2020
DOI: 10.1016/j.foreco.2020.118511
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Habitat selection by spotted owls after a megafire in Yosemite National park

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

2
7
1

Year Published

2021
2021
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
5
1

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 10 publications
(10 citation statements)
references
References 45 publications
2
7
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Both larger owls (barred and great horned owls) were more likely to use unburned and low-severity areas compared to areas that burned more severely, though great horned owls had low overall use of the study area. We detected northern spotted owls very rarely in the study area and not at all in severely burned forests, a finding similar to other studies on northern spotted owls and other spotted owl subspecies (Rockweit et al 2017, Lesmeister et al 2018, Jones et al 2020b, Schofield et al 2020. Post-fire vegetation characteristics and, by extension, resource availability, change from year to year; thus, the landscape use relationships observed here over a single breeding season may change with time since fire (Smucker et al 2005, Sitters et al 2016.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 89%
“…Both larger owls (barred and great horned owls) were more likely to use unburned and low-severity areas compared to areas that burned more severely, though great horned owls had low overall use of the study area. We detected northern spotted owls very rarely in the study area and not at all in severely burned forests, a finding similar to other studies on northern spotted owls and other spotted owl subspecies (Rockweit et al 2017, Lesmeister et al 2018, Jones et al 2020b, Schofield et al 2020. Post-fire vegetation characteristics and, by extension, resource availability, change from year to year; thus, the landscape use relationships observed here over a single breeding season may change with time since fire (Smucker et al 2005, Sitters et al 2016.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 89%
“…If this assumption was incorrect, we expected it to have little effect on our analyses because only 6.5% of the burned area during our study was from fires <405 ha. We hypothesized that low‐ to moderate‐severity fire would have a positive or no effect on spotted owl occupancy and reproduction (Bond et al 2002, 2009, 2016; Schofield et al 2020; Kramer et al 2021) but that high‐severity fire (extent and patch size) would have a negative effect (Lee et al 2013; Jones et al 2016 a , 2020; Rockweit et al 2017). Because fire can affect spotted owl habitat for extended time periods, we estimated these covariates at 2 temporal scales: within the previous year and within the previous 5 years.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Conversely, historical fire regimes in seasonal dry forests throughout the spotted owl's range consisted of frequent fires that burned primarily at low and moderate severity with smaller patches of high‐severity fire (Stephens and Collins 2004, Safford and Stevens 2017). Consequently, owls appear to be well‐adapted to these regimes (Bond et al 2002, 2009; Jones et al 2020; Schofield et al 2020; Kramer et al 2021). To address the increasing threat of megafires, forest managers have implemented fuel‐reduction projects that employ techniques such as tree thinning, understory removal, and prescribed fire (Collins et al 2010, 2013).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…One way to validate areas identified as fire refugia is to assess the persistence or (timely) return of target species postfire. For example, after the 2013 Rim Fire, spotted owls ( Strix occidentalis ) were recorded within certain areas of the fire perimeter at rates similar to those observed prefire, suggesting that forest characteristics remained consistent with owl habitat requirements (Schofield et al, 2020). See Table 2 for additional region‐specific tools and research products to identify and validate fire refugia.…”
Section: Process‐based Refugial Prioritiesmentioning
confidence: 98%
“…For example, long‐term data collection efforts tracking tree mortality factors, like the Yosemite Forest Dynamics Plot and the Sierra Nevada Forest Dynamics Plot Network (e.g., Das et al, 2016; Lutz, 2015), may be invoked to monitor the effectiveness of fire refugia for protecting forests. Evaluating persistence of target species within old growth forest postfire provides another means for monitoring refugia effectiveness (e.g., spotted owls: Schofield et al, 2020, Pacific fisher: Blomdahl et al, 2019). Monitoring that considers interactions between different process‐based refugial priorities could also be fruitful: for example, drought increases wildfire activity (Abatzoglou & Williams, 2016), and severity (i.e., kills more trees; van Mantgem et al, 2013), so hydrology‐focused monitoring, modeling, and mapping (e.g., Flint et al, 2014) may provide indirect indicators for fire refugia effectiveness when combined with fire data and/or stand structure and species composition data.…”
Section: Process‐based Refugial Prioritiesmentioning
confidence: 99%