14
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      A burning question: what are the risks and benefits of mammalian torpor during and after fires?

      review-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Although wildfires are increasing globally, available information on how mammals respond behaviourally and physiologically to fires is scant. Despite a large number of ecological studies, often examining animal diversity and abundance before and after fires, the reasons as to why some species perform better than others remain obscure. We examine how especially small mammals, which generally have high rates of energy expenditure and food requirements, deal with fires and post-fire conditions. We evaluate whether mammalian torpor, characterised by substantial reductions in body temperature, metabolic rate and water loss, plays a functional role in survival of mammals impacted by fires. Importantly, torpor permits small mammals to reduce their activity and foraging, and to survive on limited food. Torpid small mammals (marsupials and bats) can respond to smoke and arouse from torpor, which provides them with the possibility to evade direct exposure to fire, although their response is often slowed when ambient temperature is low. Post-fire conditions increase expression of torpor with a concomitant decrease in activity for free-ranging echidnas and small forest-dwelling marsupials, in response to reduced cover and reduced availability of terrestrial insects. Presence of charcoal and ash increases torpor use by captive small marsupials beyond food restriction alone, likely in anticipation of detrimental post-fire conditions. Interestingly, although volant bats use torpor on every day after fires, they respond by decreasing torpor duration, and increasing activity, perhaps because of the decrease in clutter and increase in foraging opportunities due to an increase in aerial insects. Our summary shows that torpor is an important tool for post-fire survival and, although the physiological and behavioural responses of small mammals to fire are complex, they seem to reflect energetic requirements and mode of foraging. We make recommendations on the conditions during management burns that are least likely to impact heterothermic mammals.

          Related collections

          Most cited references117

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Impacts of climate change on fire activity and fire management in the circumboreal forest

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            A review of prescribed burning effectiveness in fire hazard reduction

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              Long-term impacts of prescribed burning on regional extent and incidence of wildfires—Evidence from 50 years of active fire management in SW Australian forests

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: Editor
                Journal
                Conserv Physiol
                Conserv Physiol
                conphys
                Conservation Physiology
                Oxford University Press
                2051-1434
                2018
                11 October 2018
                11 October 2018
                : 6
                : 1
                : coy057
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Centre for Behavioural and Physiological Ecology, Zoology, University of New England, Armidale, Australia
                [2 ]Department of Biology, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway
                [3 ]Department of Biological Sciences, Arkansas State University, Jonesboro, AR, USA
                [4 ]School of Molecular and Life Sciences, Curtin University, Perth, Western Australia
                [5 ]School of Natural Sciences and Psychology, Liverpool John Moores University, Byrom Street, Liverpool, UK
                Author notes
                Corresponding author: F. Geiser, Zoology CO2, University of New England, Armidale 2351, Australia. Email: fgeiser@ 123456une.edu.au
                Article
                coy057
                10.1093/conphys/coy057
                6181253
                64fbd17d-70ae-4906-b101-a058a2f546a5
                © The Author(s) 2018. Published by Oxford University Press and the Society for Experimental Biology.

                This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted reuse, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 21 June 2018
                : 11 August 2018
                : 08 October 2018
                Page count
                Pages: 12
                Funding
                Funded by: University of New England Postdoctoral Research
                Funded by: Australian Research Council 10.13039/501100000923
                Funded by: ACD
                Funded by: German Academic Exchange Service
                Funded by: Endeavour Research Fellowship
                Funded by: Alexander von Humboldt Fellowship
                Funded by: University of New England 10.13039/501100001772
                Categories
                Review

                daily torpor,ecophysiology,foraging,hibernation,mammal,wildfire
                daily torpor, ecophysiology, foraging, hibernation, mammal, wildfire

                Comments

                Comment on this article