Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 401

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 174 of the 174 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Understanding Brazil’s catastrophic fires: Causes, consequences and policy needed to prevent future tragedies

Open access
Pivello, Vânia R., Vieira, Ima, Christianini, Alexander V., Ribeiro, Danilo Bandini, da Silva Menezes, Luciana, Berlinck, Christian Niel, Melo, Felipe P.L., Marengo, José Antonio, Tornquist, Carlos Gustavo, Tomas, Walfrido Moraes, Overbeck, Gerhard E.·2021·Perspectives in Ecology and Conservation

Abstract

Brazil has experienced unprecedented wildfires in the last decade. Images ofimmense burnt areas or dead animals that failed to escape the 2020 wildfires have shocked the world. To prevent or minimize further similardisasters wemustunderstandthe factors thathave ledto these catastrophic events. The causes and consequences of wildfires entail complex interactions between the biophysical and sociocultural spheres, and suitable management decisions require a sound scientific base. We present the recent panorama of increasing fire outbreaks in the Brazilian biomes, and discuss the causes that have contributed to such fires, their impacts on the environment and overall consequences for human well-being, based on reviewing the extensive specialist literature, on authors’ expert knowledge and information provided by environmental managers, researchers and politicians during a workshop organized to debate the wildfire issue in Brazil. Our up-to-date review is aimed at the academic public, environmental managers and decision- and policy-makers. First, we present evidence on the contrasting effects of fire on different ecosystems. Second, we outline the historic perceptions and policies related to fire use and management in Brazil since its colonization to the present date. Third, we propose means to advance fire prevention and develop successful management strategies. Finally, we answer frequently asked questions to clarify and/or demystify some fire-related issues not always properly addressed in the media.

Overview

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 · 10.1016/j.pecon.2021.06.005

Cites

174 of 174 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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.

Citations

Cites

Show all 174 references

Cited by

See all 401

Metadata

Authors
Pivello, V. R., Vieira, I., Christianini, A. V., Ribeiro, D. B., da Silva Menezes, L., Berlinck, C. N., Melo, F. P. L., Marengo, J. A., Tornquist, C. G., Tomas, W. M., & Overbeck, G. E.
Venue
Perspectives in Ecology and Conservation
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2021-07
Volume
19
Issue
3
Pages
233-255
ISSN
2530-0644 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3185798974
Cited by
401
References
174
FWCI
24.77
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
diamond

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Understanding Brazil’s catastrophic fires: Causes, consequences and policy needed to prevent future tragedies. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.pecon.2021.06.005
The paper
Pivello, V. R., Vieira, I., Christianini, A. V., Ribeiro, D. B., da Silva Menezes, L., Berlinck, C. N., Melo, F. P. L., Marengo, J. A., Tornquist, C. G., Tomas, W. M., & Overbeck, G. E. (2021). Understanding Brazil’s catastrophic fires: Causes, consequences and policy needed to prevent future tragedies. Perspectives in Ecology and Conservation. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pecon.2021.06.005

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.