Artificial refuges did not increase small mammal abundance after fire

Abstract

AbstractThe interacting threats of invasive predators and altered fire regimes are key conservation issues for many native species globally. Artificial refuges have been proposed as a potential conservation tool to provide prey species with protection from invasive predators after fire, but we do not yet know whether they improve animal survival. To address this knowledge gap, we experimentally tested how small mammal abundance and species richness were influenced by the provision of artificial refuges after prescribed burns. We surveyed small mammals across five unburnt sites, seven burnt sites with artificial refuges, and eight burnt control sites following two prescribed fires in southeastern Australia. There were negative and neutral responses of small mammals to the burns, and relative abundance was positively correlated with structurally complex vegetation. Artificial refuges had no impact on abundance or species richness, irrespective of burn coverage. These findings suggest that this artificial refuge design may not be an effective tool for improving small mammal population persistence postfire, and as such we should not yet scale up their application. However, given the inherent context‐dependency of field experiments involving fire, which include difficult‐to‐control variables such as fire severity, predator activity, and population dynamics, we encourage researchers to undertake further experiments with artificial refuges in fire‐affected areas, including after severe wildfires when less vegetation cover remains. Such studies will help to build our understanding of their utility as a conservation tool across different ecosystems and fire types.