Cited by 1,316Fire effects on ecosystemsEcology and Vegetation Dynamics StudiesRangeland and Wildlife Management

The Demise of Fire and “Mesophication” of Forests in the Eastern United States

Nowacki, Gregory J., Abrams, Marc D.·2008·BioScience

Abstract

A diverse array of fire-adapted plant communities once covered the eastern United States. European settlement greatly altered fire regimes, often increasing fire occurrence (e.g., in northern hardwoods) or substantially decreasing it (e.g., in tallgrass prairies). Notwithstanding these changes, fire suppression policies, beginning around the 1920s, greatly reduced fire throughout the East, with profound ecological consequences. Fire-maintained open lands converted to closed-canopy forests. As a result of shading, shade-tolerant, fire-sensitive plants began to replace heliophytic (sun-loving), fire-tolerant plants. A positive feedback cycle—which we term “mesophication”—ensued, whereby microenvironmental conditions (cool, damp, and shaded conditions; less flammable fuel beds) continually improve for shade-tolerant mesophytic species and deteriorate for shade-intolerant, fire-adapted species. Plant communities are undergoing rapid compositional and structural changes, some with no ecological antecedent. Stand-level species richness is declining, and will decline further, as numerous fire-adapted plants are replaced by a limited set of shade-tolerant, fire-sensitive species. As this process continues, the effort and cost required to restore fire-adapted ecosystems escalate rapidly.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1641/b580207

Cites

1 of 1 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?

  • Strong feedbacks between plants and fire mean that plants directly influence fire regimes.

    “However, strong feedbacks between plants and fire also mean that plants directly influence fire regimes (Beckage, Platt, & Gross, 2009;Nowacki & Abrams, 2008;Platt, Ellair, Huffman, Potts, & Beckage, 2016).”

    From Fire as a fundamental ecological process: Research advances and frontiers (2020) · cites this paper as Nowacki & Abrams, 2008

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Nowacki, G. J., & Abrams, M. D.
Affiliations
United States Department of Agriculture (US)
Venue
BioScience
Published
2008-02-01
Volume
58
Issue
2
Pages
123-138
ISSN
  • 0006-3568 (ISSN-L)
  • 1525-3244
OpenAlex
W2097153239
Cited by
1,316
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 70 · 2025: 85 · 2024: 75 · 2023: 89 · 2022: 81 · 2021: 101 · 2020: 103 · 2019: 86 · 2018: 87 · 2017: 64 · 2016: 83 · 2015: 73 · 2014: 78 · 2013: 71 · 2012: 56
FWCI
34.20
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • BioScience (publishedVersion)
  • BioOne Complete (BioOne) (submittedVersion)
Funders
U.S. Forest Service
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Fire effects on ecosystems
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Nature and Landscape Conservation › Ecology and Vegetation Dynamics Studies
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Rangeland and Wildlife Management
Keywords
fire suppression, mesophication, fire regimes, shade-tolerant species, fire-sensitive species, northern hardwood forest, tallgrass prairie, positive feedback, species richness decline, ecological restoration, eastern United States 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