Skip to main content
WCS
Menu
Library
Library Catalog
eJournals & eBooks
WCS Research
Archives
Research Use
Finding Aids
Digital Collections
WCS History
WCS Research
Research Publications
Science Data
Services for WCS Researchers
Archives Shop
Bronx Zoo
Department of Tropical Research
Browse By Product
About Us
FAQs
Intern or Volunteer
Staff
Donate
Search WCS.org
Search
search
Popular Search Terms
WCS History
Library and Archives
Library and Archives Menu
Library
Archives
WCS Research
Archives Shop
About Us
Donate
en
fr
Title
How to prioritize species recovery after a megafire
Author(s)
Ward, Michelle; Carwardine, Josie; Watson, James E.M.; Pintor, Anna; Stuart, Stephanie; Possingham, Hugh P.; Rhodes, Jonathan R.; Carey, Alexander R.; Auerbach, Nancy; Reside, April; Yong, Chuan Ji; Tulloch, Ayesha
Published
2022
Publisher
Conservation Biology
Published Version DOI
https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13936
Abstract
Due to climate change, megafires are increasingly common, and have sudden, extensive impacts on many species over vast areas, leaving decision-makers uncertain about how best to prioritize recovery. Here, we provide a decision-support framework to prioritize conservation actions to improve species outcomes immediately after a megafire. The framework selects complementary locations to extend actions across all impacted species' habitats. We then assess the conservation advantages of this approach by comparing it to a site-richness approach (i.e., identifying areas that can cost-effectively recover the most species in any one location). Using the 2019-2020 Australian megafires as a case study, we show that 290 threatened species have likely been severely impacted and likely require immediate conservation action to ensure their survival. Our framework identified 179 subregions, found mostly in south-east Australia, as key locations to extend actions that benefit multiple species. We compare our complementarity-based prioritization with a conventional site-richness approach and demonstrate cost savings of more than AUD$300 million to reduce 95% of threats across all species. In addition to cost efficiencies, our complementarity-based prioritization spreads post-fire management actions across a wider proportion of the study area compared with site richness (43% versus 37% of the landscape managed, respectively), and ensures more of each species' range is managed (average 90% versus 79% of every species' habitat managed). In addition to wildfire response, our complementarity-based management allocation framework can be used to prioritize conservation actions that will best mitigate threats impacting species following other environmental disasters like floods and drought, all of which are likely to increase in intensity and frequency under future climate change.
Keywords
Fire; Australia; Bushfire impacts; actions; conservation; climate change
Access Full Text
A full-text copy of this article may be available. Please email the
WCS Library
to request.
Back
PUB27520