Cited by 59Fire effects on ecosystemsRangeland and Wildlife ManagementFish Ecology and Management Studies

Do lakes feel the burn? Ecological consequences of increasing exposure of lakes to fire in the continental United States

McCullough, Ian M., Cheruvelil, Kendra Spence, Lapierre, Jean‐François, Lottig, Noah R., Moritz, Max A., Stachelek, Jemma, Soranno, Patricia A.·2019·Global Change Biology

Abstract

Wildfires are becoming larger and more frequent across much of the United States due to anthropogenic climate change. No studies, however, have assessed fire prevalence in lake watersheds at broad spatial and temporal scales, and thus it is unknown whether wildfires threaten lakes and reservoirs (hereafter, lakes) of the United States. We show that fire activity has increased in lake watersheds across the continental United States from 1984 to 2015, particularly since 2005. Lakes have experienced the greatest fire activity in the western United States, Southern Great Plains, and Florida. Despite over 30 years of increasing fire exposure, fire effects on fresh waters have not been well studied; previous research has generally focused on streams, and most of the limited lake-fire research has been conducted in boreal landscapes. We therefore propose a conceptual model of how fire may influence the physical, chemical, and biological properties of lake ecosystems by synthesizing the best available science from terrestrial, aquatic, fire, and landscape ecology. This model also highlights emerging research priorities and provides a starting point to help land and lake managers anticipate potential effects of fire on ecosystem services provided by fresh waters and their watersheds.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/gcb.14732

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
McCullough, I. M., Cheruvelil, K. S., Lapierre, J., Lottig, N. R., Moritz, M. A., Stachelek, J., & Soranno, P. A.
Affiliations
  • Michigan State University (US)
  • Université de Montréal (CA)
  • University of Wisconsin–Madison (US)
  • University of California, Santa Barbara (US)
Corresponding author
McCullough, Ian M.
Venue
Global Change Biology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2019-07-13
Volume
25
Issue
9
Pages
2841-2854
ISSN
  • 1354-1013 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2486
OpenAlex
W2957357737
Cited by
59
References
4
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 1
FWCI
0.39
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Global Change Biology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation (1638679, 1638554)
  • Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
  • National Institute of Food and Agriculture (1013544)
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 › Nature and Landscape Conservation › Fish Ecology and Management Studies
Keywords
forest fires, lake watersheds, fire exposure, lake ecosystems, climate change, fire frequency, conceptual model, ecosystem services, reservoirs, American West, Southern Great Plains, Florida
MeSH terms
Wildfires, Ecology, Florida, United States, Ecosystem, Lakes

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