Article / Book
View article.
In this white paper, we assert that the current wildfire management approach has partially inverted the wildfire problem as one in which wildland fires encroach on communities when, in actuality, it is communities that have increasingly impinged on wildlands where fires might appropriately play an important ecological role. As a result, predominant strategies continue to apply shortsighted, risk-averse reactions emphasizing community protection at the expense of creating resilient landscapes and promoting safe and effective wildfire responses. In doing so, managers are inadvertently limiting agency ability to build fire-adapted communities and generate landscape vegetation and fire conditions that support more meaningful and useful change.
View article.
We combined predicted susceptibility with burn probability to quantify the 10-year total risk of cheatgrass dominance. Finally, we identified portions of the landscape (1) at risk of fire-induced conversion to cheatgrass dominance, (2) consistently susceptible to cheatgrass dominance, or (3) consistently resistant to cheatgrass dominance. At the scale of the sagebrush biome, we found that abiotic susceptibility to cheatgrass dominance drives total risk, regardless of fire. At local scales (i.e., individual 30 m pixels), burning increased the probability of cheatgrass dominance by a median of 14 %. Threshold-based analyses indicate that 10–31 % of the sagebrush biome was at risk of fire-induced dominance, with 55 % exhibiting abiotic resistance and 5 % exhibiting abiotic susceptibility to dominance regardless of fire. Burn probability was higher in areas predicted to be susceptible to dominance, illustrating how cheatgrass invasion can cause ecosystem conversions that are then sustained by grass-fire cycles. Disentangling the influence of abiotic conditions and fire contributes to our understanding of the mechanisms driving invasion dynamics, and modeling the probability of dominance can help anticipate where ecological transformations are at risk of occurring. Our approach can facilitate the prioritization of management actions in the sagebrush biome and be used as a framework for modeling invasion risk in other disturbance-prone ecosystems.
View article.
Here, we compared the effects of mechanical seeding techniques on soil properties following two wildfires occurring in similar climates with contrasting soil textures (silty loam and gravelly loam soils). Using either a rangeland or minimum-till drill to create furrows or mix broadcasted seeds into soils, we quantified wind erosion risk for unburned sites, burned nonseeded sites, and seeded sites according to soil aggregate stability, horizontal sediment flux, surface microtopography, and soil compaction. Effects of mechanical seeding were small relative to those created by wildfire. For burned areas, differences in site stability were greatest between sites. Following wildfire, the largest decrease in site stability occurred in fine-textured soils, where horizontal sediment transport was increased by nearly five orders of magnitude relative to unburned areas. Despite these initial differences, site stability in fine-textured soils may have improved to a greater degree than stability at the coarse-textured site. Furthermore, we found minimal differences between drill types on site stability but, instead, observed that the largest differences in soil properties were created by furrow versus broadcast seeding. The different outcomes of rehabilitation on site stability found here, paired with the spatial extent to which wildfire affects landscapes, highlights the importance of postfire monitoring of site stability in more locations that vary by soil, plant, landscape, and climatic variables.
View article.
We find that significant precursors for fire suppression resource deployment are location, fire weather, canopy cover, Wildland–Urban Interface category, and history of past fire. These results align partially with, but are distinct from, results of earlier research modelling expenditures related to suppression which include precursors such as total burned area which become observable only after an incident.
View article.
Our pinyon jay abundance model allowed abundance relationships with pinyon pine and juniper to vary by ecoregion, thereby accounting for potential regional differences in habitat associations. We found pinyon jay abundance was generally positively associated with pinyon pine and juniper cover; however, habitat relationships varied by ecoregion. Additionally, we found positive associations between jay abundance and grass cover, sagebrush cover, and percent bare ground. Our results agree with prior research suggesting mechanical removal of pinyon pine and juniper trees for sagebrush restoration or fuel treatments may negatively affect pinyon jay. Managers wishing to reduce pinyon and juniper tree cover without negatively affecting pinyon jay may benefit from targeting sites where both large-scale distribution models and our local habitat relationships suggest pinyon jay are likely to occur in low numbers. Additionally, our modeled relationships indicate restoration that increases grass cover, sagebrush cover, and bare ground, while maintaining pinyon and (or) juniper cover, may lead to increased local densities of pinyon jay.
View article.
Respondents reported that while flexible federal policy and interagency guidance was important, suitable landscape conditions, organizational capacity, support from national and regional leadership, updated management plans, increased monitoring capacity, and adequate performance measures also influence the decision to use OTFS strategies.
View article.
Drawing insights from the Australian and Canadian contexts where governments are restoring lands and reconciling with the laws and governance of Indigenous Peoples, we illustrate how IFS interacts with the state. We do this in two ways. Figure 1 shows that the state has three general strategies for dealing with IFS: avoidance (ignoring IFS), coping strategies (carefully considering and sometimes accommodating IFS), and learning (embracing and accommodating IFS). We document that post-wildfire, there are affective drivers that move the state’s approach from avoidance to learning; however, over time, as public attention shifts away from alternatives, the strategy moves back to either avoidance or coping strategies (where the state is required to engage with IFS, but cannot fully embrace it because of institutional, tenure, or jurisdictional issues, among other constraints). Figure 2 documents the six coping strategies available to bureaucracies in dealing with IFS, which either institutionalize, partially institutionalize, or do not institutionalize IFS. Each of these pathways has implications for IFS, and the manuscript details the effects on IFS practices, and the impacts for people and landscapes.
View article.
Enactment of the Clean Air Act (CAA), Endangered Species Act (ESA), and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), three of the primary federal environmental laws, all coincided with the height of fire suppression and exclusion in the United States. These laws fail to acknowledge or account for the importance of fire in many fire-adapted and fire-dependent ecosystems, particularly in the American west, or the imperative for fire restoration to improve resiliency and reduce wildfire risk as identified by western science and Indigenous knowledge. We review the statutory and regulatory provisions of these federal laws to identify how the existing policy framework misaligns with the unique role of fire in ecosystems and with Tribal sovereignty, identify specific barriers and disincentives to beneficial fire use, and propose specific policy reforms.
View article.
We found three-fold differences in mean Daily Area Burned among 10 North American ecoregions, ranging from 260 ha day-1 in the Marine West Coast Forests to 751 ha day-1 in Mediterranean California. Ecoregional extreme thresholds ranged from 3,829 ha day-1 to 16,626 ha day-1, relative to a continental threshold of 7,173 ha day-1. The ~3% of events classified as extreme cumulatively account for 16–55% of total area burned among ecoregions. We observed four-fold differences in mean fire duration, ranging from 2.7 days in the Great Plains to 10.5 days in Northwestern Forested Mountains. Regions with shorter fire durations also had greater daily area burned, suggesting a paradigm of fast-growing short-duration fires in some regions and slow-growing long-duration fires elsewhere. CWD had a weak positive relationship with spread rate and extreme thresholds, and there was no pattern for AET. Discussion: Regions with shorter fire durations had greater daily area burned, suggesting a paradigm of fast-growing short-duration fires in some regions and slow-growing long-duration fires elsewhere. Although climatic conditions can set the stage for ignition and influence vegetation and fuels, finer-scale mechanisms likely drive variation in daily spread. Daily fire progression offers valuable insights into the regional and seasonal distributions of extreme single-day spread events, and how these events shape net fire effects.
View article.
Potential drivers of current carbon included harvest, wildfire, insect and disease, topography, and climate. Using random forests, we evaluated driver importance and relationships with current live and dead carbon within ecoregions. We assessed trends using linear models. Pacific Northwest (PNW) and Southwest (SW) ecoregions were most and least carbon dense, respectively. Climate was an important carbon driver in the SW and Lower Rockies. Fire reduced live and increased dead carbon, and was most important in the Upper Rockies and California. No ecoregion was unaffected by fire. Harvest and private ownership reduced carbon, particularly in the PNW. Since 2005, live carbon declined across much of the western US, likely from drought and fire. Carbon has increased in PNW ecoregions, likely recovering from past harvest, but recent record fire years may alter trajectories. Our results provide insight into western US forest carbon function and future vulnerabilities, which is vital for effective climate change mitigation strategies.