Table 7. List of species’ scientific names for fauna Key Fire Response Species .............................39
Table 8. Fire management planning with regard to fauna in states and territories of Australia........45
List of figures
Figure 1. Hypothetical curves for the response of fauna to fire ........................................................15
Glossary and abbreviations
ARIER: Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research
DSE: Department of Sustainability and Environment
EVC: ecological vegetation class
EVD: ecological vegetation division
FEPO: Fire and Environment Planning Officer
FESRG: Fire Ecology Scientific Reference Group
FEWG: Fire Ecology Working Group
GIS: geographic information system
Growth stage: vegetation growth stage following a disturbance event; in this case, fire
KFRS: key fire response species
Fauna common names used in this report follow Menkhorst & Knight (2004) for mammals,
Christidis & Boles (2008) for birds and Robertson & Coventry (in press) for reptiles.
iv
Acknowledgements
The integration of fauna into fire management planning is not an easy task: the complexity of the
subject matter has made this particular exercise a challenge for all concerned. Without the
contributions of many people, the model presented in this report would not have been devised.
Insights from participants in the ‘Integrating Fauna in Fire Planning Workshop’ (ARIER, May
2008) provided direction in an area where empirical knowledge was often lacking or deficient.
Published information about fire effects on fauna in south-eastern Australia was collated by
Wendy Wright, Sharon Rossi, Narelle Weston and Rachel Barr of Monash University with
contributions from Arn Tolsma (ARIER), and the late Leigh Ahern as part of a separate project
and we have drawn heavily on that compilation. Conversations with Jill Read and Grant Palmer
helped us to consider how state-wide approaches to this issue relate to regional initiatives.
Contributions from the project reference group - Gordon Friend, Lawrance Ferns, Shannon
Treloar, and Andrew Wilson have helped keep the project focused and enabled realistic and
practical outcomes to be achieved.
To help determine the status of the integration of fauna in fire management planning outside
Victoria’s boarders, Micaela Main collated relevant policy documents and grey literature from
other Australian states and territories. A summary of this review is included in Appendix 1 of this
report.
This project drew heavily on the knowledge and experiences of flora and fauna experts. Botanists
Steve Sinclair, Arn Tolsma, Matt White and David Cheal generously provided estimates of how
they expected habitat parameters to change post-fire, via their vast knowledge of vegetation
communities across the State. Their collective understanding of Victorian vegetation helped to
evoke a picture of vegetation succession so that estimates of fauna abundance could be more
explicitly linked to the habitat present in each growth stage of each Ecological Vegetation
Division. Geoff Brown and Lindy Lumsden provided estimates of fauna abundance for reptiles
and bats respectively and their contributions are likewise greatly appreciated.
Comments on later drafts of the document by Stephen Platt (Biodiversity & Ecosystem Services,
DSE), Gordon Friend and Andrew Wilson (Land & Fire, DSE), also greatly helped to clarify the
document and focus its scope to assist in ensuring the model presented here is used appropriately.
Other valuable input was generated during discussions within the Fire Ecology Scientific
Reference Group (FESRG), DSE. David Meagher edited the document for which we are most
grateful.
This work was undertaken as part of the Fire Ecology Program 2007 - 2008 Project Number 3.2:
Understanding Fire Régimes - Faunal Vital Attributes and Response to Fire Régimes,
commissioned by the Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services Division of the Department of
Sustainability and Environment, Victoria. We gratefully acknowledge the Attorney-General's
Department of the Australian Government, which part funded this project through DSE's Land and
Fire Division.
v
Towards a Process for Integrating Vertebrate Fauna into Fire Management Planning
6
Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research Technical Report Series No. 192
Towards a Process for Integrating Vertebrate Fauna into Fire Management Planning
Summary
The Code of Practice for Fire Management on Public Land takes an integrated view of fire
management including protection of human life and property and the environment, including
Victoria’s indigenous fauna. Considerable progress has been made in recent years on developing a
‘vital attributes’ approach to incorporate flora into fire management planning. However, it is
recognised that the approach developed for protection of flora does not necessarily cater for all the
needs of fauna. In order to meet the intentions of the Code and support the objectives of the Flora
and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988, a process is being developed to enable fire planners to explicitly
consider the needs of fauna in fire management planning. This report discusses the model developed
as a starting point for better incorporation of the needs of vertebrate fauna into fire ecology
assessments that may be used to subsequently inform fire operations plans and determine where and
when planned fire will occur. Considerable empirical work is needed before a more comprehensive,
robust, defensible and step by step approach can be devised. The information presented here may
help to conceptualise the complexities of fire and fauna interactions, and facilitate a more logical and
reasoned approach in decision making.
The approach adopted here is based on a suite of habitat parameters associated with the growth
stages of different vegetation types (ecological vegetation divisions, EVDs) and the selection of key
fire response species (KFRS), of fauna, in each EVD. Together these are designed to provide a
manageable group of indicators for use in fire management planning. Our focus is on vertebrates
because we have more knowledge of their habitat requirements than we do for invertebrates. This
report outlines the logic and the steps involved in designing the model to facilitate the use of the
KFRS and habitat parameters, and to discuss the possible constraints of this approach.
A literature search on fire effects on fauna, two workshops and expert knowledge were the main
sources of information used in the development of the model. The main steps used to identify KFRS
for fauna are as follows:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Identify habitat parameters that are likely to be important to fauna.
Link those habitat parameters to EVD growth stages.
Estimate the relative abundance of individual fauna species within each EVD growth stage.
Assign a fire response curve to each species.
Identify criteria for determining KFRS for fauna.
Identify KFRS for fauna.
Identify habitat parameters that can be used in fire monitoring.
It is intended that this information will be of use in devising ecological burns and other planned fires
on public land throughout Victoria and in monitoring the impacts of those fires on fauna and habitat.
The intended breadth of application of the model outlined in this report presented two main
challenges in its development. Firstly, the diversity of ecosystems and associated fauna made it
difficult to design a process that is equally applicable across different parts of the state that may be
underpinned by unique biophysical characteristics. Secondly, the complexity of interactions between
fauna and fire regimes, and the dearth of related empirical studies, means that there is limited
evidence to help predict how fauna is likely to respond to various fire regimes. These factors have
resulted in high levels of uncertainty in the proposed model. Hence testing of the model, and the
usefulness of faunal KFRS as surrogates for other fauna species and their needs, is required for its
validation. Information gathered during a testing phase would enable the model to be refined. Hence,
the model described in this report is provided as a starting point, to be improved in light of future
knowledge as part of an adaptive management framework. Such an approach is not without risk and
highlights the need for a precautionary approach to the application of the model.
Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research Technical Report Series No. 192
7
Towards a Process for Integrating Vertebrate Fauna into Fire Management Planning
High priority areas for research include ground truthing of estimations about habitat parameters and
species responses in EVDs that are likely to be affected by wildfire or subjected to planned fire. Such
research could combine retrospective studies regarding wildfire and planned fire to complement prefire and post-fire monitoring associated with the 2008–2009 and subsequent planned fire seasons.
8
Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research Technical Report Series No. 192
Towards a Process for Integrating Vertebrate Fauna into Fire Management Planning
Introduction
1.1 Ecological burning: a Victorian perspective
In the decade since the inception of the Fire Ecology Working Group (FEWG), there has been an
array of initiatives related to the development of ecologically based fire regimes (FEWG 2009). In
particular, the guidebook devised for fire planners titled Developing An Ecological Burning Strategy
(FEWG 2003) provides a step by step approach to encourage ecological considerations, especially
those related to the needs of flora, to be explicitly taken into account in fire management planning.
This approach is reinforced in the Code of Practice for Fire Management on Public Land — Revision
No. 1 2006 (DSE 2006a), which requires that fire regimes and fire management activities be
appropriate for maintaining and enhancing the vigour and diversity in populations and communities
of the state’s indigenous terrestrial and aquatic flora and fauna (Code: section 1.10.5, 67). A key
element in the Code is a move towards improved integration of ecological values with more
traditional fire management objectives related to asset protection. Another significant driver for
incorporating fauna into fire management planning and operations is the requirement to achieve
ecologically appropriate fire regimes to maintain biodiversity under the Flora and Fauna Guarantee
Act 1988.
The ability of fire planners to meaningfully implement the dual aspirations of protecting life and
property and achieving ecological goals is dependent on the availability of science and evidence that
informs operational processes, and monitoring that influences future management. This sentiment is
echoed in the Victorian Government’s Response to the Environment and Natural Resources
Committee’s Inquiry into the Impact of Public Land Management Practices on Bushfires in Victoria
(Victorian Government 2008), which proposes that the annual area treated by planned fire needs to
be determined by science and risk management frameworks. Victoria’s Bushfire Strategy (DSE
2008b) proposes to manage the land with fire by providing the right mix of fire (at appropriate
frequencies, seasons, intensities and scales) across both public and private land to sustain resilient
ecosystems, communities and industries, and reduce the incidence of large-scale fire events. This
objective is considerably hampered at present by the dearth of empirical data that demonstrates how
various elements of fire regimes impact on fauna and, to a lesser extent, on flora. Without this detail,
fire planners are less able to make predictions about how a fire regime will impact on flora and fauna
in the area of interest.
In an attempt to draw out unpublished knowledge about fire effects on fauna, workshops were held
in 2006 (Melbourne University, Creswick Campus) and 2008 (ARIER, Heidelberg), and discussions
in those workshops highlighted a number of ways forward to better integrate the needs of fauna into
fire management planning. The main outcomes of the more recent workshop (ARIER 2008
unpublished) were to (i) suggest modifications to the existing planning framework, (ii) identify
habitat parameters that could be used to estimate the effects of post-fire vegetation succession on
fauna, and (iii) suggest the use of key fire response species (KFRS) for fauna, in a similar manner to
the approach used for KFRS for flora (Cheal unpublished).
1.2 Scope and context of this report
This report is primarily intended to explain a conceptual model that links the needs of terrestrial
vertebrate fauna to vegetation growth stages after fire, via changes in habitat parameters. The
conceptual model is presented for further discussion, consideration and testing by fire planners and
fire researchers. This report provides the context for using the database of predicted fauna responses
that were developed as part of this project. This database includes a list of recommended faunal
KFRS. A list of habitat parameters for monitoring is also presented. It is not intended that fire
planners will be able to use this document to plan fire in a way that accommodates the needs of fauna
in a comprehensive and irrefutable way; however, a consideration of the KFRS and habitat
parameters may help to focus the attention of fire planners on a more manageable selection of
Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research Technical Report Series No. 192
9
Towards a Process for Integrating Vertebrate Fauna into Fire Management Planning
species and habitat attributes for consideration when addressing the objectives their local Fire
Protection Plans and related Fire Operation Plans.
We also outline caveats to the application of the proposed process in the short and longer terms. As
the model and its outputs have not yet been subject to empirical testing, this report should be used by
fire planners as one part of their tool kit that will enable the needs of fauna to be more explicitly
considered in fire management planning. Once the assumptions that underpin this conceptual model
(e.g. relationships between fire and fauna) are tested it will be possible to provide fire planners with a
more robust and comprehensive approach to considering the needs of fauna in fire management
planning. We emphasise that this advanced stage is beyond the scope of this report. Further work is
also needed to address invertebrate fauna in fire management planning, and therefore the term
‘fauna’ in this report refers only to terrestrial vertebrates.
Objectives
1. Briefly outline the state of knowledge about fire effects on fauna.
2. Summarise the approach used to integrate fauna into fire management planning outside Victoria.
3. Outline the process and rationale used to develop the conceptual model that describes the
relationships between fauna, vegetation growth stage and habitat parameters.
4. Suggest modifications to the existing ecological burn plan process to better integrate the needs of
fauna.
5. Identify habitat features that are likely to be important to fauna.
6. Devise a quantitative measure for the key habitat attributes that can be estimated for each growth
stage of each ecological vegetation division (EVD).
7. Explain the procedure used to estimate the relative abundance of each fauna species across
growth stages for each EVD.
8. Identify a suite of vertebrate species that could serve as indicator species for fire planning and
monitoring purposes.
9. Identify model limitations and information gaps, and recommend directions for future research.
1.3 Knowledge regarding the effects of fire on fauna
The influence of fire on flora and fauna communities is complex and poorly understood (Clarke
2008) and there have been few systematic studies of the impacts of different fire regimes on
individual species or faunal communities.
A bibliography of 150 scientific papers that relate to fire and fauna in temperate Australia1 revealed
that 82 papers reported field-based fauna studies and 41 were reviews (i.e. for every two field
research projects there has been a review of existing knowledge). This indicates a severe
misalignment between the need for knowledge and the willingness to promote actual research rather
than desk studies. Of the 82 field-based studies, 52% focused on mammals, 27% on birds, and 15%
on reptiles. Thus, mammals were studied 3.5 times more often than reptiles. No studies dealt with the
full range of vertebrate groups, and none looked at questions of scale or patchiness as factors
influencing the responses of broad groups of vertebrates. Most studies looked at low-intensity
planned fires with the aim of determining the short-term impacts of fuel reduction burns. Studies on
the effects of high-intensity fires have been necessarily opportunistic, and consequently have
imperfect study designs.
One of the theoretical underpinnings of understanding fire effects on fauna stems from research on
the response of small mammals to fire (Fox 1982). This research identified the habitat
accommodation model whereby species’ reach peak abundance in accordance with changes in
1
See Appendix 1 for a sample of article summaries from the bibliography. This database of article summaries
is available from the Community Ecology Section, Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research.
10
Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research Technical Report Series No. 192
Towards a Process for Integrating Vertebrate Fauna into Fire Management Planning
habitat suitability related to changes in vegetation structure following disturbance. Whilst some
research supports this concept and links the abundance of species to post-fire growth stages in the
vegetation because of changing quality in their habitat (e.g. Brown and Nelson 1993, Kelly et al.
2009), the abundance of other species shows no clear fire response (e.g. Lindenmayer et al. 2008).
In May 2008 a one-day workshop titled ‘Integrating Fauna in Fire Planning’ was held at the Arthur
Rylah Institute for Environmental Research (ARIER) to bring together fire scientists and related
policy and planning staff to discuss possible avenues for better integrating fauna into fire
management planning, and to identify where efforts could be focused to fill key knowledge gaps
(ARIER 2008 unpublished). The areas of research that were identified in the 2008 workshop are
documented in section 0.
1.4 Ecological burning in other areas of Australia
Policies and procedures of other state and territory environment agencies were reviewed to determine
if and how they consider fauna when planning burns (see Appendix 6). Departmental publications
and guidelines regarding ecological burning were sourced via library catalogues, from interstate
departments and State library websites. Unpublished literature was located with the help of
librarians, managers and scientists from interstate environment departments.
This investigation revealed that, although some form of ecological burning is conducted in all states
and territories, the majority have few references to fauna (apart from truisms) in their policies, with
most lacking a formal procedure for incorporating faunal considerations into the planning stage. In
most cases ecological burns are planned around the requirements of flora, and faunal requirements
are implicitly assumed to be satisfied under that regime. Any further incorporation of faunal issues
into ecological burn planning usually takes the form of alterations to the fire plan to suit threatened
fauna. Of all the other states and territories, Western Australia appears to be the most advanced in
integrating fauna into fire management planning in a manner that goes beyond a consideration of
threatened species records or fire regimes based on the needs of flora. That state has developed a
system similar to the one outlined in this document, where defined habitat units are used to predict
the types of vertebrate fauna likely to inhabit an area.
Model development, components and application
1.5 Research approach
Three main sources of information were used to devise the model documented in this report: (1) a
database of article summaries,2 (2) discussions in related workshops (DSE 2006b, ARIER 2008
unpublished), and (3) expert knowledge by a selection of botanists and zoologists from ARIER. The
dearth of empirical data regarding the effects of fire on fauna meant that expert knowledge was
relied on heavily in estimating values in the database of habitat parameters (Appendix 3) as well as
for the database of estimated fauna responses to habitat changes after fire (Appendix 4).
Expert knowledge is increasingly being used in ecology (Oliver et al. 2007, Mac Nally et al. 2008)
and has been identified as a cost-effective means of reducing uncertainty about the influence of
management options on flora and fauna by using knowledge about the impact of disturbance on a
species (Martin et al. 2005). If experts are in agreement, there is a greater certainty about the type
and extent of impact of disturbance on a species; correspondingly, less agreement between experts
indicates that the relationships being considered are complex or may vary between regions (Martin et
al. 2005). The expert knowledge as part of the processes documented in this report came from a
group of four botanists and five zoologists. Drawing from a small cohort of experts has obvious
2
Appendix 1 contains an excerpt of the database of scientific articles relating to the effects of fire on fauna.
Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research Technical Report Series No. 192
11
Towards a Process for Integrating Vertebrate Fauna into Fire Management Planning
limitations; section 0 explores this issue in greater detail and identifies options for future work to
reduce these limitations.
1.6 Outcomes of the 2008 workshop
The main outcomes that were generated as a result of the ‘Integrating Fauna into Fire Planning’
workshop held at ARIER in May 2008 relate to three key concepts. Firstly, changes were
recommended to the 17 steps contained in Developing An Ecological Burning Strategy — A
Practitioner’s Manual (Fire Ecology Working Group 2003). Secondly, the identification and
possible application of habitat parameters, to act as a surrogate for monitoring the effects of fire on
fauna, was considered to be a useful avenue for further development. The third focus of the
workshop revolved around the use of KFRS for fauna and criteria for their selection. The following
sections (0 to 1.11) summarise these concepts and explain how they have evolved further in the
intervening period.
Changes to the 17 steps
The Practitioner’s Manual (Fire Ecology Working Group 2003) provides the ‘how to’ for Fire and
Environment Planners (FEPOs) when devising ecological burn plans. The manual contains 17 key
steps required to devise and justify an ecological burn plan. These 17 steps require modification to
better integrate the needs of fauna in the fire management planning process. The following proposed
amendments to the steps3 were generated as a result of discussions in the workshop:

use of EVD growth stages to assist with identification of age class distribution*

identification and use of fauna (not just flora) KFRS*

linkage of key habitat elements with each EVD growth stage*

documentation of the results of the fire including burn area, intensity and heterogeneity, and
monitoring of KFRS and key habitat parameters*

use of planning scales that are relevant to fauna

more explicit recognition of landscape context

consideration of species that are likely to be present but not actually recorded within the burn
area

identification of measurable outcomes of the ecological burn

identification of areas that should remain unburnt within the burn area

the seasonal timing of fire to minimise detrimental effects on fauna.
1.7 Identification, estimation and use of habitat parameters
The selection of habitat parameters (described in Appendix 3) was based on the scientific literature
(e.g. McElhinny et al. 2006), workshop discussions and expert judgement. The 14 habitat parameters
adopted are believed to represent the critical habitat components of fauna that are likely to be
affected by fire.
Some of the habitat parameters that were prioritised in the workshop are comparable to components
used in existing approaches to assessing habitat, such as parameters measured in the ‘habitat
complexity score’ (Newsome and Catling 1979), the ‘overall fuel hazard guide’ (McCarthy et al.
1999) and the ‘habitat hectare’ protocol (Parkes et al. 2003), and structural attributes for fauna in
3
The amendments indicated by an asterisk are explicitly considered in this report. The remainder are more
relevant to decisions made at a site scale. A further explanation of these amendments is provided in Appendix
5.
12
Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research Technical Report Series No. 192
Towards a Process for Integrating Vertebrate Fauna into Fire Management Planning
forest and woodland (McElhinny et al. 2006). The habitat parameters presented in this report draw
on these approaches to maximise consistency.
Habitat parameters used in characterising EVD growth stages
Habitat parameters were selected to characterise the habitats likely to be present in the EVDs of
interest (Appendix 2). Because of the structural variation between EVDs, it is expected that the
dimensions of some habitat parameters will vary between EVDs. For instance, canopy height is
much greater in EVD 12 (Tall Mist Forest) than in EVD 31 (Saltbush Mallee). A complete list of
habitat parameters is provided in Table 4 (Appendix 3). While it is predicted that habitat parameters
would show a range of values depending on the growth stage of the vegetation post fire, this pattern
is likely to be influenced strongly by post-fire climatic conditions to alter vegetation recovery.
Linkage of habitat parameters to EVD growth stages
Once the habitat parameters had been drafted, four botanists from ARIER, each with broad
experience of the Victorian flora, provided individual estimates of how the parameters vary across
growth stages for each EVD. This information was compiled into a database so that estimates
between botanists could be compared for each habitat parameter – growth stage – EVD combination.
Subsequent discussions between experts enabled the selection and definition of habitat parameters to
be clarified (e.g. definition of shrubs, patchiness, decorticating bark). The habitat parameters that
showed greatest variation with regard to EVD growth stage were cover of low plants and patchiness
of shrub layer. When this process was completed for 12 priority EVDs (Table 3, Appendix 2) it was
decided that the return for effort of continuing did not warrant the considerable amount of staff time
involved in eliciting and compiling the estimations. The process highlighted the high level of
uncertainty in expert estimations and reinforced the fact that quantitative data is needed to provide a
clearer and more accurate understanding of the relationships between habitat parameters and growth
stages.
Field testing of habitat parameters
Options for sampling habitat parameters are being explored by (Treloar 2009 draft), the main
difference being the method used for estimating cover abundance of understorey — the use of
structure poles at 1 m intervals along three 50 m transects within each 1 ha area in place of visual
estimates of cover abundance. Further pilot testing of the method outlined in Treloar (2009 draft) is
under way and is expected to continue throughout 2009.
1.8 Relative abundance of faunal species according to vegetation growth
stage
Fauna species associated with each EVD were determined by a combination of expert knowledge
and interrogation of the GIS dataset ‘Fauna 100’, which is derived from the Atlas of Victorian
Wildlife (DSE 2008a). The ‘Fauna 100’ layer was intersected with the recently devised EVD layer
(which is a composite of the EVC layer) so that species that have been recorded in each EVD could
be determined. This procedure also enabled a crude measure of species affinity with each EVD to be
calculated via species frequency information (i.e. the number of records for each species within each
EVD). The resultant information regarding species frequency was moderated by expert knowledge to
avoid possible bias associated with data collection. For instance the data is biased towards specific
times and locations (such as near roads) and towards more visible species or threatened species (e.g.
the number of records for Helmeted Honeyeater was far greater than the actual population size of
this species) hence species’ records reflect survey effort rather than actual species distributions.
Species with fewer than 10 records from an EVD were excluded from the subsequent steps because
they are unlikely to meet the criteria of a key fire response species (see section 2.6.1).
The database of habitat parameters according to growth stage and EVD helped fauna experts to
visualise the likely changes in habitat parameters after fire. This mental picture was combined with
the observations of fauna experts to estimate the relative abundance of each species according to
Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research Technical Report Series No. 192
13
Towards a Process for Integrating Vertebrate Fauna into Fire Management Planning
growth stage in each EVD. Discussions between experts provided an opportunity to check for logic
and consistency in estimations of fauna abundance.
1.9 Fauna response categorisation
Fauna response categorisation is a method that has been used to predict changes in a species’
abundance over time following a disturbance event such as timber harvesting (Kavanagh et al. 2004)
or fire. To help conceptualise the expected response of each species (in terms of relative abundance)
to post-fire succession, the response functions generated by Kavanagh et al. (2004) were adopted
(Figure 1). While we acknowledge that there are likely to be differences in the responses of fauna to
fire compared to timber harvesting (due to differences in the biological legacies of each case), we
suggest that the range of response curves presented by Kavanagh et al. (2004) (Figure 1) cover those
likely to result from a fire. For each species the estimates of relative abundance after fire according
to growth stage were examined and matched with the most appropriate response function (Table 5 in
Appendix 4) but note that the time lines will be different for different fire intensities. In all cases it is
assumed that recolonisation of the burnt area is possible once suitable habitat has re-established.
Note that the curves do not take into account normal seasonal variation and longer term fluctuations
in populations.
In response A, species quickly benefit from fire for varying periods without an initial decline. These
are mostly species that move into the burnt area and remain until the resources that attracted them
decline below a threshold level; for example, Flame Robin and some raptors. For some species such
as Australasian Pipit and Australian Magpie the intercept with the vertical axis can be zero, i.e. the
species occurs in forests only immediately after a fire or similar disturbance.
In response B, species show an initial decline in abundance following fire and then increase to levels
above or below their pre-fire abundance. Examples include New Holland Mouse, Marbled Gecko
and Black Wallaby. This is perhaps intuitively the most likely response, and it is expected to apply to
a large number of species. It has been shown to apply to many bird and mammal species in relation
to logging (Kavanagh et al. 2004).
In response C, species show a long-term decline following fire with or without a short-term increase.
This pattern was found to occur for several birds and mammals that feed from open ground among
trees, after logging (Loyn et al. 1999) and wildfire in East Gippsland (Loyn 1997). Examples are
Scarlet Robin, Buff-rumped Thornbill, Spotted Quail-thrush and Red-necked Wallaby. The response
arises when fire reduces the shrub layer, making favourable habitat for these species in the short
term, but also promotes prolific regeneration of the shrub layer that renders habitat unsuitable for
these species after a few years. Eventual recovery is expected as shrubs thin out overtime, but
insufficient long-term studies have been conducted to refine our knowledge of when this would
happen.
In response D, species decline immediately post-fire and do not recover for very long periods. In this
study no species showing this response were identified, but repeated burning could produce this kind
of response if the fire frequency did not allow the EVD to persist, or the fire intensity was sufficient
to remove certain habitat elements that take a long time to be replaced (e.g. hollow-bearing trees).
Salvage logging could increase the likelihood and severity of response D in forests where fauna
populations were limited by hollow-bearing trees.
14
Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research Technical Report Series No. 192
Towards a Process for Integrating Vertebrate Fauna into Fire Management Planning
Figure 1. Hypothetical curves for the response of fauna to fire (adapted from Kavanagh et al.
2004).
Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research Technical Report Series No. 192
15
Towards a Process for Integrating Vertebrate Fauna into Fire Management Planning
1.10 Identification of key fire response species for fauna
Criteria for key fire response species
Key fire response species (KFRS) are species most likely to be affected by long or short intervals
between fires, and which are amenable to monitoring. The criteria for their selection are similar to
those used to identify KFRS for flora (sensu Cheal unpublished) with some additions (*):
 species whose habitat requirements can be clearly or logically linked to habitat changes
associated with post-fire vegetation succession
 species that can be detected using standard fauna survey techniques* within the community at
some point in the post-fire succession
 species that are readily detected and identified in the field by experienced observers
 species that use the area for breeding*
 a range of species that represents all major feeding and nesting guilds.*
Ideally, an additional criterion relating to species with well known or precisely timed fire responses
would have been included, but as that information is lacking for many species this criterion was not
included. As knowledge of the fire responses of species improves, it would be useful to add this
criterion to the existing set.
Recommend indicators for pre-fire and post-fire monitoring
Based on the criteria above, a list of species and habitat parameters whose fire responses cover the
range of expected fauna responses was identified. This approach assumes that a fire regime that
provides key habitat configurations and caters for the needs of these KFRS in relevant EVDs will
also cater for species with intermediate responses. The intention is that KFRS should be included in
programs of monitoring and research about the effects of fire over time. Special note may be given to
their observed responses, and this information may be used to modify fire regimes.
The state-wide scope of the application of KFRS according to EVDs requires users to moderate their
final selection of KFRS at any particular site with the known distributions of particular species to
avoid selection of species not actually present on the site. For example, the KFRS Rufous
Bristlebird is restricted to the Otway Ranges and west coast and is not present throughout the whole
extent of EVD 2 (Heathlands). It is recommended that the KFRS be selected from the KFRS
database (Appendix 4) on the basis of surveys undertaken before the burn. Where a site is not a
homogeneous representation of one EVD (i.e. includes multiple EVDs), then KFRS should be
selected from the composite group of KFRS for the EVDs. For example, in patches of heathland
(EVD 2) that have emergent trees, KFRS should be selected for both heathland and the relevant treed
EVD.
16
Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research Technical Report Series No. 192
Towards a Process for Integrating Vertebrate Fauna into Fire Management Planning
1.11 Summary of steps used to devise key fire response species
Table 1. Explanation of key steps involved in the model for integrating fauna into fire
management planning
Step*
Action
Identify habitat parameters1,2,3
Habitat parameters that are considered to be important to a range of fauna
and are strongly influenced by fire regime were identified
Score habitat parameters3
Habitat parameters were scored within each growth stage of each Ecological
Vegetation Division (EVD).
Identify fauna species that regularly
occur in each EVD4
GIS was used to intersect an EVD spatial layer with a spatial layer containing
fauna records contained in the Atlas of Victorian Wildlife DSE (2008) to
generate a list of species recorded in each EVD.
Estimate relative abundance of
fauna within growth stages post-fire3
Using the information from previous steps, fauna experts estimated the
changes in relative abundance of each species through the vegetation growth
stages post-fire
Assign response curves to each
species
To help conceptualise the expected response of each species (change in
relative abundance) to post-fire succession a predicted response function,
based on those of Kavanagh et al. (2004), was assigned to each species.
Define criteria for Key Fire Response
Species (KFRS)1,2,3 for fauna
Recommend KFRS for pre- and postfire monitoring
Test the model and its assumptions

Species whose habitat requirements can be logically linked to habitat
changes associated with post-fire vegetation succession

are visibly or audibly present within the community at some point in
the post-fire succession

are readily detected and identified in the field

use the area for breeding

enable representation of all major feeding and nesting guilds
Produce a list of species and habitat parameters for each EVD whose fire
responses cover the range of expected fauna responses. KFRS and habitat
parameters should be monitored pre-fire and post-fire so that the accuracy of
the predictions can be tested and fire regimes modified accordingly.

How well do KFRS reflect the changes in non KFRS?

What is the relationship between the responses of KFRS post-fire and
changes to the key habitat parameters, with consideration of fauna
guild classification?
Are EVDs an appropriate scale within which to consider the effects of
fire on fauna?

*Sources:
1
3
Workshop 2006, 2008 (see Appendix 5)
2
Scientific literature (see Appendix 1)
Expert knowledge (see Appendices 3 & 4)
4
Database (see Appendix 4)
Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research Technical Report Series No. 192
17
Towards a Process for Integrating Vertebrate Fauna into Fire Management Planning
Further considerations and future directions
1.12 Caveats
Species lists for each EVD
This study considered only terrestrial vertebrate fauna because of a lack of information about
invertebrate groups. Further work is needed to evaluate whether the model presented will
encapsulate the responses of invertebrate fauna. Some of the records in the Fauna 100 layer are in the
form of species lists from a five-minute latitude and longitude grid cell (~5  7 km) and hence lack
geographical precision. In each EVD this resulted in the inclusion of species that were not actually
characteristic of the EVD. Hence only species that made ecological sense in an EVD were
considered. This issue highlights that it was necessary to use the number of records for each species
in each EVD as only a rough guide to the relative abundance of each species. The extent of this error
could have been reduced by omitting all records associated with grid data; however, this necessarily
would have resulted in the loss of some useful information and so the grid data were maintained,
with an awareness of its limitations and the need for careful interpretation.
Consistency of estimates between EVDs
The process for estimating the relative abundance of each species across growth stages was
undertaken one EVD at a time. Once estimations for all EVDs had been completed it was prudent
that estimations for species that occurred in multiple EVDs were checked for consistency or logic
where inconsistencies between EVDs were identified. Because of the size of the dataset, only a
subset of ~5% of species were scrutinised in this manner. This consistency check included
representatives of each guild that was represented in the particular suite of EVDs. It revealed that
12% of the estimations needed to be revised, highlighting the level of uncertainty in expert
estimations.
Recognition of landscape context
One of the recommendations from the 2008 workshop (ARIER 2008 unpublished) was the need to
explicitly consider landscape context as part of ecological burn planning. This is one of the special
challenges for fauna compared with flora, as individual animals move widely within their home
ranges4 on a daily basis. This recommendation was not easy to incorporate into the model because of
the enormous variation in range size and mobility between species, and the lack of precise
documentation of this for most species. Once equipped with information on the home ranges of
species and hence the relevant scale through which to consider their particular landscape contexts, it
will be necessary to understand how to aggregate the needs of species operating at different spatial
scales with the operational scale of fire management planning. Clarke (2008) highlights the inherent
challenge that this presents by contrasting the needs of species with small home ranges (1–2 ha) that
require both burnt and unburnt patches within their range, with species that have larger home ranges
(4–8 km2) but require long unburnt patches for breeding. Notwithstanding such issues, empirical data
on the range size of each species is critical for a more accurate evaluation of alternative fire mosaics.
Fortunately, some progress can be made despite the complexity and shortage of precise data. Many
small or medium-size mammals and small birds have home ranges up to a few hectares, and that is
an appropriate scale at which to consider these species. Smaller or larger scales may be more
appropriate for other groups (e.g. invertebrates, reptiles and wide-ranging predators). Many species
use mosaics of vegetation at that scale, and patches of unburnt forest may be critical for such species
in surviving in the early stages after disturbance such as fire. But most are also capable of colonising
new habitat over distances much greater than their usual home range, so they may survive in a
landscape even if burnt areas exceed their home range, as long as connectivity permits recolonisation
once suitable habitat has developed. Some species need combinations of young and old habitat
4
Home range refers to the area over which individuals of a species range during the normal course of their
routine activities while resident in an area.
18
Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research Technical Report Series No. 192
Towards a Process for Integrating Vertebrate Fauna into Fire Management Planning
elements within their home range, e.g. hollow-bearing trees among regrowth trees and shrubs, and
some species may benefit from fine-scale mosaics of old and young successional stages, as discussed
by Clarke (2008).
Perturbations
Perturbations such as predator pressure and stochastic events such as drought need to be taken into
account when planning a burn or interpreting the results of monitoring information. For instance,
drought may increase the time for cover estimates of various structural layers to be reached. The size
of fauna populations will vary in response to such factors, and when they are low, special care should
be taken to avoid reducing habitat below acceptable limits, even for short periods. These
considerations are magnified with regard to threatened species that are more vulnerable to population
declines associated with such perturbations. In fragmented forests, e.g. on private land where there
are many barriers to recolonisation processes, the effects of perturbations are also magnified.
Mapping risk of fox predation has been undertaken in some areas of Victoria (Robley et al. 2004)
and a similar approach could be undertaken within the context of evaluating predator pressure on
fauna following fire.
Interactions: climate, fire frequency, season
One of the key assumptions in linking habitat parameters to growth stage is that there is likely to be a
predictable and consistent pattern in the development of habitat parameters after fire. However, we
acknowledge that post-fire weather conditions will influence the rate at which habitat parameters
vary according to growth stage. Over time it may be possible to model the interaction between fire,
rainfall and temperature to provide more realistic estimates of likely changes in habitat parameters.
This will be particularly important in light of current climate change models, which predict changes
to patterns of temperature and rainfall.
For estimations of the values of habitat parameters and fauna abundance according to growth stage
we assumed that the EVD had reached floristic maturity and was of sufficient age to contain hollowbearing trees before a fire. Therefore, it would be imprudent to expect habitat parameters to develop
(i.e. change according to growth stage) in the same manner under more frequent fire regimes, e.g.
recovery rates of hollows may be lower where frequent fires have resulted in a tree age-class
distribution that is skewed towards the younger end of the continuum. It is acknowledged that
bushfires and planned fires occur in less mature vegetation, and that therefore the interaction
between fire frequency and the rate at which habitat parameters change post-fire requires further
investigation.
DSE data on the frequency of fires attributed to lightning strike (i.e. natural fires) indicate that 79%
of such fires in Victoria fall within the summer months (December-March), 16% in spring
(September-November) (but mostly (12%) in November) and 5% in autumn (March-May) (mostly
(4%) in March) (A. Dowdy, Bureau of Meteorology unpublished). As this indicates that natural fires
in winter, early spring and late autumn are rare, our estimates of fauna recovery rates only
considered post-fire responses following a summer burn. We suggest that recovery rates of species
following fires during the period between April and October inclusive could be expected to differ
from those following fire in the November to March period.
Use of surrogates
The specific responses of every individual species could not be identified for all Victorian
vertebrates because of the variation and inherent complexity in responses. In an attempt to simplify
this complexity, KFRS are suggested as indicators of the effects of fire on vertebrate fauna, while
recognising the inherent limitations of such an approach (Lambeck 1997, Goldstein 1999, Noss
1999, Andelman and Fagan 2000, Lambeck 2002, Lindenmayer et al. 2002, Lindenmayer and
Fischer 2003, Rubino and Hess 2003, Freudenberger and Brooker 2004). These limitations may be
summarised as follows:
1. too late in detecting significant change
Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research Technical Report Series No. 192
19
Towards a Process for Integrating Vertebrate Fauna into Fire Management Planning
2. not true representatives of biodiversity
3. not widely tested or accepted
4. lack of repetitive sampling
5. temporal and spatial scale is not explicitly considered
6. inconsistent responses across different taxonomic groups
7. might not be applicable to species with unusual life histories
8. does not address population viability.
It is anticipated that data collected in association with the fauna and habitat monitoring protocols5
will help to clarify the issues identified in points 2, 3, 4, 6 and 7 above. However more intensive
research will be required to address all these points, especially points 1, 5 and 8.
Habitat parameters
The number of classes or divisions used to characterise the range of values within each habitat
parameter was determined using expert knowledge. With the knowledge we have acquired during
this process we are likely to make alterations to the definition of habitat attributes as well as the
number of classes within them. Light intensity is a useful example, as this parameter had marginal
discriminating power between the habitat suitability of different growth stages in EVD 31 (Lowan
Mallee). One drawback of changing the number of classes or changing the values that define each
class for each EVD is that a universal model is not achieved.
Because there are few examples of old growth stages for some EVDs, the parameter estimates for
those older growth stages have greater levels of uncertainty associated with them. Consequently,
there is a need to obtain actual data on the ranges of values of habitat attributes across later growth
stages.
Complexity of EVDs
The variation of vegetation structure in some EVDs made estimations of habitat parameters less
certain, e.g. Riverine Forest contains EVCs that are unlikely to carry a fire, but also EVCs that
regularly do so. A key question, then, is whether the assumption that an EVD is coherent in its
response to fire is valid, or does the extent of variation within the EVD make generalisations about
the sequence of post-fire succession invalid? Further investigation of fire response within EVDs is
therefore an important priority.
EVD growth stages: their estimated intervals and descriptions
The current names of EVD growth stages could be interpreted to mean lower-quality habitat, when
in many cases the opposite is true (e.g. senescent forest contains high-quality habitat for many
hollow-dependent fauna). In some cases EVDs are stated to be at ‘maturity’ at only 40 years of age,
which might suggest that the impact of burning will be low, at least with regard to flora. Maturity in
a vegetation sense may be considered to be the age when key plant species are capable of
reproducing, e.g. setting seed. This is a very different concept of maturity to that used by zoologists
to define wildlife habitat, where ‘maturity’ often indicates high habitat complexity.
Baseline information is urgently needed to characterise which species occupy each growth stage for
each EVD. This information could be used to determine the number and duration of growth stages to
better reflect the needs of fauna. Following this process, a document similar to Cheal (unpublished)
could be devised to include descriptions of post-fire succession in the fauna community within each
EVD. This would then allow a comparison between the responses of flora and fauna to vegetation
succession and thus determine whether the whole community of flora and fauna could be integrated
into a single set of growth stages.
5
These protocols are being developed and tested as part of the pilot stage of the Fauna Habitat Assessment
Project ((Treloar 2009 draft)).
20
Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research Technical Report Series No. 192
Towards a Process for Integrating Vertebrate Fauna into Fire Management Planning
Use of expert knowledge
Ideally a greater selection of experts would have been employed to generate estimates of habitat
parameters and species abundances. Having more contributions to the process would have enabled a
quantitative measure of uncertainty for each of the estimations. Incorporating confidence intervals
for each expert estimation would have also assisted in providing a more complete picture of the
uncertainty of those values. However, the size of the dataset required (~400 species  12 EVDs  ~6
growth stages  2 fire intensities = ~ 57 600 individual judgements to be made) demanded a
substantial commitment of time and resources. It was not possible to achieve a higher level of
precision within the resources available to this project. It is recommended that future estimations
involve other experts and the use of confidence intervals so that levels of uncertainty are explicit,
although see Burgman et al (2006) for an examination of the relationship between confidence
intervals and actual reliability of estimated values.
Number of dimensions or vectors
There are only a limited number of dimensions that can be visualised at any one time, and trying to
deal with all components of a fire regime at one time was too difficult during the expert estimations.
We opted for a standardised approach to streamline the process, and expect that other aspects of fire
regimes (e.g. frequency, time since last fire, landscape context) will need to be considered to better
characterise real-world scenarios.
1.13 Future research
Test suitability of habitat parameters
The selection of habitat parameters was based partly on published studies (e.g. McElhinny et al.
2006) which document the presence and abundance of fauna in relation to particular habitat features.
The final selection of parameters used to characterise growth stages was supplemented with expert
knowledge. Use of expert knowledge is a practical approach when time and financial constraints
restrict more detailed quantitative studies. To verify the choice of attributes a more transparent and
objective approach is needed to test the significance of the relationship between the selected list of
habitat parameters and the abundance of fauna.
To do this a set of retrospective studies could be undertaken whereby measurements of fauna
abundance, richness and composition, and habitat parameters are undertaken at sites representing
each of the different growth stages within each EVD. It makes sense to focus research in those EVDs
targeted for burning.
Specific research questions
1. At a site scale6
 How do selected species or groups respond to fire in the short-term and over many years?
 How do these responses vary with fire intensity; notably, whether the fire results in extensive tree
mortality and stand replacement?
 How do these responses vary with other fire characteristics such as season and scale, or site
characteristics such as mature or young forest, north or south facing slopes?
2. At a landscape scale7
 What effects do decisions about burning or not burning have on adjacent habitats? (The effects on
habitats directly affected are considered under point 1.)
 How do fauna species or groups respond to patchiness or its elements, e.g. edges or patch size?
6
Where the dimensions of a site are appropriate to the scale of the home range of the organisms of interest.
Where the dimensions of a landscape are appropriate to the scale of meta-populations of the organisms of
interest.
7
Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research Technical Report Series No. 192
21
Towards a Process for Integrating Vertebrate Fauna into Fire Management Planning
 What are the ecological barriers or other barriers that prevent species from dispersing /
colonising?
 How can mosaic burning be used to enable species operating at different spatial scales to persist
in a complex landscape?
3.




KFRS
Are the criteria for selecting KFRS used here the most appropriate?
What species should be considered as KFRS?
What are the growth stages / EVDs associated with each KFRS?
What are the effects of different fire regimes on habitat features (such as hollows) that are critical
to KFRS?
 What is the baseline distribution and abundance of each KFRS?
 What are the fire response curves for potential KFRS (based on retrospective and longitudinal
studies of multiple species)?
4. Mapping
 How can the variability of fire intensity be identified in fire mapping to get better estimates of
the spatial variation in fire intensity (e.g. stand replacement or not)?
 Can remote sensing be used to identify habitat quality?
 Can fire patchiness and other types of habitat patchiness be mapped?
5. Monitoring
 What are the pre-fire and post-fire distributions and abundances of species subjected to various
fire regimes (i.e. different fire season, frequency, intensity, scale, patchiness and interval)?
 How do populations of species and groups change with time in areas affected or not affected by
fires of known intensity?
 Do these changes support or refute deductions made from previous experimental or retrospective
studies (1 & 2 above)?
6. Cost–benefit analysis
 What are the costs and benefits of ecological fire regimes with regard to the protection of built
assets and conservation of biodiversity?
 How can risk assessment be incorporated into ecological burn planning?
7. Interactions
 How do various fire regimes interact with other factors such as drought, flood, climate change,
predation, pest plants and animals, and habitat fragmentation?
22
Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research Technical Report Series No. 192
Towards a Process for Integrating Vertebrate Fauna into Fire Management Planning
References
Andelman, S.J., and Fagan, W.F. (2000). Umbrellas and flagships: Efficient conservation surrogates
or expensive mistakes? Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United
States of America 97: 5954-5959.
ARIER. (2008 unpublished). Integrating Fauna in Fire Planning Workshop, 7 May 2008, Arthur
Rylah Institute for Environmental Research, DSE.
Brown, G.W., and Nelson, J.L. (1993). Influence of successional stage of Eucalyptus regnans
(mountain ash) on habitat use by reptiles in the Central Highlands, Victoria. Australian
Journal of Ecology 18: 405-417.
Burgman, M., Fidler, F., McBride, M., Walshe, T., and Wintle, B. (2006). ACERA Project 0611:
Eliciting Expert Judgments ACERA, University of Melbourne, Melbourne.
Cheal, D. (unpublished). Plant Vital Attributes for Ecological Fire Management: Description of
Categories and Character States. Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research, DSE,
Melbourne.
Christidis, L., and Boles, W. (2008). Systematics and Taxonomy of Australian Birds. CSIRO
Publications, Melbourne.
Clarke, M. (2008). Catering for the needs of fauna in fire management: science or just wishful
thinking? Wildlife Research 35: 385-394.
DSE. (2006a). Code of Practice for Fire Management on Public Land, Revision no.1. Department of
Sustainability & Environment, Melbourne.
DSE. (2006b). Fauna Vital Attributes Workshop. in Fauna Vital Attributes Workshop. School of
Forest and Ecosystem Science, Creswick, Victoria.
DSE. (2008a). Atlas of Victorian Wildlife Database. Department of Sustainability & Environment,
Melbourne.
DSE. (2008b). Victoria's Bushfire Strategy. Victorian Government, Melbourne.
Fire Ecology Working Group. (2003). Developing An Ecological Burning Strategy - A Practitioner’s
Manual ( Mapinfo Version). A step-by-step guide to producing an Ecological Burning
Strategy using the Guidelines and Procedures for Ecological Burning on Public Land in
Victoria. Department of Sustainbility and Environment, Melbourne.
Fire Ecology Working Group. (2009). Fire Ecology Program Strategic Directions 2009-2011.
Department of Sustainability and Environment, Melbourne.
Fox, B.J. (1982). Fire and mammalian secondary sucession in an Austrtalian coastal heath. Ecology
63: 1332-1341.
Freudenberger, D., and Brooker, L. (2004). Development of the focal species approach for
biodiversity conservation in the temperate agricultural zones of Australia. Biodiversity &
Conservation 13: 253-274.
Goldstein, P.Z. (1999). Functional Ecosystems and Biodiversity Buzzwords. Conservation Biology
15: 247 - 255.
Kavanagh, R., Loyn, R., Smith, G., Taylor, R., and Catling, P. (2004). Which species should be
monitored to indicate ecological sustainability in Australian forest management? Pages 959987 In Lunney, D. (eds) Conservation of Australia's forest fauna (second edition). . NSW,
Royal Zoological Society of New South Wales:, Mosman, .
Kelly, L., Clarke, M., Callister, K., Nimmo, D., Spence-Bailey, L., Taylor, R., Watson, S., and
Bennett, A. (2009). Analyses at multiple spatial scales enhance understanding of faunal
responses to fire: the Mallee Ningaui in semi-arid Australia. in The 10th International
Congress of Ecology: Ecology in a Changing Climate. Brisbane Convention and Exhibition
Centre, Brisbane, Australia.
Lambeck, R.J. (1997). Focal species - a multi-species umbrella for nature conservation. Conservation
Biology 11: 849-856.
Lambeck, R.J. (2002). Focal species and restoration ecology: Response to Lindenmayer et al.
Conservation Biology 16: 549-551.
Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research Technical Report Series No. 192
23
Towards a Process for Integrating Vertebrate Fauna into Fire Management Planning
Lindenmayer, D.B., and Fischer, J. (2003). Sound science or social hook - a response to Brooker's
application of the focal species approach. Landscape and Urban Planning 62: 149-158.
Lindenmayer, D.B., Manning, A.D., Smith, P.L., Possingham, H.P., Fischer, J., Oliver, I., and
McCarthy, M.A. (2002). The focal-species approach and landscape restoration: a critique.
Conservation Biology 16: 338-345.
Lindenmayer, D.B., Wood, J.T., MacGregor, C., Michael, D.R., Cunningham, R.B., Crane, M.,
Montague-Drake, R., Brown, D., Muntz, R., and Driscoll, D.A. (2008). How predictable are
reptile responses to wildfire? Oikos 117: 1086-1097.
Loyn, R., Mills, C., Mills, B., Clarke, S., Krasna, S., and Weston, N. (1999). Vertebrate fauna of
Maramingo and Reedy Creek Pulpwood Demonstration Areas, East Gippsland, in 1997 (21
years after harvesting). Report for CFTT. Department of Natural Resources and
Environment, Melbourne.
Loyn, R.H. (1997). Effects of an extensive wildfire on birds in far eastern Victoria. Pacific
Conservation Biology 3: 221-234.
Mac Nally, R., Fleishman, E., Thomson, J.R., and Dobkin, D.S. (2008). Use of guilds for modelling
avian responses to vegetation in the Intermountain West (USA). Global Ecology and
Biogeography 17: 758-769.
Martin, T.G., Kuhnert, P.M., Mengersen, K., and Possingham, H.P. (2005). The power of expert
opinion in ecological models using Bayesian methods: Impact of grazing on birds.
Ecological Applications 15: 266-280.
McCarthy, G., Tolhurst, K., and Chatto, K. (1999). Overall Fuel Hazard Guide, Fire Management
Research Report No. 47. DNRE, Melbourne.
McElhinny, C., Gibbons, P., Brack, C., and Bauhus, J. (2006). Fauna-habitat relationships: a basis
for identifying key stand structural attributes in temperature Australian eucalypt forests and
woodlands. Pacific Conservation Biology 12: 89-110.
Menkhorst, P., and Knight, F. (2004). A Field Guide to the Mammals of Australia. Second ed.
Oxford University Press, Melbourne.
Newsome, A., and Catling, P. (1979). Habitat preferences of mammals inhabiting heathlands of
warm temperate coastal, montane and alpine regions of southeastern Australia. Pages 301–
316 In Specht, R.L. (eds) Ecosystems of the World. Vol. 9A. Heathlands and Related
Shrublands of the World. Elsevier Scientific Publishing Co, Amsterdam
Noss, R.F. (1999). Assessing and monitoring forest biodiversity: A suggested framework and
indicators. Forest Ecology and Management 115: 135-146.
Oliver, I., Jones, H., and Schmoldt, D.L. (2007). Expert panel assessment of attributes for natural
variability benchmarks for biodiversity. Austral Ecology 32: 453-475.
Parkes, D., Newell, G., and Cheal, D. (2003). Assessing the quality of native vegetation: The Habitat
Hectares approach. Ecological Management and restoration 4: 29 - 38.
Robertson, P., and Coventry, A. (in press). Reptiles of Victoria. CSIRO Publications, Melbourne.
Robley, A., Pelican, M., Kotiah, I., and Choquenot, D. (2004). Mapping the potential biodiversity
benefit of fox control across Victoria. Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research
Department of Sustainability and Environment, Heidelberg, Vic.
Rubino, M.J., and Hess, G.R. (2003). Planning open spaces for wildlife 2: Modeling and verifying
focal species habitat. Landscape & Urban Planning 64: 89-104.
Treloar, S. (2009 draft). Pilot Fauna Habitat Monitoring Protocols for Planned Burning; A user's
guide version 0.9 September 2009. Department of Sustainbility and Environment,
Melbourne.
Victorian Government. (2008). Victorian Government’s response to the Environment and Natural
Resources Committee’s Inquiry into the Impact of Public Land Management Practices on
Bushfires in Victoria. Victorian Government, Melbourne.
24
Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research Technical Report Series No. 192
Towards a Process for Integrating Vertebrate Fauna into Fire Management Planning
Appendices
Appendix 1. Database of scientific articles regarding the effects of fire on fauna
Table 2. A sample of the database relating to a bibliography of articles on the effects of fire on fauna
The full database is available from Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research, Community Ecology section.
Authors
Field
based, lit
review or
theoretical?
Location
Vegetation
type
Fire type
(wildfire, fuel
reduction,
ecological
etc.)
Bamford MJ (1992) The
impact of fire and
increasing time after fire
upon Heleioporus eyrei,
Liminodynastes dorsalis
and Myobatrachus gouldii
(Anura: Leptodactylidae) in
Banksia woodland near
Perth, Western Australia.
Wildlife Research 19.
Field based
Perth, WA
Banksia
woodland
series of
wildfires
Boyles JG and Aubrey DP
(2006) Managing forests
with planned fire:
implications for a cavitydwelling bat species. Forest
ecology and Management
222, 108-115.
Field based
North
America
deciduous
forests
Brown GW and Nelson JL
(1993) Influence of
successional stage of
Eucalyptus regnans
(mountain ash) on habitat
use by reptiles in the
Central Highlands, Victoria.
Australian Journal of
Ecology 18.
Field based
Central
highlands,
Victoria
E. regnans
dominated
forest
25
Fire intensity
(widespread crown
death, crown death
patchy, crown
scorch, u/storey
only)
complete removal of
litter and understorey
layers with
considerable canopy
scorch
Taxa
studied
Type of
experimental
design
(Before/After?
Retrospective?)
No. burnt
sites and
no. unburnt
control sites
If ‘after’ data,
how long
after fire
frogs
After
6 study
areas,
no control
sites
time since fire
ranged from
0-1 years to
23 years
Planned burn
initial burn caused
overstorey tree
mortality,
subsequent burns
were less intense
bats
After
all 63 roost
sites
identified and
used by bats
were in the
burnt area,
control sites
not specified
4 years,
surveyed up
to 6 years
after the initial
burn
multiple fire
events
wildfire, slash
burns,
unburnt
not specified
reptiles
After
wildfire - 6;
slash burn 3; 2 control
sites
?
multiple fire
events
Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research Technical Report Series No. 192
Single fire
event or
multiple
fire events
/ fire
regime?
multiple fire
events
Comments, main ideas and
conclusions
Fire and increasing time since fire
was found to have no impact upon
the annual abundances of
Heleioporus eyrei, this species feeds
on ants so will benefit from post-fire
conditions; capture rates of
Limnodynastes dorsalis and
Myobatrachus gouldii were sig.
higher in long unburnt sites
compared to more recently burnt
sites.
Planned fire has the potential to
increase available bat habitat via
causing tree death and facilitating
decay and disease in live trees;
burning also open up the subcanopy which allows for easier flying
and location of roost sites; while
planned fire seems to favour bats in
the short term the long-term effects
are unknown.
Aim of study was to identify
important habitat attributes for
reptiles, significant variables include
litter depth, grass as substrate, moss
cover of logs, no. of logs, log
diameter, proportion of bare ground
and length of sunny patches - all of
which are affected by fire.
Towards a Process for Integrating Vertebrate Fauna into Fire Management Planning
Authors
Field
based, lit
review or
theoretical?
Location
Vegetation
type
Fire type
(wildfire, fuel
reduction,
ecological
etc.)
Burbidge AH, Rolfe J,
McNee S, Newbey B and
Williams M (2007)
Monitoring population
change in the cryptic and
threatened Western Ground
Parrot in relation to fire.
Emu 107, 70-88.
Field based
Fitzgerald
River Nat.
Park, southwestern
Australia
low
heathland
with
scattered
emergent
mallees
wildfire
Christensen PES, WardellJohnson G and Kimber P
(1985) Birds and fire in
south-western forests. In
'Birds of Eucalypt forests
and woodlands: Ecology,
Conservation,
Management'. (Eds A
Keast, HF Recher, H Ford
and D Saunders). (Surrey
Beatty & Sons: Chipping
Norton)
Field based
Manjimup,
WA
jarrah
forest
study 1:
planned burn,
study 2:
wildfire and
planned burn
26
Fire intensity
(widespread crown
death, crown death
patchy, crown
scorch, u/storey
only)
extensive high
intensity fires in 1989
and 1997
Taxa
studied
Type of
experimental
design
(Before/After?
Retrospective?)
No. burnt
sites and
no. unburnt
control sites
If ‘after’ data,
how long
after fire
Western
ground
parrot
(Pezoporus
wallicus
flaviventris)
After
4 listening
posts; 4
listening
posts
40+ years for
4 sites, 9
years for 4
sites
Study 1: generally
between 1000 and
5000 kW/m, study 2:
wildfire was severe,
planned burn was a
mild spring fire
Birds
After
Study 1: 2
sites, Study
2: 2 sites;
Study 2: 1
unburnt site
1, 2, 3, 4 and
5 years after
the burns
Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research Technical Report Series No. 192
Single fire
event or
multiple
fire events
/ fire
regime?
3 fire
events
(~1957,
1989 and
1998)
single fire
event per
site
Comments, main ideas and
conclusions
Western ground parrots do not
require fire for habitat regeneration
(in the scale of 40-45 years),
frequency of calling of parrots
increased in the long unburnt sites,
Western ground parrots can utilise
recently burnt vegetation if it is
immediately adjacent to an unburnt
area; fire is unlikely to be directly
responsible for the decline in
numbers of this species
bird abundances and species
increased within a year of a
moderate to hot burn; fire intensity is
the major factor in determining bird
responses to fire; while most species
show a rapid response to changes
induced by a single fire there is a
lack of information regarding their
response to a fire regime.
Towards a Process for Integrating Vertebrate Fauna into Fire Management Planning
Appendix 2. Ecological Vegetation Divisions considered in the model
Table 3. EVDs that were selected for the fauna database and for estimation of the habitat
parameters
* denotes fauna database only
** denotes fauna database and habitat parameter database
EVD #
EVD name
EVD #
EVD name
1
Coastal
18
Rocky Knoll
2*
Heathland (sands)
19
Western Plains Woodland
3**
Grassy/Heathy Dry Forest
20*
Basalt Grassland
4
Damp Scrub
21
Alluvial Plains Grassland
5
Freshwater Wetland (permanent)
22**
Dry Woodland (non-eucalypt)
6
Treed Swampy Wetland
23**
Inland Plains Woodland
7**
Tall Mixed Forest (eastern)
24**
Ironbark / Box
8**
Foothills Forest
25*
Riverine Woodland/Forest
9**
Forby Forest
26
Freshwater Wetland (ephemeral)
10**
Moist Forest
27
Saline Wetland
11
Riparian (higher rainfall)
28
Chenopod Shrubland
12**
Tall Mist Forest
29*
Saltbush Mallee
13
Closed-forest
30**
Hummock-grass Mallee
14
High Altitude Shrubland/Woodland
31**
Lowan Mallee
15
High Altitude Wetland
32*
Broombush Whipstick
16
Alpine Treeless
88
Unassigned to EVD
17
Granitic Hillslopes
99
Not a valid EVD
Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research Technical Report Series No. 192
27
Towards a Process for Integrating Vertebrate Fauna into Fire Management Planning
Appendix 3. Database of habitat parameters
Table 4. Estimates of habitat parameters for a selection of Ecological Vegetation Divisions
This table provides the database of habitat parameters according to growth stage for selected Ecological Vegetation Divisions (EVDs*). The names of each EVD are
provided in Table 3 (above). Definitions and metrics of each of the habitat parameters are also provided and will be available electronically via ARGUS
(https://fireweb.dse.vic.gov.au/argus). Habitat monitoring protocols are being developed by Land and Fire Division (DSE) and readers intending to undertake
monitoring are encouraged to check that document (Treloar, 2009 draft) to ensure they are using the recommended metrics.
Habitat parameter
EVD*
3
7
8
9
10
12
22
23
24
30
31
–
–
–
–
0.5 m
0.5 m
–
–
–
–
–
0.5 m
0.5 m
0.5 m
0.5 m
–
–
0.5 m
0.5 m
0.5 m
–
–
0.5 m
0.5 m
0.5 m
0.5 m
–
–
0.5 m
0.5 m
0.5 m
–
–
Visual estimate (across one hectare) of the
percentage cover of all plants less than the height
specified for EVD of interest.
Ground flora: % cover of plants (live or dead) less
than a height of
Visual estimate (across one hectare) of the
percentage cover of grasses with a tufted lifeform
(excludes other herbaceous plants) that are less
than the height specified for the EVD of interest.
Tussock grasses: % cover of tussock grasses (live
or dead) less than a height of
Visual estimate (across one hectare) of non
tussock forming grasses and herbaceous plants
less than the height specified for EVD of interest,
i.e. includes grasses with growth forms other than
tussocks.
Ground flora (all low plants except for tussock
grasses): % cover of all plants (live or dead) other
than tussock forming grasses less than a height of
28
Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research Technical Report Series No. 192
Towards a Process for Integrating Vertebrate Fauna into Fire Management Planning
Habitat parameter
EVD*
3
7
8
9
10
12
22
23
24
30
31
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
0.5 m
0.5 m
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
0.5 m
0.5 m
0.5–
1.5 m
0.5–
1.5 m
0.5–
1.5 m
0.5–
1.5 m
0.5–
3m
0.5–
3m
0.5–
1.5 m
0.5–
1.5 m
0.5–
1.5 m
0.5–
1.5 m
0.5–
1.5 m
1.5–
5m
1.5–
5m
1.5–
5m
0.5–
1.5 m
3–10 m
3–10 m
1.5–
4m
1.5–
5m
1.5–
5m
1.5–
3m
1.5–
2m
–
–
–
–
10–
30 m
10–
30 m
–
–
–
–
–
5m
5m
5m
5m
30 m
30 m
4m
5m
5m
3m
2m
Visual estimate (across one hectare) of the
percentage cover of Triodia species less than the
height specified for EVD of interest. Triodia
species (hummock grasses): % cover of hummock
grasses (live or dead) less than a height of
Visual estimate (across one hectare) of the
percentage cover of low plants other than Triodia
less than the height specified for EVD of interest
Low plants other than Triodia spp.: % cover of
non-hummock plants (live or dead) less than a
height of
Visual estimate (across one hectare) of the
percentage cover of any plants within the height
range specified for the EVD of interest.
Low plants: % cover of plants (live or dead)
between a height of
Visual estimate (across one hectare) of the
percentage cover of any plants within the height
range specified for the EVD of interest.
Tall plants: % cover of plants (live or dead)
between a height of
Visual estimate (across one hectare) of the
percentage cover of any plants within the height
range specified for the EVD of interest.
Sub canopy: % cover of plants (live or dead)
between a height of
Visual estimate (across one hectare) of the
percentage cover of any plants greater than the
height specified for the EVD of interest.
Canopy: % cover of the eucalypt canopy (live or
dead) greater than a height of
29
Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research Technical Report Series No. 192
Towards a Process for Integrating Vertebrate Fauna into Fire Management Planning
Habitat parameter
EVD*
3
7
8
9
10
12
22
23
24
30
31
0.1 m
0.1 m
0.1 m
0.1 m
0.1 m
0.1 m
0.1 m
0.5 m
0.5 m
0.5 m
0.5 m
0.1 m
0.1 m
0.1 m
0.1 m
0.1 m
0.1 m
0.1 m
0.5 m
0.5 m
0.5 m
0.5 m
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
–
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
Visual estimate across 5 subplots, each 10 x 10 m
(across one hectare) of the percentage cover of
fallen timber with an average diameter greater
than specified for the EVD of interest. Diameter of
logs to be measured (not estimated).
Coarse woody debris: % cover of logs with
diameter equal to or greater than
Visual estimate across 5 subplots, each 10x 10m
(across one hectare), of the percentage cover of
organic litter with an average diameter less than
specified for EVD of interest. Diameter of logs to
be measured (not estimated). Does not include
standing but dead plant material (e.g. leaves of
tussock forming grasses which are still attached to
the plant).
Organic litter: % cover of organic material with
diameter less than:
Visual estimate across 5 subplots, each 10 x 10m
(across one hectare) of the percentage cover of
sky visible from ground level (bugs’ eye view) –
this enables the metric to be estimated in cloudy
conditions.
Sunniness: % of ground in direct sun on a sunny
day at midday in summer
The proportion of eucalypt trees (across one
hectare) that have decorticating bark. Note that
trees must be individually assessed for the
presence of decorticating bark (not just assumed
from known species characteristics).
Decorticating bark: # of eucalypt trees that are
bark decorticating individuals / ha
30
Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research Technical Report Series No. 192
Towards a Process for Integrating Vertebrate Fauna into Fire Management Planning
Habitat parameter
EVD*
3
7
8
9
10
12
22
23
24
30
31
–
–
–
–
0.5–
1m
0.5–
1m
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
0.5–
1m
0.5–
1m
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
1m
1m
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
1m
1m
–
–
–
–
–
0.5 m
0.5 m
0.5 m
0.5 m
–
–
–
0.5 m
0.5 m
0.1 m
0.1 m
0.5 m
0.5 m
0.5 m
0.5 m
–
–
–
0.5 m
0.5 m
0.1 m
0.1 m
Number of live eucalypt trees (across one hectare)
with a d.b.h. between the range specified for the
EVD of interest.
Small live eucalypts: # of live eucalypt trees with a
d.b.h. between
Number of dead eucalypt trees (across one
hectare) with a d.b.h. between the range specified
for the EVD of interest.
Small dead eucalypts: # of dead eucalypt trees
with a d.b.h. between
Number of live eucalypt trees (across one hectare)
with a d.b.h. greater than that specified for the
EVD of interest.
Large live eucalypts: number of live eucalypt trees
with a d.b.h. greater than
Number of dead standing eucalypt trees with
d.b.h. greater than that specified for the EVD of
interest.
Stags: # of dead eucalypt trees with a d.b.h.
greater than
Number of live or dead eucalypt trees (across one
hectare) with a d.b.h. less than that specified for
the EVD of interest.
Small live or dead eucalypts: # of eucalypt trees
with a d.b.h. less than
Number of live or dead eucalypt trees (across one
hectare) with d.b.h. greater than that specified for
the EVD of interest.
Large live or dead eucalypts: # of eucalypt trees
with a d.b.h. greater than
31
Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research Technical Report Series No. 192
Towards a Process for Integrating Vertebrate Fauna into Fire Management Planning
Habitat parameter
EVD*
3
7
8
9
10
12
22
23
24
30
31
0.5 m
0.5 m
0.5 m
0.5 m
–
–
0.3 m
–
–
–
–
0.5 m
0.5 m
0.5 m
0.5 m
–
–
0.3 m
0.3 m
–
–
–
0.5 m
0.5 m
0.5 m
0.5 m
0.5 m
0.5 m
0.5 m
0.5 m
yes
yes
yes
0.5 m
0.5 m
0.5 m
0.5 m
0.5 m
0.5 m
0.5 m
0.5 m
0.5 m
0.5 m
0.5 m
Number of live or dead trees (across one hectare)
with d.b.h. less than that specified for the EVD of
interest.
Small trees: # of live or dead trees with d.b.h. less
than
Number of live or dead trees (across one hectare)
with d.b.h. greater than that specified for the EVD
of interest.
Large trees: # of live or dead trees with a d.b.h.
greater than
Estimate the cover of shrubs of the specified
height across 10 subplots (each 10 x 10m) within
one hectare. Using the estimates of percentage
cover, calculate the coefficient of variation (CV) to
allocate a patchiness category: ‘even’ = 0–0.3 CV;
‘patchy’= 0.3–0.7 CV; ‘clumped’ 0.7–1 CV. Note
that further testing (e.g. power test) is required to
determine if more subplots and / different sized
subplots are required to sample the variation with
the one hectare assessment zone.
Patchiness of shrub layer: Spatial distribution of
plants of a height greater than
Number of woody plant species (across one
hectare) that are of a height greater than what is
specified for the EVD of interest.
Shrub composition: # of species that are of a
height greater than
32
Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research Technical Report Series No. 192
Towards a Process for Integrating Vertebrate Fauna into Fire Management Planning
Appendix 4. Database of key fire response species for fauna
Table 5. Database of expert estimations depicting predicted fauna responses to fire for a selection of ecological vegetation divisions
The names of each ecological vegetation division (EVD) are provided in Table 3. Key for fauna guilds is presented in Table 6.
*Criteria for selecting key fire response species
1. Species whose habitat requirements can be clearly / logically linked to habitat changes associated with post-fire vegetation succession
2. Species that are visibly or audibly present within the community at some point in the post-fire succession
3 Species that are easily detected and identified in the field by experienced observers
4. Species that use the area for breeding
5. Species choice enables representation of all major feeding and nesting guilds
Fauna common follow Menkhorst & Knight (2004) for mammals, Christidis & Boles (2008) for birds and Robertson & Coventry (in press) for reptiles.
Key fire response species for
fauna
Emu
Malleefowl
Stubble Quail
Brown Quail
Little Button-quail
Red-chested Button-quail
Common Bronzewing
Brush Bronzewing
Crested Pigeon
Banded Lapwing
Brolga
Brown Falcon
Southern Boobook
Powerful Owl
Yellow-tailed Black-Cockatoo
Gang-gang Cockatoo
Regent Parrot
Australian King-Parrot
Crimson Rosella
Eastern Rosella
Mallee Ringneck
Red-rumped Parrot
Mulga Parrot
Blue Bonnet
Blue-winged Parrot
Ground Parrot
Australian Owlet-nightjar
Laughing Kookaburra
Sacred Kingfisher
Superb Lyrebird
Welcome Swallow
Tree Martin
33
Criteria* for
selecting
KFRS
(1-5)
Ecological vegetation division
1,2,3,4,5
1,2,3,4,5
1,2,3,4,5
1,2,3,4,5
1,2,4,5
1,2,4,5
1,2,3,4,5
1,2,3,4,5
1,2,3,4
1,2,3,4,5
1,2,3,4,5
1,2,3,4,5
1,2,3,4,5
1,2,3,4,5
1,2,3,4,5
1,2,3,4,5
1,2,3,4,5
1,2,3,4
1,2,3,4
1,2,3,4
1,2,3,4,5
1,2,3,4
1,2,3,4,5
1,2,3,4,5
1,2,3,4,5
1,2,3,4,5
1,2,3,4
1,2,3,4,5
1,2,3,4
1,2,3,4,5
1,2,3,4,5
1,2,3,4,5
30
2
20,22
20
22
20
2,3,7,8,9,10,12,24,29,30,31,32
12,32
22,29
20
20
20
10,24
7,10,12
7
8,9,10,12
29
10,12
3,24
3,8,9,23,24,25
29,30
22,29
29,30
22
23
2
7,10,12,24,29,30,31
10,12,23,24
3,7,8,9,23,24,25
8,10
8
25
Response curve estimated using expert knowledge
EVD
2
EVD
3
EVD
7
EVD
8
EVD
9
EVD
10
EVD
12
Guild
EVD
20
EVD
22
EVD
23
EVD
24
EVD
25
EVD
29
EVD
30
C1
EVD
31
B3
B3
EVD
32
A1
B3
B3
B1
A4
B3
A2
A2
B2
B2
B2
C1
A1
C1
B2
B3
A2
A2
B3
B3
B3
B3
B3
B3
B3
C1
B5
B3
B5
B5
B3
B3
B3
B3
B3
B3
B3
B3
B3
C1
C1
B3
B1
B3
B2
B3
B3
B3
B3
B3
B1
A1
A2
B3
B3
B3
B5
C1
B3
B3
A2
B3
B3
C1
B3
B3
B3
B3
B3
B3
B3
B3
Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research Technical Report Series No. 192
B3
B3
B2
Nesting
G
M
G
G
G
G
T
T
T
G
AV
T
LH
LH
LH
LH
LH
LH
LH
LH
LH
LH
SH
SH
SH
G
SH
LH
LH
V
C
SH, TC
Broad
habitat
O
F
O
O
O
O
F
F
O,F
O
O
O
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
O
F
O
F
O
F
S
F
F
F
F
O
F
Main food type
Feeding
SG
OG, SG
SG
SG
SG
SG
SG
SG
SG
OG
G
V
V
V
ST
ST
SG, ST
F
ST
ST
SG, ST
SG
SG
SG
SG
SG
A
V
V
DG
A
A
Towards a Process for Integrating Vertebrate Fauna into Fire Management Planning
Key fire response species for
fauna
Criteria* for
selecting
KFRS
(1-5)
Ecological vegetation division
Rufous Fantail
Willie Wagtail
Jacky Winter
Scarlet Robin
Red-capped Robin
Flame Robin
Rose Robin
Hooded Robin
Eastern Yellow Robin
Golden Whistler
Rufous Whistler
Olive Whistler
1,2,3,4
1,2,3,4
1,2,3,4
1,2,3,4
1,2,3,4
1,2,3,4
1,2,3,4
1,2,3,4
1,2,3,4
1,2,3,4
1,2,3,4
1,2,3,4
10
8
3,9,22,23,24,25,29,30,31,32
8,24
22,29,30,31,32
10
10,12
2,22
3,7,8,9,10,12,24,25
3,7,8,9,12,24,25,29,30,31,32
3,7,8,9,10,23,24,25,32
10
Grey Shrike-thrush
Crested Shrike-tit
Crested Bellbird
Eastern Whipbird
Black-faced Cuckoo-shrike
White-winged Triller
Spotted Quail-thrush
Chestnut Quail-thrush
Southern Scrub-robin
Chestnut-crowned Babbler
Weebill
Southern Whiteface
Yellow Thornbill
Brown Thornbill
Inland Thornbill
Chestnut-rumped Thornbill
Buff-rumped Thornbill
Yellow-rumped Thornbill
White-browed Scrubwren
Large-billed Scrubwren
Shy Heathwren
Speckled Warbler
Brown Songlark
Rufous Songlark
Rufous Bristlebird
Southern Emu-wren
Mallee Emu-wren
Superb Fairy-wren
White-winged Fairy-wren
Variegated Fairy-wren
Dusky Woodswallow
Varied Sittella
Brown Treecreeper
White-throated Treecreeper
Red-browed Treecreeper
White-browed Treecreeper
1,2,3,4
1,2,3,4
1,2,3,4
1,2,3,4
1,2,3,4
1,2,3,4
1,2,4,5
1,2,3,4
1,2,3,4
1,2,3,4,5
1,2,3,4
1,2,3,4
1,2,3,4
1,2,3,4
1,2,3,4
1,2,3,4
1,2,3,4
1,2,3,4
1,2,3,4
1,2,3,4
1,2,4
1,2,4,5
1,2,3,4,5
1,2,3,4,5
1,2,3,4,5
1,2,4
1,2,4
1,2,3,4
1,2,3,4
1,2,3,4
1,2,3,4,5
1,2,3,4
1,2,3,4
1,2,3,4
1,2,3,4
1,2,3,4
3,7,8,9,10,23,24,25,29,30,31,32
34
Response curve estimated using expert knowledge
EVD
2
12
24,29
10,12
7,8,10,12
22
3,7,8
29,30,31,32
2,31,32
22
3,9,22,23,24,25,29,30,31,32
22,24,29,30,32
3,22,24,25
2,32
2,22,29,30,31,32
22
3,8,9,23,24,25,31
3,9,20,22,23,24,25,31,32
2,3,7,8,9,10,12,24
10,12
2,30,31
24
20
20,23,25
2
2
30
7,9,10,12
22
2,29
3,8,9,23,24,30,31
7
23,24,25
3,7,8,9,10,12,23,24,25
12
22
EVD
3
EVD
7
EVD
8
EVD
9
EVD
10
B3
EVD
12
Guild
EVD
20
EVD
22
EVD
23
EVD
24
EVD
25
EVD
29
EVD
30
EVD
31
EVD
32
B3
B3
B3
B1
B3
B3
B3
B3
B3
B1
A1
B5
B3
B3
B3
B3
B3
B3
B3
B3
B1
B
B1
B2
B3
B3
B3
B3
B3
B3
B3
B3
B3
B3
B3
B3
B3
B3
B3
B3
B3
B3
B3
B3
B3
B3
B3
B3
B3
B3
B3
B3
B3
B3
B3
B3
B2
B3
B3
B3
B3
B3
B3
B3
B3
B3
B2
B3
B2
B3
B3
B1
B3
B3
B3
B3
B1
B3
B3
B3
B3
B3
B3
C1
C1
C1
B3
B1
B3
B1
B3
B1
B2
B1
B1
B1
B1
B3
B2
B2
B3
B3
B3
B1
B3
B2
B2
B2
B1
B1
C1
B3
B2
C1
B2
B2
C1
B2
B2
B3
B2
B3
B3
B3
B3
B3
B3
B3
B3
B3
B3
B3
B3
B3
B1
B3
B3
B2
B3
B3
B3
B1
B3
B3
B3
B3
A4
B3
B1
B
B3
B3
B3
B3
B2
B1
B1
B3
B2
B3
B3
B3
B3
B2
B3
B3
B3
B3
B3
B3
B3
B3
B3
B3
B1
B1
B3
B3
B4
Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research Technical Report Series No. 192
B3
V
V
V
T
V
T
V
V
V
V
V
V
Broad
habitat
F
O
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
V
V
V
V
T
T
G
G
V
V
V
SH
V
V
V
SH
V
V
V
V
V
G
G
G
V
V
V
V
V
V
TC
T
SH
SH
SH
SH
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
O
F
F
F
F
F
O
F
F
S, F
F
O
F
F
F
F
F
O
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
Nesting
Main food type
Feeding
TS
OG
A
OG
OG
OG
TS
OG
DG
TS
C
DG
Gen
B
OG
DG
C
GEN
OG
OG
OG
OG
C
OG
TS
TS
TS
OG
OG
OG
DG, LS
BV
LS
OG
OG
OG
DG
LS
LS
OG
LS
LS
A
B
B, OG
B
B
B
Towards a Process for Integrating Vertebrate Fauna into Fire Management Planning
Key fire response species for
fauna
Mistletoebird
Spotted Pardalote
Yellow-rumped Pardalote
Striated Pardalote
Silvereye
Brown-headed Honeyeater
Tawny-crowned Honeyeater
Lewin's Honeyeater
Singing Honeyeater
Fuscous Honeyeater
White-eared Honeyeater
Yellow-tufted Honeyeater
Purple-gaped Honeyeater
Yellow-plumed Honeyeater
White-plumed Honeyeater
Crescent Honeyeater
New Holland Honeyeater
Bell Miner
Noisy Miner
Little Wattlebird
Red Wattlebird
Spiny-cheeked Honeyeater
Australasian Pipit
Beautiful Firetail
Diamond Firetail
Red-browed Finch
Olive-backed Oriole
White-winged Chough
Pied Currawong
Grey Currawong
Pied Butcherbird
Grey Butcherbird
Australian Magpie
Bassian Thrush
Little Raven
Brush-tailed Phascogale
Yellow-footed Antechinus
Agile Antechinus
Dusky Antechinus
Swamp Antechinus
Mallee Ningaui
Common Dunnart
Fat-tailed Dunnart
Southern Brown Bandicoot
Long-nosed Bandicoot
Common Brushtail Possum
Mountain Brushtail Possum
Common Ringtail Possum
35
Criteria* for
selecting
KFRS
(1-5)
Ecological vegetation division
1,2,3,4
1,2,3,4
1,2,3,4,5
1,2,3,4
1,2,3,4
1,2,3,4
1,2,3,4
1,2,3,4
1,2,3,4
1,2,3,4
1,2,3,4,5
1,2,3,4
1,2,3,4
1,2,3,4
1,2,3,4
1,2,3,4
1,2,3,4
1,2,3,4
1,2,3,4
1,2,3,4
1,2,3,4
1,2,3,4
1,2,3,4,5
1,2,3,4
1,2,3,4
1,2,3,4,5
1,2,3,4
1,2,3,4
1,2,3,4,5
1,2,3,4,5
1,2,3,4,5
1,2,3,4,5
1,2,3,4
1,2,3,4
1,2,3,4
1,2,3,4,5
1,2,3,4
1,2,3,4
1,2,3,4
1,2,3,4,5
1,2,4,5
1,2,4
1,2,4
1,2,4,5
1,2,4,5
1,2,3,4,5
1,2,3,4,5
1,2,3,4
10
12
29,31,32
7,9,24,25
7
3,7,8,9,12,23,24,25,29,30,31
2,31
7,8,10,12
2,22,29
3,24
29,30,31,32
10,24
32
29,30,32
23,25
10
2,32
8
3,7,25
2
3,12
2,22,29,30,31,32
2,20,22
2
22,23
3,7,8,9,10,20,24
3,7,8,9,24,25
3,7,8,9,23,24,25
8,12
2,3,7,8,9,10,25,29,30,31,32
22
3,8,9,23,24,30,31
10,12,23,24,29,31
7
8
3,8,9,24,25
8,24,25
2,3,7,8,9,10,12
2,7,8,10,12
2
30
29
20,22,32
2
7,9,10,12
23,24,25
10,12
3,7,8,9,10,12,24,25
Response curve estimated using expert knowledge
EVD
2
EVD
3
EVD
7
EVD
8
EVD
9
EVD
10
B4
EVD
12
Guild
EVD
20
EVD
22
EVD
23
EVD
24
EVD
25
EVD
29
EVD
30
EVD
31
EVD
32
B1
B3
B2
B2
B2
B3
B3
B3
B3
B3
B3
B3
B3
B3
B3
B3
B3
B3
B3
B3
B3
B2
B3
B3
B3
B3
B3
B2
B4
B3
B3
B1
B3
B3
B3
B3
B5
B3
B3
B3
A2
B3
B3
B3
B3
B2
A2
C1
B2
B3
B
B3
B1
B3
A1
B
B3
B1
A1
B1
B3
A2
B3
B2
A1
B3
A1
B3
B3
A1
B3
A2
A2
B3
B3
B3
B2
A1
B3
B3
B3
B3
B3
B3
B3
B3
B3
B3
B3
B3
B1
C1
A2
B3
B3
B3
B2/3
B3
B2/3
A2
B3
B1
B3
B3
B3
A1
B3
A2
A1
B3
C1
B3
B2
B3
B1
B1
B1
B3
B3
B3
A2
B3
B3
B3
B3
B3
B2
B3
B3
B3
B3
B3
B3
B3
B3
A2
B3
B3
B1
B3
B1
B3
B3
B3
B3
B3
B2
B1
B1
B1
B3
B1
B3
B1
B3
B3
B1
B3
Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research Technical Report Series No. 192
Nesting
V
B
B
SH, B
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
G
V
V
V
V
T
T
T
V
V
T
V
T
SH
SH
SH, V
B
B
B
B
B
G
G
LH
LH, LOG
LH, V
Broad
habitat
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
S
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
O
F, S
F
S
O
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
O
O
F
O
F
F
F
F
F
F,S
F
O
F,S
F
F
F
F
Main food type
I, N
I
I
I
I
I
I
F, I
MF, LF, F
MF
Feeding
F
C
C
C
F
N, B
N
N, F
N
N
N, B
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
OG
SG
SG
SG
F
OG
V
V
V
V
OG
DG
V
B, V
OG, B, IF
DG, B, IF
DG
DG
V, OG
OG
OG
FG, DG
FG, DG
MF, FG
LF, MF
MF
Towards a Process for Integrating Vertebrate Fauna into Fire Management Planning
Key fire response species for
fauna
Greater Glider
Yellow-bellied Glider
Squirrel Glider
Sugar Glider
Leadbeater's Possum
Eastern Pygmy-possum
Western Pygmy-possum
Little Pygmy-possum
Koala
Long-nosed Potoroo
Long-footed Potoroo
Black Wallaby
Red-necked Wallaby
Western Grey Kangaroo
Eastern Grey Kangaroo
Red Kangaroo
Bush Rat
Swamp Rat
New Holland Mouse
Silky Mouse
Heath Mouse
Mitchell's Hopping-mouse
Marbled Gecko
Olive Legless Lizard
Lace Goanna
Garden Skink
Coventry's Skink
Spencer's Skink
Blotched Blue-tongued Lizard
Common Blue-tongued Lizard
Stumpy-tailed Lizard
Red-bellied Black Snake
Little Whip Snake
Southern Water Skink
Lowland Copperhead
36
Criteria* for
selecting
KFRS
(1-5)
Ecological vegetation division
1,2,3,4,5
1,2,3,4,5
1,2,3,4,5
1,2,3,4
1,2,4,5
1,2,3,4
1,2,4,5
1,2,3,4
1,2,3,4,5
1,2,4,5
1,2,4,5
1,2,3,4
1,2,3,4
1,2,3,4
1,2,3,4
1,2,3,4
1,2,3,4
1,2,3,4,5
1,2,3,4,5
1,2,4,5
1,2,3,4,5
1,2,4,5
1,2,4
1,2,4,5
1,2,3,4,5
1,2,3,4
1,2,3,4
1,2,3,4
1,2,3,4
1,2,3,4
1,2,3,4
1,2,3,4,5
1,2,4
1,2,3,4
1,2,3,4,5
7,10,12
7,8,9,10,12
23,24,25
3,8,9,23,24,25
12
3
2,30,31,32
31,32
8,9,24,25
2,7
7
3,7,8,9,10,12,24
3,7
2,22,23,25,29,30,31,32
7,8,9,23,25
22,29
3,8,9,10
20
2
2,31,32
2
30
23
23
23
23
12
12
23
23
23
23
23
12
23
Response curve estimated using expert knowledge
EVD
2
EVD
3
EVD
7
B3
B3
B3
EVD
8
EVD
9
B3
B3
B3
B3
EVD
10
B3
B3
EVD
12
B3
B3
Guild
EVD
20
EVD
22
EVD
23
B3
B3
EVD
24
B3
B3
EVD
25
EVD
29
EVD
30
EVD
31
EVD
32
B3
B3
B3
B2
B1
B1
B3
C1
B3
B3
B3
B3
B3
B3
B3
B3
B3
B3
B3
B1
A2
A2
B3
B3
B3
B2
B1
B2
B2
B3
B3
B3
B3
B3
B2
A2
A2
B3
B1
A2
A1
B3
B3
B3
B3
B3
B3
B3
B1
B1
B1
B1
B3
B3
B3
B3
Nesting
LH
LH
SH
SH
SH, LH
SH, V
SH, V
SH
T
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
A2
A2
B3
B3
B3
A3
A3
A2
A3
Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research Technical Report Series No. 192
B
B
B
Broad
habitat
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F, O
S
S
F, S
F, S
F
F, O
F, O
F
F
F
F
F
F
F, W
F
F
F, O
Main food type
Feeding
CF
I, X, N
I, X, N
I, X, N
I, X
CF
B,N
N, B, IF
N, B, IF
IF, B
MF, N
IF, N
IF, N
CF
FG, DG
FG, DG
LF
LF
LF
LF
LF
DG, FG
LF, SG
SG, OG
SG, OG
SG, OG
SG, OG
N, I
N, I
CF
F, I
F, I
LF
LF
LF
LF
S, I
LF
S, I
S, I
S, I
I
I
V
I
I
I
VE, I
VE, I
VE, I
V
V
I, VE, V
V
Towards a Process for Integrating Vertebrate Fauna into Fire Management Planning
Table 6. Key for fauna guilds
Nesting guilds
AV
among aquatic vegetation (may be colonial)
B
burrow in ground (may be colonial)
C
cliff or cave (may be colonial)
G
on ground
LH
large or medium-sized hollow in tree or termite mound
LOG
hollow log or stump on the ground
M
mound nest on ground
SH
small hollow in tree
T
in branches of tree or tall shrub
TC
colonially in trees
V
in vegetation generally (often among low or tall shrubs, but may sometimes be in trees)
Broad habitat guilds: symbol shows the main habitat for each species, where the species reaches its maximum density in the breeding season
forests, woodlands or other areas of native woody vegetation (e.g. tall shrublands). Some of these species winter in open country including pasture (Flame Robin)
F
and saltmarsh (Neophema parrots). Some raptors and corvids range widely over open country as well as forests, and some (e.g. Australian Hobby and various
corvids) have become common in towns.
open country including farmland. Many of these species depend on trees or remnant native vegetation, but also benefit from the open landscape and hence may be
O
more common than in uncleared forest or woodland.
S
low native vegetation, including arid shrublands, heaths, saltmarsh and tall native grassland (but usually not cleared pasture)
Main food type
CF
canopy foliage
F
fungi
I
invertebrates
LF
low foliage
MF
midstorey foliage
N
nectar
S
seeds
V
vertebrates
VE
vegetable matter
X
exudates: nectar, sap, honeydew from trees
37
Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research Technical Report Series No. 192
Towards a Process for Integrating Vertebrate Fauna into Fire Management Planning
Feeding guilds: invertebrates such as insects and other arthropods form a large part of the diet of many species
A
aerial feeder, taking insects in open air, usually far from foliage
B
bark forager, taking invertebrates from bark on trunks and branches of eucalypts and other trees
BV
as above, but mainly from smaller branches and vines
C
canopy forager, taking invertebrates from foliage of eucalypts and other large trees
CF
canopy foliage (eucalypt leaves)
DG
takes invertebrates from damp ground below shrubs, among dense understorey or among damp litter in wet forests or rainforest
F
frugivore, taking soft fruit along with other food such as nectar, invertebrates or seeds (parrots)
FG
fungi close to the ground, e.g. hypogeal fungi obtained by digging
G
grazer, taking aquatic plants and other vegetation such as grass or plant tubers
Gen
generalist, taking invertebrates from ground and a range of substrates among shrubs and trees
IF
gleans invertebrates from foliage (as distinct from bark)
LF
low foliage (grass, roots or low branches and foliage of shrubs)
LS
takes invertebrates from low shrubs, tall grass or other low vegetation
MF
midstorey foliage
N
nectarivore, taking nectar along with other food such as seeds (parrots) and fruit or invertebrates
takes invertebrates from open ground (which may be among trees or shrubs in some cases, or far from them in other cases), but not from damp ground below
OG
dense cover
SG
takes seeds from ground or low plants such as grasses, herbs and saltmarsh
ST
takes seeds from trees and shrubs or wide range of strata, or other food such as gall insects or insect larvae extracted from wood
TS
takes invertebrates from foliage of tall shrubs, which may form middle storey of eucalypt forests or stand alone, e.g. mangroves
V
carnivore, taking vertebrates as an important part of diet, often along with large invertebrates and other food such as fruit (passerines)
38
Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research Technical Report Series No. 192
Towards a Process for Integrating Vertebrate Fauna into Fire Management Planning
Table 7. List of species’ scientific names for fauna Key Fire Response Species
Species are listed according to their taxonomic order listed in DSE’s Fauna 100 database. Species listed
under the FFG (Flora and Fauna Guarantee act (1998)) are denoted with ‘L’. Species listed under the EPBC
(Environment Protection and Biodiversity act 1999) are denoted as vulnerable (VU) or endangered (EN).
Common name
Scientific name
Emu
Malleefowl
Stubble Quail
Brown Quail
Little Button-quail
Red-chested Button-quail
Common Bronzewing
Brush Bronzewing
Crested Pigeon
Banded Lapwing
Brolga
Brown Falcon
Southern Boobook
Powerful Owl
Yellow-tailed Black-Cockatoo
Gang-gang Cockatoo
Regent Parrot
Australian King-Parrot
Crimson Rosella
Eastern Rosella
Mallee Ringneck
Red-rumped Parrot
Mulga Parrot
Blue Bonnet
Blue-winged Parrot
Ground Parrot
Australian Owlet-nightjar
Laughing Kookaburra
Sacred Kingfisher
Superb Lyrebird
Welcome Swallow
Tree Martin
Rufous Fantail
Willie Wagtail
Jacky Winter
Scarlet Robin
Red-capped Robin
Flame Robin
Rose Robin
Hooded Robin
Eastern Yellow Robin
Golden Whistler
Rufous Whistler
Olive Whistler
Grey Shrike-thrush
Dromaius novaehollandiae
Leipoa ocellata
Coturnix pectoralis
Coturnix ypsilophora
Turnix velox
Turnix pyrrhothorax
Phaps chalcoptera
Phaps elegans
Ocyphaps lophotes
Vanellus tricolor
Grus rubicunda
Falco berigora
Ninox novaeseelandiae
Ninox strenua
Calyptorhynchus funereus
Callocephalon fimbriatum
Polytelis anthopeplus
Alisterus scapularis
Platycercus elegans
Platycercus eximius
Barnardius zonarius barnardi
Psephotus haematonotus
Psephotus varius
Northiella haematogaster
Neophema chrysostoma
Pezoporus wallicus
Aegotheles cristatus
Dacelo novaeguineae
Todiramphus sanctus
Menura novaehollandiae
Hirundo neoxena
Hirundo nigricans
Rhipidura rufifrons
Rhipidura leucophrys
Microeca fascinans
Petroica boodang
Petroica goodenovii
Petroica phoenicea
Petroica rosea
Melanodryas cucullata
Eopsaltria australis
Pachycephala pectoralis
Pachycephala rufiventris
Pachycephala olivacea
Colluricincla harmonica
FFG
EPBC
L
VU
L
L
L
L
VU
L
L
Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research Technical Report Series No. 192
39
Towards a Process for Integrating Vertebrate Fauna into Fire Management Planning
Common name
Scientific name
Crested Shrike-tit
Crested Bellbird
Eastern Whipbird
Black-faced Cuckoo-shrike
White-winged Triller
Spotted Quail-thrush
Chestnut Quail-thrush
Southern Scrub-robin
Chestnut-crowned Babbler
Weebill
Southern Whiteface
Yellow Thornbill
Brown Thornbill
Inland Thornbill
Chestnut-rumped Thornbill
Buff-rumped Thornbill
Yellow-rumped Thornbill
White-browed Scrubwren
Large-billed Scrubwren
Shy Heathwren
Speckled Warbler
Brown Songlark
Rufous Songlark
Rufous Bristlebird
Southern Emu-wren
Mallee Emu-wren
Superb Fairy-wren
White-winged Fairy-wren
Variegated Fairy-wren
Dusky Woodswallow
Varied Sittella
Brown Treecreeper
White-throated Treecreeper
Red-browed Treecreeper
White-browed Treecreeper
Mistletoebird
Spotted Pardalote
Yellow-rumped Pardalote
Striated Pardalote
Silvereye
Brown-headed Honeyeater
Tawny-crowned Honeyeater
Lewin's Honeyeater
Singing Honeyeater
Fuscous Honeyeater
White-eared Honeyeater
Yellow-tufted Honeyeater
Purple-gaped Honeyeater
Yellow-plumed Honeyeater
White-plumed Honeyeater
Falcunculus frontatus
Oreoica gutturalis
Psophodes olivaceus
Coracina novaehollandiae
Lalage sueurii
Cinclosoma punctatum
Cinclosoma castanotus
Drymodes brunneopygia
Pomatostomus ruficeps
Smicrornis brevirostris
Aphelocephala leucopsis
Acanthiza nana
Acanthiza pusilla
Acanthiza apicalis
Acanthiza uropygialis
Acanthiza reguloides
Acanthiza chrysorrhoa
Sericornis frontalis
Sericornis magnirostris
Calamanthus cautus
Pyrrholaemus sagittatus
Cincloramphus cruralis
Cincloramphus mathewsi
Dasyornis broadbenti
Stipiturus malachurus
Stipiturus mallee
Malurus cyaneus
Malurus leucopterus
Malurus lamberti
Artamus cyanopterus
Daphoenositta chrysoptera
Climacteris picumnus victoriae
Cormobates leucophaeus
Climacteris erythrops
Climacteris affinis
Dicaeum hirundinaceum
Pardalotus punctatus
Pardalotus xanthopygus punctatus
Pardalotus striatus
Zosterops lateralis
Melithreptus brevirostris
Phylidonyris melanops
Meliphaga lewinii
Lichenostomus virescens
Lichenostomus fuscus
Lichenostomus leucotis
Lichenostomus melanops
Lichenostomus cratitius
Lichenostomus ornatus
Lichenostomus penicillatus
40
FFG
EPBC
L
L
L
L
L
Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research Technical Report Series No. 192
VU
Towards a Process for Integrating Vertebrate Fauna into Fire Management Planning
Common name
Scientific name
Crescent Honeyeater
New Holland Honeyeater
Bell Miner
Noisy Miner
Little Wattlebird
Red Wattlebird
Spiny-cheeked Honeyeater
Australasian Pipit
Beautiful Firetail
Diamond Firetail
Red-browed Finch
Olive-backed Oriole
White-winged Chough
Pied Currawong
Grey Currawong
Pied Butcherbird
Grey Butcherbird
Australian Magpie
Bassian Thrush
Little Raven
Brush-tailed Phascogale
Yellow-footed Antechinus
Agile Antechinus
Dusky Antechinus
Swamp Antechinus
Mallee Ningaui
Common Dunnart
Fat-tailed Dunnart
Southern Brown Bandicoot
Long-nosed Bandicoot
Common Brushtail Possum
Mountain Brushtail Possum
Common Ringtail Possum
Greater Glider
Yellow-bellied Glider
Squirrel Glider
Sugar Glider
Leadbeater's Possum
Eastern Pygmy-possum
Western Pygmy-possum
Little Pygmy-possum
Koala
Long-nosed Potoroo
Long-footed Potoroo
Black Wallaby
Red-necked Wallaby
Western Grey Kangaroo
Eastern Grey Kangaroo
Red Kangaroo
Bush Rat
Phylidonyris pyrrhoptera
Phylidonyris novaehollandiae
Manorina melanophrys
Manorina melanocephala
Anthochaera chrysoptera
Anthochaera carunculata
Acanthagenys rufogularis
Anthus novaeseelandiae
Stagonopleura bella
Stagonopleura guttata
Neochmia temporalis
Oriolus sagittatus
Corcorax melanorhamphos
Strepera graculina
Strepera versicolor
Cracticus nigrogularis
Cracticus torquatus
Gymnorhina tibicen
Zoothera lunulata
Corvus mellori
Phascogale tapoatafa
Antechinus flavipes
Antechinus agilis
Antechinus swainsonii
Antechinus minimus
Ningaui yvonneae
Sminthopsis murina
Sminthopsis crassicaudata
Isoodon obesulus obesulus
Perameles nasuta
Trichosurus vulpecula
Trichosurus cunninghami
Pseudocheirus peregrinus
Petauroides volans
Petaurus australis
Petaurus norfolcensis
Petaurus breviceps
Gymnobelideus leadbeateri
Cercartetus nanus
Cercartetus concinnus
Cercartetus lepidus
Phascolarctos cinereus
Potorous tridactylus
Potorous longipes
Wallabia bicolor
Macropus rufogriseus
Macropus fuliginosus
Macropus giganteus
Macropus rufus
Rattus fuscipes
FFG
EPBC
L
L
L
EN
L
L
EN
L
L
VU
EN
Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research Technical Report Series No. 192
41
Towards a Process for Integrating Vertebrate Fauna into Fire Management Planning
Common name
Scientific name
Swamp Rat
New Holland Mouse
Silky Mouse
Heath Mouse
Mitchell's Hopping-mouse
Marbled Gecko
Olive Legless Lizard
Lace Goanna
Garden Skink
Coventry's Skink
Spencer's Skink
Blotched Blue-tongued Lizard
Common Blue-tongued Lizard
Stumpy-tailed Lizard
Red-bellied Black Snake
Little Whip Snake
Southern Water Skink
Lowland Copperhead
Rattus lutreolus
Pseudomys novaehollandiae
Pseudomys apodemoides
Pseudomys shortridgei
Notomys mitchelli
Christinus marmoratus
Delma inornata
Varanus varius
Lampropholis guichenoti
Niveoscincus coventryi
Pseudemoia spenceri
Tiliqua nigrolutea
Tiliqua scincoides
Tiliqua rugosa
Pseudechis porphyriacus
Suta flagellum
Eulamprus tympanum tympanum
Austrelaps superbus
42
FFG
EPBC
L
L
Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research Technical Report Series No. 192
VU
Towards a Process for Integrating Vertebrate Fauna into Fire Management Planning
Appendix 5. Decision framework: modification of the 17 steps
The 17 steps in Developing An Ecological Burning Strategy - A Practitioner’s Manual (Fire
Ecology Working Group 2003) have been modified based on suggestions arising from group
discussions in the Workshop on Integrating Fauna in Fire Planning (7 May 2008).
Modifications to the steps below can be identified as those underlined.
1
Refer to the Park/Forest Management Plan to identify the broad ecological management
objectives for the area (Park, Forest block, etc.) and neigbouring areas to address landscape
context.
2
Identify a landscape management unit at a scale which incorporates landscape connectivity
for fauna8.
3
Collate existing flora and fauna distribution maps and species lists (with consideration of
the time elapsed since the species was last recorded and species which are expected to be
present9 but not actually recorded) for the management unit.
4
On the basis of the known biodiversity assets and perceived threats, set the more specific
ecological management objectives and measurable outcomes for the management unit.
4a
Check specific prescriptions for species recorded in the area.
5
Collate the fire history records including burn area, frequency and intensity (wildfire and
planned fire separately).
– identify where fire history is inadequate or unknown.
– add other disturbance history associated with logging and grazing, etc.
6
To the extent possible, tabulate and graph the age class distribution of each vegetation type
(EVC or BVT10).
6a
Seral stage growth analysis
7
Collate the life history or Vital Attribute information of the constituent flora and fauna
species and identify the Key Fire Response Species in each vegetation type.
8
To the extent that available data permits, determine the upper and lower limits of the
Tolerable Fire Intervals for each vegetation type based on the vital attributes of the key fire
response species (for flora and fauna).
8a
Identify fauna species likely to be outside the min and max specified flora species responses
and consider adjusting the tolerable fire intervals, e.g. in the case of threatened species.
8b
Identify longer unburnt areas e.g. > 80 years.
9
Identify areas of vegetation, habitat, seral stages, fauna response curves that are overrepresented in their age-class as compared with an idealised age-class distribution.
8
Consider what barriers might prevent species from avoiding direct impacts of fire, or present barriers to
recolonisation after fire.
9
This may require consultation with fauna experts.
10
Replace BVT with EVD.
Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research Technical Report Series No. 192
43
Towards a Process for Integrating Vertebrate Fauna into Fire Management Planning
10
To the extent possible, calculate the areas of each vegetation type likely to be burnt by
wildfire within the maximum tolerable time since fire for that vegetation type.
11
Estimate the area of each vegetation type needing to be burnt by planned fire in addition to
the area likely to be burnt by wildfire.
11a
Examine habitat elements. need to link key fauna species to each of the seral stages for each
EVD.
12
Identify areas on the ground which are candidates for planned fire based on the ecological
criteria.
13
Define specific objectives of the burn (cf. the ecological management objectives), including
the need to leave appropriate areas unburnt within the burn area.
14
Design a planned fire which will achieve defined ecological objectives, e.g. regenerate all
species, particularly the Key Fire Response Species.
14a
Decide on the most appropriate season to burn
14b Devise a communications strategy for the burn officer in charge (OIC) and fire management
officer (FMO) to determine how the ecological objectives of the burn will be achieved on
the day of the burn.
14c
Conduct baseline monitoring of sufficient duration and intensity for the presence of KFRS
and for condition of habitat parameters. need monitoring at the landscape scale as well as in
the burn unit.
15
Conduct the burn and record the conditions and results (including burn area, intensity and
heterogeneity).
16
Monitor with sufficient duration and intensity the response of the key fire response species
or habitat surrogates.
17
Return to Step 3 and if necessary update and repeat.
44
Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research Technical Report Series No. 192
Towards a Process for Integrating Vertebrate Fauna into Fire Management Planning
Appendix 6. Summary of ecological burn planning in other states and
territories
Table 8. Fire management planning with regard to fauna in states and territories of Australia.
Queensland: Environmental Protection Agency, Queensland Government
 Policy statement: ‘QPWS will undertake fire management, including
planned fire operations to:
 Maintain biodiversity across ecosystems and landscapes by
providing variations in fire regimes (based on frequency, intensity
and season of fire).
1. Peter Leeson, Team
Leader, Fire Management,
Queensland Parks and
Wildlife Service (pers.
comm.)
 Maintain the role of fire as a critical ecological process in fireadapted vegetation communities and fauna habitats.
2. Queensland Parks and
Wildlife Service (2007)
 Enhance or maintain conditions suitable for particular flora and
fauna species (e.g. threatened species) or communities.
 Stimulate the restoration or regeneration of disturbed ecosystems.
 Assist in pest eradication and control.’ 2.
 The Fire Management System applies to all fire management on
lands for which QPW is the responsible agency. Wildfire suppression
activities, hazard reduction burning, ecological burning and burning
for weed control or other purposes are subject to the requirements
of this system if the operation is conducted under the control of a
QPW staff member (regardless of land tenure). 3.
 Under the Fire Management System a Fire Strategy must be
developed for each reserve. The Fire Strategy details the values of
the reserve, the long-term fire management aims and how these
relate to on-ground fire management. 3.
 Fire Strategies must address the following (selected) issues using the
best available knowledge:
Operational Policy – Fire
Management,
Environmental Protection
Agency, Queensland
3. Queensland Parks and
Wildlife (2008) Fire
Management System.
Volume 1: Planning and
Reporting Environmental
Protection Agency,
Queensland
4. Tran, C. and Peacock, C
(2002) Best Practice Fire
Management ManualOperational Level
Guidelines and Procedures
South East Queensland
Fire and Biodiversity
Consortium
 ‘Long-term fire management aims for the reserve (e.g. “encourage
expansion of rainforest communities”; “maintain wet sclerophyll
forest and associated timber resources”; “maximise habitat
condition for golden-shouldered parrot”.’
 ‘Best available details of vegetation communities and/or habitat
types.’
 ‘Significant (including threatened) flora and fauna and/or indicator
species or communities.’
 ‘Fire management objectives and requirements for the flora, fauna,
cultural resources, production resources, reserve infrastructure and
resources on adjoining lands.’ 3.
 ‘Ecological Regeneration Burning – burning may be planned for
ecological reasons such as weed control, stimulation of regeneration,
influence of vegetation and community structure and composition.’ 4.
 Ecological burns are usually based on vegetation community
considerations but fauna issues are incorporated into the planning
where relevant knowledge (typically of threatened species) is
indicated. 1.
Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research Technical Report Series No. 192
45
Towards a Process for Integrating Vertebrate Fauna into Fire Management Planning
Tasmania: Department of Environment, Parks, Heritage and the Arts
 Ecological burn definition: ‘Treatment with fire of vegetation
in nominated areas to achieve specified ecological objectives.
Including but not limited to: weed management, threatened
species management and/or scientific research.’ 1.
 Planned fire definition: ‘The controlled application of fire
under specified environmental conditions to a predetermined
area and at the time, intensity, and rate of spread required to
attain planned resource management objectives. Is also
known as “prescribed burning” or “planned fire”.’ 1.
 Policy statement: ‘Planned burning will aim to maximise
integrated outcomes in relation to the management of
protection objectives, biodiversity, wildlife, pests, soils and
water as appropriate.’ 1.
 All broad ecological factors (e.g. air pollution, soil etc)
including faunal issues are considered and incorporated into
operational burn plans from recommendations made by
Reserve Activity Assessments (RAAs). 4.
 There is currently no direct process for integrating fauna
requirements and values into ecological burning plans 3.
1.
Parks and Wildlife Service
(2008) Planned Burning Policy,
Department of Environment,
Parks, Heritage and the Arts,
Tasmania
2.
Parks and Wildlife Service
(2008) Reserve Activity
Assessment Manual, version 51
Department of Environment,
Parks, Heritage and the Arts,
Tasmania
3.
Adrian Pyrke, Manager, Fire
Operations Parks and Wildlife
Service (pers. comm.)
4.
Sandra Whight, Fire
Management Officer, Policy and
Assurance Parks and Wildlife
Service (pers. comm.)
Western Australia: Department of Environment and Conservation
 Planned fire definition: The controlled application of fire under
specified environmental conditions to a predetermined area
and at the time, intensity and rate of spread required to
attain planned resource management objectives. It is
undertaken in specified environmental conditions. 1.
1.
Department of Environment and
Conservation (2008) Code of
practice for Fire Management.
Department of Environment and
Conservation, WA
 Fauna is being incorporated into ecological burn planning
through the use of a fauna information system that details
the distribution of species, as well as a system similar to that
being developed by Victoria using habitat units to predict the
types of vertebrate fauna likely to inhabit an area. Each
habitat unit has specified fire requirements associated with it.
2.
Rodger Armstrong, Senior
Planner, Fire Management
Services, Department of
Environment & Conservation,
WA
Northern Territory: Department of Natural Resources, Environment, The Arts and Sport
 Bushfires Council NT apparently do not have any written
guidelines for ecological burning although ecological burning
is done.
46
1. Grazina Mainelis, Library
Manager, NRETA and DPI Library
Department of Natural
Resources, Environment, The Arts
and Sport (pers. comm.)
Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research Technical Report Series No. 192
Towards a Process for Integrating Vertebrate Fauna into Fire Management Planning
Australian Capital Territory: Department of Territory and Municipal Services
 All fire management is governed by the Strategic Bushfire
Management Plan for the ACT and applies to both public and
private landholders. It is managed by the ACT Rural Fire
Service. 1.
 Most burns in the ACT are hazard reduction burns where flora
and fauna considerations (mostly endangered or threatened
species) are taken into account on a case by case situation. 1.
 Excerpt from ‘Strategic Bushfire Management Plan for the
ACT Version 1’
 ‘Fuel management planning must also consider the
conservation requirements of threatened fauna species and
impacts on fragmented communities in the ACT.’2.
1. Dylan Kendall, Senior Fire
Management Officer, Parks,
Conservation and Lands
Department of Territory and
Municipal Services (pers. comm.)
2. Australian Capital Territory
Emergency Services Authority
(2005) Strategic Bushfire
Management Plan for the ACT
Version 1 Australian Capital
Territory Emergency Services
Authority, Canberra
 Land Management Considerations include ‘Minimum fire
thresholds for dominant vegetation communities, describing
the minimum acceptable frequency for fire to occur within
the dominant vegetation type of ecological communities
described in the ACT’
New South Wales: Department of Environment and Climate Change
 Planned fire definition: the controlled application of fire under
specified environmental and weather conditions to a
predetermined area and at the time, intensity and rate of
spread required to attain planned resource burning. 1.
 Policy statement: ‘Planned fire may be used to achieve fire
management and biodiversity conservation objectives.’ 1.
 The DECC conducts planned burns for several (selected)
reasons:
1. Department of Environment and
Climate Change (2007) Fire
Management Manual – Policy and
Procedures for Fire Management
Department of Environment and
Climate Change, NSW
 Managing biodiversity to maintain the reproductive viability
of a species or a community of species;
 Managing introduced species, their spread and impact on
native fauna and flora.
South Australia: Department of Environment and Heritage
 Ecological burn definition: ‘Treatment of vegetation in
nominated areas by use of fire, primarily to achieve specific
ecological objectives.’ 1.
 Landscape protection burn definition: ‘Are planned burns
which primarily aim to reduce fuel hazard across a range of
areas in a landscape in order to reduce the likelihood of a
whole Park/Reserve or large contiguous block of vegetation
burning in a single large fire event. The short term goal of
this form of burn is fuel reduction’. 1.
 Ecological fire management guidelines are currently being
developed. The approach used by DEH to define the
Ecological Fire Management Guidelines involves the
identification of fire regime thresholds using flora Key Fire
Species (the species most likely to decline due to each
element of fire regimes) within each major vegetation
subgroup. These thresholds are then assessed for the
potential impacts on known faunal requirements, particularly
the requirements of species of conservation significance. 2. &
4.
1. Department of Environment and
Heritage (2008) Ecological fire
management guidelines for South
Australian Reserves. Department
of Environment and Heritage, SA
(in prep.)
2. Department of Environment and
Heritage (2008) Ecological fire
management guidelines for native
vegetation in South Australia –
Fact Sheet Department of
Environment and Heritage, SA
3. Prescribed Burning Working Party
(2004) South Australia Prescribed
Burning Code of Practice
Department of Environment and
Heritage & SA Country Fire
Service
Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research Technical Report Series No. 192
47
Towards a Process for Integrating Vertebrate Fauna into Fire Management Planning
 The three steps are taken in the development of the
Ecological Fire Management Guidelines are:
 Vital attributes data of flora and fauna, and ecological
communities are gathered and assessed.
 This knowledge is used to identify the Thresholds of Potential
Concern (TPC) of fire regime (fire interval, intensity season
and type) where species significantly decrease or decline.
4. Mike Wouters, Senior Fire
Ecologist, Fire Management,
Regional Conservation Delivery
Directorate, Department of
Environment & Heritage (pers.
comm.)
 Ecological Fire Management Guidelines are formed from
these thresholds and are then used to guide the fire
management practices to ensure that adequate habitat is
available to maintain biodiversity (i.e. species, populations
and communities) 2.
 Principles from the South Australia Prescribed Burning Code
of Practice:
 ‘Ecologically based fire regimes for an area should be
developed from knowledge of the life histories or vital
attributes of the constituent flora and fauna species.’ 3.
 ‘Vital attributes should be used to define the key fire
response species for a community or vegetation type, which
in turn provide a guide to the upper and lower thresholds of
tolerable fire frequencies for the area. This enables a fire
cycle to be defined from which an idealised model of the
distribution of age classes within each plant community may
be developed’ 3.
48
Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research Technical Report Series No. 192
ISSN 1835-3835 (print)
ISSN 1835-3827 (online)
ISBN 978-1-74242-189-6 (print)
ISBN 978-1-74242-190-2 (online)
Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research Technical Report Series No. XXX
www.dse.vic.gov.au/ari
1