CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 101Fire effects on ecosystemsRangeland and Wildlife ManagementForest Management and Policy

Ecological foundations for fire management in North American forest and shrubland ecosystems

Keeley, J.E., Aplet, G.H., Christensen, N.L., Conard, S.G., Johnson, E.A., Omi, P.N., Peterson, D.L., Swetnam, T.W.·2009
DOI 10.2737/pnw-gtr-779
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

This synthesis provides an ecological foundation for management of the diverse ecosystems and fire regimes of North America based on scientific principles of fire interactions with vegetation, fuels, and biophysical processes. Although a large amount of scientific data on fire exists, most of those data have been collected at small spatial and temporal scales. Thus, it is challenging to develop consistent science-based plans for large spatial and temporal scales where most fire management and planning occurs. Understanding the regional geographic context of fire regimes is critical for developing appropriate and sustainable management strategies and policy. The degree to which human intervention has modified fire frequency, intensity, and severity differs greatly among different ecosystems and must be considered when planning to alter fuel loads or implement restorative treatments. Detailed discussion of six ecosystems—ponderosa pine forest (western North America), chaparral (California), boreal forest (Alaska and Canada), Great Basin sagebrush (intermountain West), pine and pine-hardwood forests (Southern Appalachian Mountains), and longleaf pine (Southeastern United States)— illustrates the complexity of fire regimes and that fire management requires a clear regional focus that recognizes where conflicts might exist between fire hazard reduction and resource needs. In some systems, such as ponderosa pine, treatments are usually compatible with both fuel reduction and resour…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2737/pnw-gtr-779

Cites

268 of 268 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?

  • The range of ecosystem conditions, fire regimes and land uses suggests that a one-size-fits-all approach to wildfire and fuels management is neither desirable nor feasible.

    “The range of ecosystem conditions, fire regimes and land uses suggests a one size fits all approach to wildfire and fuels management is neither desirable nor feasible (Keeley et al. 2009).”

    From Negative consequences of positive feedbacks in US wildfire management (2015) · cites this paper as Keeley et al. 2009

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 270 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Keeley, J. E., Aplet, G. H., Christensen, N. L., Conard, S. G., Johnson, E. A., Omi, P. N., Peterson, D. L., & Swetnam, T. W.
ORCID
Publisher
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station
Published
2009
DOI
10.2737/pnw-gtr-779
OpenAlex
W574483468
Cited by
101
References
270
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 11 · 2013: 16 · 2012: 7
Type
report
Language
en
Open access
closed
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 › Global and Planetary Change › Forest Management and Policy
Keywords
fire management, fire regimes, fire ecology, fuel management, fire hazard reduction, ponderosa pine forests, chaparral, boreal forest, pine-hardwood forest, longleaf pine, climate change, fire policy

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