Cited by 776Fire effects on ecosystemsForest Management and PolicyRangeland and Wildlife Management

The DOI matches its Crossref record; the references it cites are not checked yet.

The Interaction of Fire, Fuels, and Climate across Rocky Mountain Forests

Abstract

Understanding the relative influence of fuels and climate on wildfires across the Rocky Mountains is necessary to predict how fires may respond to a changing climate and to define effective fuel management approaches to controlling wildfire in this increasingly populated region. The idea that decades of fire suppression have promoted unnatural fuel accumulation and subsequent unprecedentedly large, severe wildfires across western forests has been developed primarily from studies of dry ponderosa pine forests. However, this model is being applied uncritically across Rocky Mountain forests (e.g., in the Healthy Forests Restoration Act). We synthesize current research and summarize lessons learned from recent large wildfires (the Yellowstone, Rodeo-Chediski, and Hayman fires), which represent case studies of the potential effectiveness of fuel reduction across a range of major forest types. A “one size fits all” approach to reducing wildfire hazards in the Rocky Mountain region is unlikely to be effective and may produce collateral damage in some places.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1641/0006-3568(2004)054[0661:tioffa]2.0.co;2

Cites

Statistics

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

Verification

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?

  • In crown-fire systems, the lessons learned concerning vegetative responses from other forest types may be misleading.

    “In these crown-fire systems, the lessons learned concerning vegetative responses from other forest types may be misleading (Schoennagel et al. 2004).”

    From The Effects of Forest Fuel-Reduction Treatments in the United States (2012) · cites this paper as Schoennagel et al. 2004

Citations

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 48 · Cited by 776

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Agee, 1998, Northwest Science, 72, 24
  2. Rollins, 2002, Landscape Ecology, 17, 539, 10.1023/A:1021584519109 · DOI
  3. Wakimoto, 1989, Western Wildlands, 15, 35

Metadata

Authors
SCHOENNAGEL, T., VEBLEN, T. T., & ROMME, W. H.
Affiliations
  • University of Colorado Boulder (US)
  • Colorado State University (US)
Venue
BioScience
Published
2004
Volume
54
Issue
7
Pages
661
ISSN
0006-3568 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2134886615
Cited by
776
References
48
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 20 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 24 · 2021: 39 · 2020: 32 · 2019: 30 · 2018: 51 · 2017: 39 · 2016: 51 · 2015: 48 · 2014: 44 · 2013: 46 · 2012: 38
FWCI
34.54
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • BioScience (publishedVersion)
  • Digital Commons - USU (Utah State University) (submittedVersion)
  • BioOne Complete (BioOne) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation (0314305)
  • U.S. Geological Survey
  • U.S. Forest Service
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Fire effects on ecosystems
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Forestry › Forest Management and Policy
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Rangeland and Wildlife Management
Keywords
forest fires, fuel management, climate change, Rocky Mountain forests, fire suppression, fuel accumulation, Hayman Fire, ponderosa pine forests, fire hazard reduction, forest restoration

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