Cited by 191Fire effects on ecosystemsEcosystem dynamics and resiliencePlant Water Relations and Carbon Dynamics

Influences of fire–vegetation feedbacks and post‐fire recovery rates on forest landscape vulnerability to altered fire regimes

Open access
Tepley, Alan J., Thomann, Enrique, Veblen, Thomas T., Perry, George L. W., Holz, Andrés, Paritsis, Juan, Kitzberger, Thomas, Anderson‐Teixeira, Kristina J.·2018·Journal of Ecology

Abstract

Abstract In the context of ongoing climatic warming, forest landscapes face increasing risk of conversion to non‐forest vegetation through alteration of their fire regimes and their post‐fire recovery dynamics. However, this pressure could be amplified or dampened, depending on how fire‐driven changes to vegetation feed back to alter the extent or behaviour of subsequent fires. Here we develop a mathematical model to formalize understanding of how fire–vegetation feedbacks and the time to forest recovery following high‐severity (i.e. stand‐replacing) fire affect the extent and stability of forest cover across landscapes facing altered fire regimes. We evaluate responses to increasing burn rates while varying the direction (negative vs. positive) of fire–vegetation feedbacks under a continuum of values for feedback strength and post‐fire recovery time. In doing so, we determine how interactions among these variables produce thresholds and tipping points in landscape responses to changing fire regimes. Where the early‐seral vegetation was less fire‐prone than older forests, negative feedbacks limited the reductions in forest cover in response to higher fire frequency or slower forest recovery. By contrast, positive feedbacks (more flammable early‐seral vegetation) produced a tipping point beyond which increases in burn rates or a slowing of forest recovery drove extensive forest loss. With negative feedbacks, the rates of forest loss and expansion in response to variation in fire frequency were similar. However, where feedbacks were positive, the conversion from predominantly forested to non‐forested conditions in response to increasing fire frequency was faster than the re‐expansion of forest cover following a return to the initial burn rate. Strengthening the positive feedbacks increased this asymmetry. Synthesis . Our analyses elucidate how fire–vegetation feedbacks and post‐fire recovery rates interact to affect the trajectories and rates of landscape response to altered fire regimes. We illustrate the vulnerability of ecosystems with positive fire–vegetation feedbacks to climate change‐driven increases in fire activity, especially where post‐fire recovery is slow. Although negative feedbacks initially provide resistance to forest loss with increasing burn rates, this resistance is eventually overwhelmed with sufficient increases to burn rates relative to recovery times.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/1365-2745.12950

Cites

3 of 3 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?

  • Negative feedbacks reduce the probability of reburning, limiting the amount of forest lost as the climate becomes more conducive to fire.

    “Negative feedbacks (a) reduce the probability of reburning, limiting the amount of forest lost as the climate become more conducive to fire.”

    From Fire as a fundamental ecological process: Research advances and frontiers (2020) · cites this paper as Tepley et al., 2018

  • Positive feedbacks produce a threshold, where small increases in either fire activity or the time to forest recovery after severe fire can shift the system from forest to non-forest cover.

    “Positive feedbacks (b) produce a threshold, where small increases in either fire activity or the time to forest recovery after severe fire can shift the system from forest to non-forest cover.”

    From Fire as a fundamental ecological process: Research advances and frontiers (2020) · cites this paper as Tepley et al., 2018

  • Feedbacks between fire and vegetation interact with post-fire forest recovery rates to mediate responses to altered fire regimes in landscapes that currently support forest cover.

    “Feedbacks between fire and vegetation interact with post-fire forest recovery rates to mediate responses to altered fire regimes in landscapes that currently support forest cover.”

    From Fire as a fundamental ecological process: Research advances and frontiers (2020) · cites this paper as Tepley et al., 2018

  • The direction and strength of the feedbacks (f- and f+) interact with the time to forest recovery (r) after high-severity fire to determine how the proportion of a landscape that supports forest cover (FC) varies as fire activity increases.

    “The direction and strength of the feedbacks (f -and f + ) interact with the time to forest recovery (r) after high-severity fire to determine how the proportion of a landscape that supports forest cover (FC) varies as fire activity increases.”

    From Fire as a fundamental ecological process: Research advances and frontiers (2020) · cites this paper as Tepley et al., 2018

  • High-severity fire alters fuel and microclimate, making sites either more (positive feedback) or less (negative feedback) likely to reburn soon after a severe fire.

    “High-severity fire alters fuel and microclimate, making sites either more (positive feedback) or less (negative feedback) likely to reburn soon after a severe fire.”

    From Fire as a fundamental ecological process: Research advances and frontiers (2020) · cites this paper as Tepley et al., 2018

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Tepley, A. J., Thomann, E., Veblen, T. T., Perry, G. L. W., Holz, A., Paritsis, J., Kitzberger, T., & Anderson‐Teixeira, K. J.
Affiliations
  • Smithsonian Conservation Biology Institute (US)
  • Oregon State University (US)
  • University of Colorado Boulder (US)
  • University of Auckland (NZ)
  • Portland State University (US)
  • Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas (AR)
  • Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute (PA)
Corresponding author
Tepley, Alan J.
Venue
Journal of Ecology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2018-03-26
Volume
106
Issue
5
Pages
1925-1940
ISSN
  • 0022-0477 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2745
OpenAlex
W2795085257
Cited by
191
References
3
Citations by year
2026: 24 · 2025: 23 · 2024: 24 · 2023: 28 · 2022: 32 · 2021: 19 · 2020: 19 · 2019: 15 · 2018: 6
FWCI
8.63
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
Journal of Ecology (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation (BCS‐0956552, DEB‐0823380, DEB‐1353301, DGE‐0333257, EAR‐1738104, OISE‐0966472)
  • Ministry for Business Innovation and Employment (Project 3.1, New Zealand's National Heritage)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Fire effects on ecosystems
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Ecosystem dynamics and resilience
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Plant Water Relations and Carbon Dynamics
Keywords
fire-vegetation feedbacks, post-fire recovery, tipping points, stand-replacing fire, burning rate, climate change, forest loss, mathematical model

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