Cited by 165Fire effects on ecosystemsRangeland and Wildlife ManagementForest Management and Policy

Limitations and utilisation of Monitoring Trends in Burn Severity products for assessing wildfire severity in the USA

Kolden, Crystal A., Smith, Alistair M. S., Abatzoglou, John T.·2015·International Journal of Wildland Fire

Abstract

The Monitoring Trends in Burn Severity project is a comprehensive fire atlas for the United States that includes perimeters and severity data for all fires greater than a particular size (~400 ha in the western US, and ~200 ha in the eastern US). Although the database was derived for management purposes, the scientific community has expressed interest in its research capacity. As with any derived data, it is critical to understand inherent limitations to maximise the utility of the dataset without compromising the inferences. The classified severity product in particular is of limited use to research due to a lack of both consistency in developing class thresholds and empirical relationships with ecological metrics. Here we review the products available and their development process, and characterise and quantify the limitations of the classified burn severity data product based on the use of highly variable and subjective classification thresholds. We suggest a framework for overcoming these limitations by developing a more robust classified product that will support ecological management and applications. This framework utilises field data to develop consistent, ecologically based thresholds that incorporate existing ecoregion classifications from LANDFIRE or other fire management frameworks already widely integrated into planning efforts.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1071/wf15082

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?

  • Despite uncertainty in burn severity classification thresholds, especially for moderate and high burn severity classes, the influence on river flow was consistently greater when these classes were accounted for individually.

    “Despite the uncertainty in burn severity classification thresholds, especially for moderate and high burn severity classes21, we report a consistently greater influence on river flow when these classes were accounted for individually.”

    From Burned forests impact water supplies (2018) · cites this paper as [21]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kolden, C. A., Smith, A. M. S., & Abatzoglou, J. T.
Affiliations
University of Idaho (US)
Corresponding author
Kolden, Crystal A.
Venue
International Journal of Wildland Fire
Published
2015-09-14
Volume
24
Issue
7
Pages
1023-1028
ISSN
  • 1049-8001 (ISSN-L)
  • 1448-5516
OpenAlex
W2100172535
Cited by
165
References
33
Citations by year
2026: 12 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 17 · 2021: 18 · 2020: 23 · 2019: 15 · 2018: 15 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 14 · 2015: 3
FWCI
11.74
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
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Forest Management and Policy
Keywords
Monitoring Trends in Burn Severity, burn severity, wildfire severity, classification threshold, severity classification, LANDFIRE, ecoregions, fire management, field validation, ecological metrics

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