Managing Fire in Karst Landscapes: Geoethical Implications and Strategies for Sustainable Burn Practices

Mike Buchanan - 2025

Abstract
Karst landscapes, composed of soluble rocks such as limestone, gypsum, chalk and dolomite, represent fragile ecosystems that host unique subterranean biodiversity and critical freshwater reserves. These terrains are increasingly threatened by fire, driven by both natural and anthropogenic causes. Due to their thin soils, porous geology and complex hydrology, karst systems are exceptionally vulnerable to the cascading impacts of fire, including biodiversity loss, groundwater contamination, and geological alteration. This paper explores fire origins, current management practices, emergency response efficiency and risk management in karst landscapes. By adopting a geoethical framework, we analyse both the threats and opportunities posed by fire, with a particular focus on the integration of Indigenous knowledge, ecological monitoring and modern technologies. The aim of this study is to combine critical literature review with comparative case studies -Jenolan Caves (Australia), Mammoth Cave (USA), Postojna Cave (Slovenia), and Sterkfontein Caves (South Africa) - to establish best-practice guidelines for fire management in karst systems. Our findings underscore the need for karst-sensitive fire regimes across all karst facies globally including an adaptive management strategy to ensure the long-term sustainability of these vital karst ecosystems for future generations.

Keywords: Karst; Fire management; Geoethics; Risk management; Cave ecosystems; Microclimate; Biodiversity resilience.

1. Introduction
Karst terrains encompass approximately 20% of the Earth’s surface and represent some of the most fragile and least understood ecosystems (Ford & Williams, 2007). Formed predominantly from soluble rocks such as limestone, chalk, gypsum, anhydrite and dolomite, they host terrestrial karst features and subterranean cave systems, aquifers, and highly specialized biota. These landscapes provide critical freshwater reserves and unique habitats and their services, yet they are acutely vulnerable to disturbance due to thin soils, porous geology, and complex hydrology (Williams, 2008). Fires, both natural and anthropogenic, are increasingly prevalent in karst regions, driven by climate change, land management practices, and socio-economic pressures. The origins of these fires are varied: while lightning strikes account for some ignitions, the majority arise from human activity, including agricultural burning, negligence in tourism and recreation and misapplied forestry practices (Gill, 1975; Fairchild & Baker, 2012). Prolonged droughts and heatwaves intensify fire risk by increasing flammability, while karst’s thin, nutrient-poor soils limit decomposition, enabling rapid accumulation of combustible vegetation. Current practices in fire management remain insufficiently tailored to karst landscapes. Many strategies derive from generic forestry models, neglecting subsurface consequences such as ash infiltration into aquifers, destabilisation of speleothem, and cave microclimate disruption (Bobrowsky et al., 2017). Prescribed burning, where applied, often lacks karst-sensitive risk assessments or buffer planning. A handful of regions, most notably Slovenia and Australia, are beginning to implement interdisciplinary approaches that integrate karst science, fire ecology and geoethics (Kimmerer, 2013).

Emergency response efficiency is another major concern. Conventional firefighting focuses on surface impacts, overlooking subterranean dynamics, heat generation. Karst systems exhibit “cave breathing,” air exchanges driven by barometric and thermal gradients (Badino, 2010). Fires can inject heat, aerosols and smoke deep into cave passages specifically during cold weather, destabilising fragile microclimates and threatening endemic cave fauna, bat hibernacula and maternity roosts. Without rapid-response protocols tailored to subterranean environments, fire suppression risks remain incomplete, leaving groundwater resources and biospeleological integrity exposed (White, 2019).

Risk management in karst regions requires a proactive and geoethical framework. This involves scenario modelling, pre-burn hydrological testing, speleothem vulnerability assessments and stakeholder inclusion, particularly Indigenous knowledge systems (Peppoloni & Di Capua, 2015). New technologies such as LiDAR cave-roof modelling and drone-assisted smoke tracking offer valuable tools for designing karst-sensitive fire buffers. Equally, ecological monitoring of post-fire recovery, such as bat activity and invertebrate biomass, helps assess resilience (Ferreira et al., 2007).

Most importantly, the aim of this study is to clarify the impacts of fire on karst systems and propose sustainable management strategies. This will be achieved through a combination of literature review and comparative case studies. We focus on key sites with different fire histories and management approaches, including Jenolan Caves (Australia), Mammoth Cave (USA), Postojna Cave (Slovenia), and the Sterkfontein Cave System (South Africa). By linking cave microclimate monitoring, faunal responses and geochemical changes, we aim to identify thresholds of resilience and develop best-practice guidelines for karst fire management.

2. Fire Impacts and Geoethical Management in Karst Systems

2.1 Environmental and Geological Impacts
Biodiversity is degraded through habitat destruction and altered succession that favours invasive species (Gill, 1975). Fires intensify erosion and nutrient loss and prolonged heating of carbonate rocks can generate quicklime (CaO), which reacts with water to form calcium hydroxide, altering soil chemistry and microbial communities (Smith & Atkinson, 1976). Hydrological systems are especially vulnerable: ash and debris rapidly infiltrate aquifers, threatening water quality and recharge functions essential to both ecosystems and human populations (Williams, 2008).

2.2 Cave Microclimate and Subterranean Ecology
Karst caves are particularly sensitive to fire impacts because of “cave breathing” (Badino, 2010). Fire-driven heat plumes and particulates enter cave systems, destabilising delicate microclimates and damaging troglobitic including stygobitic fauna. Speleothem, vital geological archives, suffer discoloration, chemical alteration and physical weakening when exposed to ash, quicklime aerosols, or altered drip water chemistry (Fairchild & Baker, 2012).

2.3 Faunal Vulnerabilities: Microchiroptera as Keystone Species
Microchiroptera (insectivorous cave dwelling bats) are integral to karst ecosystems, relying on stable maternity cave roosts, hibernacula and insect prey (Kunz & Lumsden, 2003). Fires disrupt foraging through habitat loss, altered acoustic landscapes, and insect declines (Russo et al., 2005; Boyles et al., 2011). Ash-contaminated water sources may force colony relocation, undermining guano deposition and nutrient cycling within caves (Ferreira et al., 2007). Such declines destabilise entire subterranean food webs.

2.4 Invertebrate Biomass Recovery
Terrestrial and aerial invertebrates suffer immediate population crashes post-fire, with biomass reductions of up to 80% in the first weeks (Moretti et al., 2004). Recovery varies: surface-dwelling dipterans may rebound in months, whereas soil-dwelling taxa can take years. In karst, recovery is slower due to thin soils and altered chemistry, compounding stress on bats and delaying restoration of bioturbation cycles. The effects on important nutrient sources like cave based molecular biofilms is yet to be established.

2.5 Emergency Response and Risk Management
Traditional emergency firefighting does not account for subterranean vulnerabilities. Without targeted air monitoring, cave fauna may suffer irreversible harm before surface fires are extinguished (White, 2019). A geoethical framework demands karst-sensitive emergency responses, integrating monitoring, buffer zones and rehabilitation measures such as filtration at cave and karst feature inlets and post-fire ecological surveys. Incorporating indigenous fire stewardship also strengthens long-term resilience (Kimmerer, 2013).

2.6 Towards Geoethical Fire Management
Controlled burns, when designed with ecological, climatic (caves breathe out at higher ambient temperatures) and geological foresight, can prevent catastrophic wildfires and support ecosystem vitality. Scheduled burns every 5–7 years enhance biodiversity, improve soil aeration, and reduce fuel loads (Bobrowsky et al., 2017). Incorporating geoethics ensures that such practices balance ecological needs, cultural respect, and scientific responsibility.

2.7 Study Aim and Comparative Case Studies
This study advances karst fire management by conducting comparative analyses across multiple karst systems with differing fire histories: Jenolan Caves (Australia), Mammoth Cave (USA), Postojna Cave (Slovenia), and Sterkfontein (South Africa). By measuring cave microclimates, faunal recovery, and geochemical markers, we aim to establish evidence-based thresholds of resilience and propose best-practice guidelines. The methodology integrates literature review, field monitoring, and geoethical evaluation, ensuring that both surface and subterranean vulnerabilities are addressed.

3. Future Directions for Research

3.1 Monitoring and Comparative Case Studies
Building on this study’s aim, long-term comparative monitoring across sites such as Jenolan, Mammoth, Postojna, and Sterkfontein should be institutionalised. Standardised use of dataloggers for cave microclimate, in situ SEM/XRD for speleothem integrity and acoustic monitoring for bats will establish global baselines for karst fire resilience.

3.2 Modelling and Scenario Planning
Ventilation modelling of fire-induced airflow changes (“cave breathing”) will improve predictive capacity, while LiDAR cave-roof mapping can identify collapse risks in fire-affected zones. Scenario planning should integrate ecological thresholds, cultural knowledge, and hydrogeological sensitivity to design karst-specific fire buffers and emergency responses.

3.3 Governance and Geoethics
Legal and policy frameworks must evolve to reflect karst-specific fire vulnerabilities. International guidelines linking fire ecology, groundwater protection and geoethical land use should be developed, drawing on indigenous stewardship models (Kimmerer, 2013). Risk-sharing frameworks that combine government, community, and scientific monitoring will ensure that post-fire rehabilitation includes both ecological and cultural recovery.

3.4 Toward Global Best Practice
The integration of comparative case studies, advanced modelling, and geoethical governance will generate adaptive management strategies transferable across karst regions worldwide. By explicitly linking ecological resilience, groundwater protection, and subterranean heritage conservation, future research will enable karst systems to be managed not only for survival but for long-term sustainability in a warming, fire-prone world.

Figure 1. Schematic of fire impacts and geoethical management in karst systems.
The diagram illustrates the links between fire origins, current practices, emergency response, and risk management, and how these interact with karst vulnerabilities to generate ecological impacts. The study aim is positioned as an integrative response, combining literature review and case studies to identify resilience thresholds and best practices.

4. Conclusion
Karst systems are among the most sensitive and essential geological environments. Fire, while an intrinsic ecological force, poses amplified risks to these terrains due to their unique geological and hydrological features. Effective management requires geoethical, science-based approaches that integrate monitoring, scenario planning, and cultural knowledge. By combining literature synthesis with comparative case studies, this study provides a roadmap for developing karst-specific fire management strategies that safeguard biodiversity, water resources, and geological heritage.

References

1.      Badino, G. (2010). Underground meteorology - “what’s the weather like underground?” Acta Carsologica, 39(3), pp.427–448.

2.     
Bobrowsky, P., Cronin, V.S., Di Capua, G., Kieffer, S.W. and Peppoloni, S. (2017). The emerging field of geoethics. In: Wessel, G.R. and Greenberg, J.K. (eds.), Geoscience for the Public Good and Global Development: Toward a Sustainable Future. Geological Society of America, pp.175–198.

3.     
Boyles, J.G., Cryan, P.M., McCracken, G.F. and Kunz, T.H. (2011). Economic importance of bats in agriculture. Science, 332(6025), pp.41–42.

4.      Fairchild, I.J. and Baker, A. (2012). Speleothem Science: From Process to Past Environments. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.

5.      Ferreira, R.L., Martins, R.P. and Yanega, D. (2007). Ecology of bat guano in a Brazilian dry cave. Journal of Cave and Karst Studies, 69(1), pp.134–138.

6.      Ford, D. and Williams, P. (2007). Karst Hydrogeology and Geomorphology. Chichester: Wiley.

7.      Gill, A.M. (1975). Fire and the Australian flora: a review. Australian Forestry, 38(1), pp.4–25.
Kimmerer, R.W. (2013). Braiding Sweetgrass: Indigenous Wisdom, Scientific Knowledge, and the Teachings of Plants. Minneapolis: Milkweed Editions.

8.      Kunz, T.H. and Lumsden, L.F. (2003). Ecology of cavity and foliage roosting bats. In: Kunz, T.H. and Fenton, M.B. (eds.), Bat Ecology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp.3–89.

9.     
Moretti, M., Duelli, P. and Obrist, M.K. (2004). Arthropod biodiversity after forest fires: winners and losers in the winter fire regime of southern Switzerland. Ecography, 27(2), pp.173–186.

10.
Peppoloni, S. and Di Capua, G. (2015). The meaning of geoethics. In: Peppoloni, S. and Di Capua, G. (eds.), Geoethics: Ethical Challenges and Case Studies in Earth Sciences. Amsterdam: Elsevier, pp.3–14.

11.
Russo, D., Cistrone, L. and Jones, G. (2005). Spatial and temporal patterns of roost use by tree-dwelling barbastelle bats (Barbastella barbastellus). Ecography, 28(6), pp.769–776.

12.
Smith, B.J. and Atkinson, T.C. (1976). Lime weathering and the decay of building stones in a polluted environment. Proceedings of the Geological Association, 87(1), pp.1–14.

13.
White, W.B. (2019). Fifty years of karst hydrogeology and geomorphology. International Journal of Speleology, 48(1), pp.1–16.

14.
Williams, P. (2008). The role of the epikarst in karst and cave hydrogeology: a review. International Journal of Speleology, 37(1), pp.1–10.