Cited by 695Fire effects on ecosystemsPlant Water Relations and Carbon DynamicsForest Management and Policy

Evidence for declining forest resilience to wildfires under climate change.

Stevens‐Rumann, Camille S., Kemp, Kerry B., Higuera, Philip E., Harvey, Brian J., Rother, Monica T., Donato, Daniel C., Morgan, Penelope, Veblen, Thomas T.·2018·Ecology Letters

Abstract

Forest resilience to climate change is a global concern given the potential effects of increased disturbance activity, warming temperatures and increased moisture stress on plants. We used a multi‐regional dataset of 1485 sites across 52 wildfires from the US Rocky Mountains to ask if and how changing climate over the last several decades impacted post‐fire tree regeneration, a key indicator of forest resilience. Results highlight significant decreases in tree regeneration in the 21st century. Annual moisture deficits were significantly greater from 2000 to 2015 as compared to 1985–1999, suggesting increasingly unfavourable post‐fire growing conditions, corresponding to significantly lower seedling densities and increased regeneration failure. Dry forests that already occur at the edge of their climatic tolerance are most prone to conversion to non‐forests after wildfires. Major climate‐induced reduction in forest density and extent has important consequences for a myriad of ecosystem services now and in the future.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/ele.12889

Cites

4 of 4 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?

  • Many recent fires have had negative consequences for natural ecosystems and humans.

    “Many recent fires have had negative consequences for natural ecosystems and humans (Balch et al., 2018;Stevens-Rumann et al., 2018).”

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Stevens‐Rumann, C. S., Kemp, K. B., Higuera, P. E., Harvey, B. J., Rother, M. T., Donato, D. C., Morgan, P., & Veblen, T. T.
Affiliations
  • University of Idaho (US)
  • The Nature Conservancy (US)
  • University of Montana (US)
  • University of Washington (US)
  • University of Colorado Boulder (US)
  • Washington Department of Natural Resources (US)
Corresponding author
Stevens‐Rumann, Camille S.
Venue
Ecology Letters
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2017-12-12
Volume
21
Issue
2
Pages
243-252
ISSN
  • 1461-023X (ISSN-L)
  • 1461-0248
OpenAlex
W2773667339
Cited by
695
References
4
Citations by year
2026: 70 · 2025: 80 · 2024: 68 · 2023: 95 · 2022: 90 · 2021: 97 · 2020: 78 · 2019: 72 · 2018: 42 · 2012: 1
FWCI
34.73
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Ecology Letters (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • U.S. Department of Agriculture (12‐JV‐11221637‐136)
  • National Science Foundation (1232997, 0966472, DGE‐0903479)
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 › Global and Planetary Change › Forest Management and Policy
Keywords
forest resilience, forest fires, climate change, seedling density, moisture deficit, dry forest, forest conversion, Rocky Mountains, ecosystem services
MeSH terms
Wildfires, Fires, Trees, Climate Change, Forests

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