Cited by 56Fire effects on ecosystemsPlant Water Relations and Carbon DynamicsForest ecology and management

Impacts of fire radiative flux on mature Pinus ponderosa growth and vulnerability to secondary mortality agents

Sparks, Aaron M., Smith, Alistair M. S., Talhelm, Alan F., Kolden, Crystal A., Yedinak, Kara M., Johnson, Daniel M.·2017·International Journal of Wildland Fire

Abstract

Recent studies have highlighted the potential of linking fire behaviour to plant ecophysiology as an improved route to characterising severity, but research to date has been limited to laboratory-scale investigations. Fine-scale fire behaviour during prescribed fires has been identified as a strong predictor of post-fire tree recovery and growth, but most studies report these metrics averaged over the entire fire. Previous research has found inconsistent effects of low-intensity fire on mature Pinus ponderosa growth. In this study, fire behaviour was quantified at the tree scale and compared with post-fire radial growth and axial resin duct defences. Results show a clear dose–response relationship between peak fire radiative power per unit area (W m–2) and post-fire Pinus ponderosa radial growth. Unlike in previous laboratory research on seedlings, there was no dose–response relationship observed between fire radiative energy per unit area (J m–2) and post-fire mature tree growth in the surviving trees. These results may suggest that post-fire impacts on growth of surviving seedlings and mature trees require other modes of heat transfer to impact plant canopies. This study demonstrates that increased resin duct defence is induced regardless of fire intensity, which may decrease Pinus ponderosa vulnerability to secondary mortality agents.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1071/wf16139

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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?

  • Thermography at fine scales allows detailed knowledge about heat transfer and tree injury.

    “Heat fluxes can be measured at very fine scales using thermography at sub-centimetre and sub-second scales (Figure 4; O'Brien et al., 2016), which allows detailed knowledge about heat transfer and tree injury (Sparks et al., 2017).”

    From Fire as a fundamental ecological process: Research advances and frontiers (2020) · cites this paper as Sparks et al., 2017

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Sparks, A. M., Smith, A. M. S., Talhelm, A. F., Kolden, C. A., Yedinak, K. M., & Johnson, D. M.
Affiliations
  • University of Idaho (US)
  • Environmental Protection Agency (US)
Corresponding author
Sparks, Aaron M.
Venue
International Journal of Wildland Fire
Published
2017-01-10
Volume
26
Issue
1
Pages
95-106
ISSN
  • 1049-8001 (ISSN-L)
  • 1448-5516
OpenAlex
W2569217554
Cited by
56
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 3
FWCI
3.60
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
International Journal of Wildland Fire (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Fire effects on ecosystems
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Plant Water Relations and Carbon Dynamics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Nature and Landscape Conservation › Forest ecology and management
Keywords
fire radiative power, ponderosa pine, fire intensity, dose-response relationship, fire behavior, prescribed burning

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