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.