Data from: When is a resprouter a resprouter? Improving terminology to reflect ecological thresholds for post-fire plant persistence

The term “resprouting” is commonly used to classify species into
functional groups, despite variable resprouting responses of many species.
Variance in post-fire resprouting and inconsistencies when reporting on
this may lead to misapplication when managing species for conservation. We
aimed to compile all available literature to explore and quantify
inconsistencies within the classification of species as post-fire
resprouters when reported. Further, we investigated how much any one
species might vary in resprouting following fire, and if changes in fire
severity contributed to this. We undertook a comprehensive literature
review using PRISMA methodology, focused on papers that quantified
percentage resprouting following fire with changing fire severity. We
compared reporting of resprouting against standardised definitions and
used generalised linear models and pairwise comparisons to quantify how
resprouting varies within and between species, and with fire severities.
We found 507 papers from 54 countries that observed or quantified
post-fire resprouting, with 144 of these quantifying percentage
resprouting across 737 species. The term “resprouter” was rarely applied
using standardised thresholds. Resprouting varied within and between
species, with vegetation type, and fire severity. Extreme fire severity
consistently reduced resprouting compared to high severity. Resprouting is
a complex continuous response within species. Minimal reporting of metrics
likely driving resprouting variation impedes comparison of resprouting
across disturbance regimes and hinders our ability to determine
susceptible species with changing fire regimes. We proposed clarifying
terminology to show nuance, highlighting lack of information within
resprouting responses, ensuring land managers can confidently achieve
species-specific outcomes.