Search

Increased understanding of how mechanical thinning, prescribed burning, and wildfire affect subsequent wildfire severity is urgently needed as people and forests face a growing wildfire crisis. In response, we reviewed scientific literature for the US West and completed a meta-analysis that answered three questions: (1) How much do treatments reduce wildfire severity within treated areas? (2) How do the effects vary with treatment type, treatment age, and forest type? (3) How does fire weather moderate the effects of treatments? We found overwhelming evidence that mechanical thinning with prescribed burning, mechanical thinning with pile burning, and prescribed burning only are effective at reducing subsequent wildfire severity, resulting in reductions in severity between 62% and 72% relative to untreated areas. In comparison, thinning only was less effective – underscoring the importance of treating surface fuels when mitigating wildfire severity is the management goal. The efficacy of these treatments did not vary among forest types assessed in this study and was high across a range of fire weather conditions. Prior wildfire had more complex impacts on subsequent wildfire severity, which varied with forest type and initial wildfire severity. Across treatment types, we found that effectiveness of treatments declined over time, with the mean reduction in wildfire severity decreasing more than twofold when wildfire occurred greater than 10 years after initial treatment. Our meta-analysis provides up-to-date information on the extent to which active forest management reduces wildfire severity and facilitates better outcomes for people and forests during future wildfire events. • Forest treatments that reduce surface fuels decrease subsequent wildfire severity. • Thinning with prescribed burning was the most effective and persistent treatment. • Treatment efficacy for reducing wildfire severity declined for older treatments. • Prior low or moderate severity wildfire can reduce subsequent wildfire severity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• Dry western US forests are at risk of large-scale tree die-offs due to hot-drought. • We modeled forest restoration effects on future ponderosa pine drought mortality. • Without thinning, mortality will increase 45–57% over current rates by mid-century. • With thinning, mid-century mortality rates remain near or below contemporary rates. • Lower tree density can mitigate the effects of climate change on drought mortality. Drought-induced tree mortality is predicted to increase in dry forests across the globe as future projections show hotter, drier climates. This could potentially result in large-scale tree die-offs, changes in species composition, and loss of forest ecosystem services, including carbon storage. While some studies have found that forest stands with greater basal areas (BA) have higher drought mortality, many have not evaluated the extent to which forests restored to lower densities via restoration activities affect drought mortality. The southwestern USA is particularly susceptible to tree mortality due to the predicted increases in temperature, drier soils, and forests with high density. Our objective was to evaluate how ponderosa pine mortality is expected to be influenced by the Four Forests Restoration Initiative (4FRI), a large-scale forest restoration effort ongoing in northern Arizona, USA, that will reduce stand BA by approximately 40%. Specifically, we modeled drought mortality in three time periods, one contemporary (1970–2010), and two future (2020–2059 and 2060–2099) under three restoration scenarios: no thinning, 4FRI thinning, and a BA reduction beyond the 4FRI plan (4FRI-intensive). We estimated mortality using 11 climate models under two emissions scenarios. Without thinning, our model predicted that by mid-century (2020–2059), changes in climate could increase annual ponderosa pine mortality rates by 45–57% over contemporary rates. However, with thinning, mid-century mortality was predicted to remain near or below contemporary rates and these rates are 31–35% (4FRI) and 46–51% (4FRI-intensive) less than the mid-century scenarios without thinning. Our study shows that while climate change is likely to increase tree mortality rates, large-scale forest restoration projects, such as 4FRI, have the potential to ameliorate the effects of climate change and keep mortality rates near contemporary levels for decades. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• Prescribed fire and wildfire tradeoffs should be addressed at broad scales. • Prescribed fire can reduce the incidence, extent, and severity of wildfires. • In some cases, prescribed fire can increase the cumulative amount of fire over time. • Research is needed on the implications of tradeoffs for ecosystems and society. Prescribed fire can result in significant benefits to ecosystems and society. Examples include improved wildlife habitat, enhanced biodiversity, reduced threat of destructive wildfire, and enhanced ecosystem resilience. Prescribed fire can also come with costs, such as reduced air quality and impacts to fire sensitive species. To plan for appropriate use of prescribed fire, managers need information on the tradeoffs between prescribed fire and wildfire regimes. In this study, we argue that information on tradeoffs should be presented at spatial and temporal scales commensurate with the scales at which these processes occur and that simulation modeling exercises should include some realistic measure of wildfire probability. To that end, we synthesized available scientific literature on relationships between prescribed fire and wildfire regimes, and their associated ecological and societal effects, focusing specifically on simulation modeling studies that consider wildfire probability and empirical and modeling studies that consider prescribed fire and wildfire regimes at spatial and temporal scales beyond individual events. Both empirical and modeling studies overwhelmingly show that increasing use of prescribed fire can result in wildfire regimes of lower extent and intensity. In some studies, a consequence associated with increased use of prescribed fire is an increase in the total, cumulative amount of fire on a landscape over time. Presumably this has implications for emissions and ecosystem carbon, however, effects on ecosystem carbon dynamics are much less clear as results vary considerably across studies. Results likely vary because studies use various landscape models with different parameter settings for processes (e.g., vegetation succession) and use different methodologies, time frames, and fire management and climate change scenarios. Future syntheses and meta-analyses would benefit from researchers providing more comprehensive and transparent documentation of model parameters, assumptions, and limitations. The literature review also revealed that studies on the implications of prescribed fire and wildfire regimes with regard to values other than carbon and emissions are scant and this represents a critical research need. Empirical studies are needed to calibrate and provide magnitude of order comparisons with simulation models and address tradeoffs with respect to other values (e.g., wildland urban interface, wildlife habitat). Such studies should be conducted with consideration for our framework, which includes the implications of prescribed fire and wildfire across broad spatial and temporal scales. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]