Towards adaptive fire management for biodiversity conservation: Experience in South African National Parks

Abstract

This paper reviews the experience gained in three South African national parks (Kruger, Table Mountain and Bontebok) with regard to the adaptive management of fire for the conservation of biodiversity. In the Kruger National Park, adaptive approaches have evolved over the past 15 years, beginning initially as a form of ‘informed trial and error’, but progressing towards active adaptive management in which landscape-scale, experimental burning treatments are being applied in order to learn. In the process, significant advances in understanding regarding the role and management of fire have been made. Attempts have been made to transfer the approaches developed in Kruger National Park to the other two national parks. However, little progress has been made to date, both because of a failure to provide an agreed context for the introduction of adaptive approaches, and because (in the case of Bontebok National Park) too little time has passed to be able to make an assessment. Fire management interventions, ultimately, will manifest themselves in terms of biodiversity outcomes, but definite links between fire interventions and biodiversity outcomes have yet to be made.<p><strong>Conservation implications:</strong> Significant challenges face the managers of fire-prone and fire adapted ecosystems, where the attainment of ecosystem goals may require approaches (like encouraging high-intensity fires at hot and dry times of the year) that threaten societal goals related to safety. In addition, approaches to fire management have focused on encouraging particular fire patterns in the absence of a sound understanding of their ecological outcomes. Adaptive management offers a framework for addressing these issues, but will require higher levels of agreement, monitoring and assessment than have been the case to date.</p><p><strong>How to cite this article:</strong> Van Wilgen, B.W., Govender, N., Forsyth, G.G. & Kraaij, T., 2011, ‘Towards adaptive fire management for biodiversity conservation: Experience in South African National Parks’, <em>Koedoe </em>53(2), Art. #982, 9 pages. doi:10.4102/koedoe.v53i2.982</p&gt

Assessing ecological performance thresholds in fire‐prone Kakadu National Park, northern Australia

“…Savannas are the most fire-prone systems on Earth. Despite significant understanding of the role of fire regimes in regulating the composition, structure, and dynamics of savanna systems (Scholes and Archer 1997, Williams et al 2002, Sankaran et al 2004, Higgins et al 2007, Lehmann et al 2014, delivering effective fire management for savanna biodiversity conservation purposes remains ecologically and operationally complex, uncertain, and challenging (van Wilgen et al 2011. Ecological complexities reflect notably, but are not restricted to, understanding interactions between fire regime elements (e.g., fire frequency, intensity, interval, patchiness) and the responses of grazers and browsers (Bond and Archibald 2003, Holdo et al 2009, Vanak et al 2012, the habitat requirements of other faunal components (Andersen et al 2005), and managing for woody plant encroachment (O'Connor et al 2014, Smit et al 2016) and other invasive plant species (Setterfield et al 2010).…”

“…An associated challenge for informing and guiding site-based fire management for biodiversity conservation purposes is the development of effective active adaptive management frameworks (sensu Walters 1986). For fire-prone savannas, the evolution of adaptive fire management policy in Kruger National Park, South Africa, over the past 20 yr is especially instructive (van Wilgen et al 1998, Biggs and Rogers 2003, van Wilgen 2009. Significant changes to Kruger National Park fire management policy have occurred through this period: an emphasis on "natural" lightning ignitions from 1991 to 2001; combining point ignitions with natural and unplanned fires from 2002 to 2011 to meet burnt area targets assessed at the park-wide scale; and a current emphasis on delivering ecological outcomes in relation to five management zones defined by rainfall, historic fire patterns, and geology.…”

Bayesian networks elucidate interactions between fire and other drivers of terrestrial fauna distributions

“…Fire is a major driver of biome distribution and community composition worldwide Keeley 2005, Pastro et al 2014) and is extensively used as an ecological management tool in flammable landscapes (Bowman et al 2009, Penman et al 2011. Fire management objectives for biodiversity conservation are commonly derived from floral vital attributes; for example, management guidelines often include tolerable fire intervals that are based on the time-to-maturation or reproductive mechanisms of key plant species (Burrows 2008, Van Wilgen et al 2011. Fauna, however, may require very different distributions of post-fire age classes to flora (Di Stefano et al 2013), and their responses to fire often differ between fire events and locations (Converse et al 2006.…”

Predicting faunal fire responses in heterogeneous landscapes: the role of habitat structure

“…Time since fire has been shown to influence the habitat suitability of a range of species in different systems (Fox 1982, Briani et al 2004, Hu et al 2013. As such, time since fire (and fire return intervals) forms the basis for many current ecological fire management practices (Burrows 2008, van Wilgen et al 2011).…”