Cited by 228Fire effects on ecosystemsForest Management and PolicyRangeland and Wildlife Management

Environmental drivers of large, infrequent wildfires: The emerging conceptual model

Meyn, Andrea, White, Peter S., Buhk, Constanze, Jentsch, Anke·2007·Progress in Physical Geography: Earth and Environment

Abstract

Large, infrequent fires (LIFs) can have substantial impacts on both ecosystems and the economy. To better understand LIFs and to better predict the effects of human management and climate change on their occurrence, we must first determine the factors that produce them. Here, we review local and regional literature investigating the drivers of LIFs. The emerging conceptual model proposes that ecosystems can be typified based on climatic conditions that determine both fuel moisture and fuel amount. The concept distinguishes three ecosystem types: (1) biomass-rich, rarely dry ecosystems where fuel moisture rather than fuel amount limits LIFs; (2) biomass-poor, at least seasonally dry ecosystems where fuel amount rather than fuel moisture limits LIFs; and (3) biomass-poor, rarely dry ecosystems where both fuel amount and fuel moisture limit the occurrence of LIFs. Our main goal in this paper is to discuss the drivers of LIFs and the three mentioned ecosystem types in a global context. Further, we will discuss the drivers that are not included within the `fuels' versus `climate' discussion. Finally, we will address the question: what kinds of additional information are needed if models predicting LIFs are to be coupled with global climate models? As with all generalizations, there are local deviations and modifications due to processes such as disturbance interaction or human impact. These processes tend to obscure the general patterns of the occurrence of LIFs and are likely to cause much of the observed controversy and confusion in the literature.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/0309133307079365

Cites

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?

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 126 · Cited by 228

Authors
Meyn, A., White, P. S., Buhk, C., & Jentsch, A.
Affiliations
  • Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (DE)
  • University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (US)
  • Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg (DE)
  • Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research (DE)
Venue
Progress in Physical Geography: Earth and Environment
Published
2007-06
Volume
31
Issue
3
Pages
287-312
ISSN
  • 0309-1333 (ISSN-L)
  • 1477-0296
OpenAlex
W2118298886
Cited by
228
References
126
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 22 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 16 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 14 · 2017: 16 · 2016: 17 · 2015: 16 · 2014: 22 · 2013: 15 · 2012: 10
FWCI
6.98
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Progress in Physical Geography Earth and Environment (publishedVersion)
  • ERef Bayreuth (University of Bayreuth) (submittedVersion)
  • Publication Database PIK (Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK)) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Fire effects on ecosystems
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Forest Management and Policy
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Rangeland and Wildlife Management
Keywords
wildfire drivers, fuel moisture content, ecosystem typology, climate and fire, biomass, fire prediction, climate change impacts on fire, disturbance interactions, human impact on fire, conceptual 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