Cited by 232Fire effects on ecosystemsForest Management and PolicyRangeland and Wildlife Management

Forest fire causes and extent on United States Forest Service lands

Stephens, Scott L.·2005·International Journal of Wildland Fire

Abstract

Nationally, the causes and extent of fire on lands administrated by the United States Forest Service varied significantly from 1940 to 2000, with California experiencing the largest relative annual burned areas. The south-east and California experienced the largest relative area burned by fires from human ignitions. No significant differences were detected in the relative area burned by lightning in California, the upper and central Rocky Mountains, and the south-west, which all experienced the highest levels. The north-west and Rocky Mountains have experienced significant increases in the relative total area burned; the north-east, south-east, California, and coastal Alaska all remained unchanged. The northern Rocky Mountains, south-west, and north-east have all experienced significant increases in the amount of area burned by lightning without significant increases in lightning ignitions. Increasing fuel hazards in these areas probably contributed to the increasing area burned by lightning fires; changing climate could have also contributed to the increase in wildfire area from 1940 to 2000. To be effective across the diverse forest types and conditions in the USA, fire policy should better recognize and respond to the diversity of US forests and how they have burned in the past. This analysis determined that there is high geographical diversity on wildfire occurrence and causes. Local input is therefore important in designing diverse, ground-based solutions to address fire management challenges in the United States.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1071/wf04006

Cites

33 of 33 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Several studies indicate that people are important in redistributing ignition sources, especially where lightning is rare or not concurrent with dry conditions.

    “However, several studies suggest that humans play an important role in redistributing ignitions (20–22), particularly where lightning rarely occurs or where lightning is not concurrent with dry conditions (23).”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 34 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Stephens, S. L.
Affiliations
University of California, Berkeley (US)
Corresponding author
Stephens, Scott L.
Venue
International Journal of Wildland Fire
Published
2005
Volume
14
Issue
3
Pages
213
ISSN
1049-8001 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1657432057
Cited by
232
References
34
Citations by year
2025: 8 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 15 · 2017: 15 · 2016: 16 · 2015: 14 · 2014: 18 · 2013: 15 · 2012: 17
FWCI
11.42
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
International Journal of Wildland Fire (publishedVersion)
Funders
U.S. Forest Service
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Fire effects on ecosystems
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Forest Management and Policy
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Rangeland and Wildlife Management
Keywords
forest fires, wildfire causes, burned area, human ignition, lightning fires, fire regime change, climate change, fire policy

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