Cited by 198Fire effects on ecosystemsAvian ecology and behaviorRangeland and Wildlife Management

Megafires: An emerging threat to old-forest species

Open access
Jones, Gavin M, Gutiérrez, RJ, Tempel, Douglas J, Whitmore, Sheila A, Berigan, William J, Peery, M Zachariah·2016·Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment

Abstract

Increasingly frequent “megafires” in North America's dry forests have prompted proposals to restore historical fire regimes and ecosystem resilience. Restoration efforts that reduce tree densities (eg via logging) could have collateral impacts on declining old‐forest species, but whether these risks outweigh the potential effects of large, severe fires remains uncertain. We demonstrate the effects of a 2014 California megafire on an iconic old‐forest species, the spotted owl (Strix occidentalis). The probability of owl site extirpation was seven times higher after the fire (0.88) than before the fire (0.12) at severely burned sites, contributing to the greatest annual population decline observed during our 23‐year study. The fire also rendered large areas of forest unsuitable for owl foraging one year post‐fire. Our study suggests that megafires pose a threat to old‐forest species, and we conclude that restoring historical fire regimes could benefit both old‐forest species and the dry forest ecosystems they inhabit in this era of climate change.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/fee.1298

Cites

34 of 34 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 36 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [37]37. J Supporting Information Additional, web-only material may be found in the online version of this article at http://onlinelibrary. wiley.com/doi/10.1002/fee.1298/suppinfo 15409309, 2016, 6, · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Jones, G. M., Gutiérrez, R., Tempel, D. J., Whitmore, S. A., Berigan, W. J., & Peery, M. Z.
Affiliations
  • University of Wisconsin–Madison (US)
  • University of Minnesota (US)
Corresponding author
Peery, M Zachariah
Venue
Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2016-08
Volume
14
Issue
6
Pages
300-306
ISSN
  • 1540-9295 (ISSN-L)
  • 1540-9309
OpenAlex
W2486079185
Cited by
198
References
36
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 17 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 17 · 2022: 27 · 2021: 35 · 2020: 24 · 2019: 22 · 2018: 17 · 2017: 14 · 2016: 4
FWCI
14.09
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • California Department of Fish and Wildlife
  • University of Wisconsin-Madison
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Fire effects on ecosystems
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Avian ecology and behavior
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Rangeland and Wildlife Management
Keywords
megafires, spotted owl, Strix occidentalis, fire regime restoration, population decline (ecology), foraging habitat, dry forest, post-fire forest recovery, logging, climate change, California

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review