Cited by 72Fire effects on ecosystemsRangeland and Wildlife ManagementBurn Injury Management and Outcomes

1984–2010 trends in fire burn severity and area for the conterminous US

Picotte, Joshua J., Peterson, Birgit, Meier, Gretchen, Howard, Stephen M.·2016·International Journal of Wildland Fire

Abstract

Burn severity products created by the Monitoring Trends in Burn Severity (MTBS) project were used to analyse historical trends in burn severity. Using a severity metric calculated by modelling the cumulative distribution of differenced Normalized Burn Ratio (dNBR) and Relativized dNBR (RdNBR) data, we examined burn area and burn severity of 4893 historical fires (1984–2010) distributed across the conterminous US (CONUS) and mapped by MTBS. Yearly mean burn severity values (weighted by area), maximum burn severity metric values, mean area of burn, maximum burn area and total burn area were evaluated within 27 US National Vegetation Classification macrogroups. Time series assessments of burned area and severity were performed using Mann–Kendall tests. Burned area and severity varied by vegetation classification, but most vegetation groups showed no detectable change during the 1984–2010 period. Of the 27 analysed vegetation groups, trend analysis revealed burned area increased in eight, and burn severity has increased in seven. This study suggests that burned area and severity, as measured by the severity metric based on dNBR or RdNBR, have not changed substantially for most vegetation groups evaluated within CONUS.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1071/wf15039

Cites

34 of 34 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?

  • MTBS has been the dataset of choice in studies on CONUS-wide trends in burn severity and area, forest disturbance, and vegetation type conversion after wildland fire.

    “MTBS has been the dataset of choice in studies on CONUS-wide trends in burn severity and area28,29, forest disturbance30, and vegetation type conversion after wildland fire31.”

    From Burned forests impact water supplies (2018) · cites this paper as [29]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Picotte, J. J., Peterson, B., Meier, G., & Howard, S. M.
Affiliations
United States Geological Survey (US)
Corresponding author
  • Picotte, Joshua J.
  • Howard, Stephen M.
Venue
International Journal of Wildland Fire
Published
2016-03-10
Volume
25
Issue
4
Pages
413-420
ISSN
  • 1049-8001 (ISSN-L)
  • 1448-5516
OpenAlex
W2294271061
Cited by
72
References
34
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 14 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 3
FWCI
7.91
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
International Journal of Wildland Fire (publishedVersion)
Funders
U.S. Geological Survey
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Fire effects on ecosystems
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Rangeland and Wildlife Management
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Burn Injury Management and Outcomes
Keywords
burned area, fire trends, Monitoring Trends in Burn Severity, Normalized Burn Ratio, vegetation classification, contiguous United States, fire history, Mann-Kendall test

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