Prescribed fire in North American forests and woodlands: History, current practice, and challenges

Abstract

Whether ignited by lightning or by Native Americans, fire once shaped many North American ecosystems. Euro-American settlement and 20th-century fire suppression practices drastically altered historic fire regimes, leading to excessive fuel accumulation and uncharacteristically severe wildfires in some areas and diminished flammability resulting from shifts to more fire-sensitive forest species in others. Prescribed fire is a valuable tool for fuel management and ecosystem restoration, but the practice is fraught with controversy and uncertainty. Here, we summarize fire use in the forests and woodlands of North America and the current state of the practice, and explore challenges associated with the use of prescribed fire. Although new scientific knowledge has reduced barriers to prescribed burning, societal aversion to risk often trumps known, long-term ecological benefits. Broader implementation of prescribed burning and strategic management of wildfires in fire-dependent ecosystems will require improved integration of science, policy, and management, and greater societal acceptance through education and public involvement in land-management issues.

Full text

e15
© The Ecological Society of America www.frontiersinecology.org
Wildland fire has impacted most landscapes of the
Americas, leaving evidence of its passing in the
biota, soils, fossils, and cultural artifacts (Swetnam and
Betancourt 1990; Delcourt and Delcourt 1997; Platt 1999;
Ryan et al. 2012). Many terrestrial ecosystems reflect this
long evolutionary history with fire and require periodic
fire to maintain species composition and stand structure
and function (Abrams 1992; Agee 1993; Pausas and
Keeley 2009).
The presence of fuels and a source of ignition are neces-
sary for wildland fires to occur. Variations in fire spread
and intensity across landscapes are dependent on the
physical and chemical characteristics of these fuels, with
fuel moisture and fuelbed continuity being two of the
most important factors. An abundance of fine (high sur-
face area-to-volume ratio), dry fuels that are continuous
or interconnected is required for fire to spread. Cold- or
moisture-limited ecosystems are often fuel-limited
because combustible biomass accumulates slowly and the
continuity of the fuelbed takes longer to redevelop fol-
lowing a fire. Wet forests develop fuelbed continuity
more quickly but may also be effectively fuel-limited
because the fine fuels are rarely dry enough to burn.
Intermediate to these extremes are a range of ecosystems
that produce abundant fine fuel and are seasonally dry
and susceptible to ignition from lightning or humans.
Rates of fuel accumulation and prevalence of ignition
sources varies by region and ecosystem across North
America (Knapp et al. 2009). Within regions, fire poten-
tial also varies year to year, under the influence of global
circulation patterns such as the El Niño–Southern
Oscillation (ENSO; Swetnam and Betancourt 1990;
Ryan et al. 2012). The southeastern US coastal plains and
southwestern mountain ranges experience frequent light-
ning storms; when lightning strikes dry fuels, for example,
in the days prior to summer monsoon rains (Figure 1;
Flagstaff, Arizona and Ocala, Florida), numerous fires
result (Swetnam and Betancourt 1990; Stambaugh et al.
2011). Major conflagrations commonly occur during La
Niña episodes, when monsoonal rains are delayed or
weak. These areas recover fuel continuity quickly and are
characterized by high fire frequency. In contrast, soaking
ONLINE SPECIAL ISSUE: Prescribed burning
Prescribed fire in North American forests
and woodlands: history, current practice,
and challenges
Kevin C Ryan1*, Eric E Knapp2, and J Morgan Varner3
Whether ignited by lightning or by Native Americans, fire once shaped many North American ecosystems.
Euro–American settlement and 20th-century fire suppression practices drastically altered historic fire regimes,
leading to excessive fuel accumulation and uncharacteristically severe wildfires in some areas and diminished
flammability resulting from shifts to more fire-sensitive forest species in others. Prescribed fire is a valuable tool
for fuel management and ecosystem restoration, but the practice is fraught with controversy and uncertainty.
Here, we summarize fire use in the forests and woodlands of North America and the current state of the practice,
and explore challenges associated with the use of prescribed fire. Although new scientific knowledge has reduced
barriers to prescribed burning, societal aversion to risk often trumps known, long-term ecological benefits.
Broader implementation of prescribed burning and strategic management of wildfires in fire-dependent ecosys-
tems will require improved integration of science, policy, and management, and greater societal acceptance
through education and public involvement in land-management issues.
Front Ecol Environ 2013; 11 (Online Issue 1): e15–e24, doi:10.1890/120329
In a nutshell:
•Industrial-era land-use changes and fire exclusion have greatly
modified fire regimes across much of North America, and the
ecological consequences of these policies are becoming better
understood
•Increased use of prescribed fire and ecologically beneficial man-
agement of wildfires will be necessary to treat fuels and restore
fire-adapted landscapes
•Restoration of the multi-scale structural complexity that was
historically produced by fire will benefit from a variable fire
regime, including burns at different times of the year, under dif-
ferent weather and fuel-moisture conditions, and the use of
heterogeneous ignition patterns
•While science has and continues to play a vital role in fire
management, sociopolitical constraints – including public
acceptance, aversion to risk, and inadequate funding – are
often greater barriers to the use of fire than remaining ecologi-
cal unknowns
1USDA Forest Service Rocky Mountain Research Station,
Missoula, MT (retired) *(kcryan@fs.fed.us); 2USDA Forest
Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, Redding, CA;
3Mississippi State University, Department of Forestry, Forest and
Wildlife Research Center, Mississippi State, MS

Prescribed fire in North American forests KC Ryan et al.
e16
www.frontiersinecology.org © The Ecological Society of America
summer rains hamper lightning ignitions in the decidu-
ous hardwood forests of northeastern North America
(Figure 1; Athens, Ohio). In this region, fuels are com-
bustible mainly during autumn–spring dormancy, the
period when sunlight can dry the newly-fallen leaf litter.
Lightning is rare during this time and fires are therefore
primarily human-caused (Schroeder and Buck 1970;
Guyette and Spetich 2003). Lightning fires are largely
restricted to ridges and sandy plains that favor the devel-
opment of more open pine–oak (Pinus and Quercus spp,
respectively) forests, and where more rapid drying of sur-
face fuels is possible (Motzkin et al. 1999; Keeley et al.
2009). Much of western North America is typified by an
extended summer dry season (eg Figure 1; Yosemite
National Park, California). “Dry” thunderstorms – those
that lack wetting rains – are a major source of summer
fires in the western mountains, particularly during
droughts. Lightning is also the dominant source of large,
landscape-scale fires in the boreal forests of Alaska and
northern Canada (Krezek-Hanes et al. 2011). In many
areas of North America, relatively recent settlement of
rural woodlands is shifting the proportion of human ver-
sus lightning ignitions (Peters et al. 2013).
nHumans and fire prior to Euro–American
settlement
Humans migrated to the Western Hemisphere at least
14 000 years before present (Goebel et al. 2008) and used
fire for heat, light, food preparation, and hunting (cf
Nowacki et al. 2012; Ryan et al. 2012), but the degree to
which human-caused fires were agents of land-cover
change is unknown because of the spatial and temporal
limitations of paleological data. Questions therefore
remain about the extent to which pre-Columbian fires
were of natural or human origin (Boyd 1999; Vale 2002).
In areas of high lightning density, such as in the moun-
tains of the US Southeast and Southwest, fire frequency
was most likely limited by the recovery rate of fine fuels.
In Pacific Coast forests and in the temperate deciduous
forest biome of eastern North America, the rarity of dry-
season lightning suggests that humans were a major igni-
Figure 1. Climographs consisting of monthly average temperature (blue line) and precipitation (grey bar), and the approximate time
of year of the peak historical and prescribed fire seasons from seven representative areas in North America with active prescribed fire
programs. Cyclic patterns associated with general circulation patterns (eg ENSO) may expand the fire season in a given year and
occasional large fires occur under extreme meteorological events.

KC Ryan et al. Prescribed fire in North American forests
e17
© The Ecological Society of America www.frontiersinecology.org
tion source (McClain and Elzinga 1994; Brown and
Hebda 2002; Kay 2007; Abrams and Nowacki 2008);
while lightning fires occur in these systems, it is difficult
to explain the frequency of historic burning without
human ignitions (Keeley 2002; Guyette and Spetich
2003; Spetich et al. 2011).
Native Americans used fire for diverse purposes, ranging
from cultivation of plants for food, medicine, and basketry
to the extensive modification of landscapes for game man-
agement or travel (Pyne 1982; Anderson 2005; Abrams
and Nowacki 2008). Although landscape-scale fire use
ended with nomadic hunting practices, the smaller scale
use of fire to promote various plant materials remains an
integral component of traditional ecological knowledge in
American Indian cultures (Anderson 2005).
An estimated 21 million indigenous people inhabited
North America at the time of initial European settlement
(Denevan 1992). Eurasian diseases transmitted by these
early settlers decimated native populations. Many regions
show a marked reduction in fire frequency at the same
time as this population decline (Spetich et al. 2011;
Power et al. 2012). This period also coincides with the
cold, wet Little Ice Age climate anomaly (Power et al.
2012), which may also have played a role in reducing the
number of fires. For these reasons, by the time substantial
European immigration began in the 17th century, settlers
encountered landscapes that were adjusting to less fre-
quent burning.
nHumans and fire after Euro–American settlement
European settlers caused major changes in fire regimes
throughout North American forests. Logging was associ-
ated with land clearing for agriculture, as well as providing
fuel for heating, powering steam engines, and industrial
production. Unregulated forest harvesting during the 19th
and early 20th centuries generated logging slash (residual
coarse and fine woody debris) that contributed to cata-
strophic wildfires (Haines and Sando 1969; Pyne et al.
1996). In the US, the societal and legal responses to these
fires made wildland fire suppression a dominant activity in
federal, state, and private forest management (eg USFS 10
AM Policy of 1935). Fire factored into the creation of sev-
eral federal land-management agencies (eg US Forest
Service [1905], US National Park Service [1916], and the
US Bureau of Land Management [1946]) and similar for-
est conservation agencies at the state level (Pyne 1982).
Without exception, agency policies coupled with propa-
ganda on the benefits of fire prevention (eg Smokey Bear)
were designed to control the impacts of fire through active
fire prevention and suppression (Pyne 1982).
Early organized efforts at fire control by fledgling govern-
ment agencies were hampered by the lack of roads and fire
suppression infrastructure. Airplanes and equipment freed
up by the end of World War II, as well as intensified road
building for logging to support post-war housing demand,
helped to bring effective fire suppression to all but the most
remote areas, such as the northern boreal forests.
The combination of fire suppression and the decrease
in burning by Native Americans dramatically altered the
fire regime across much of North America. The eastern
US experienced a steep decline in fire occurrence
(Nowacki and Abrams 2008). In the western US, the
total area burned declined sharply for some decades,
reaching its minimum during the 1970s (Agee 1993;
Leenhouts 1998). Since then, the trend has been toward
increasing wildfire activity (Westerling et al. 2006; Littell
et al. 2009), despite extensive suppression efforts. In
Canada, yearly burned area increased from 1959 to the
1990s, then declined somewhat, except in the western
provinces (Krezek-Hanes et al. 2011). Regardless of
regional differences, the land area being burned today
across much of North America is far less than what was
burned historically. Leenhouts (1998) estimated that in
the conterminous US, burning in the late 20th century
was 7–12 times less prevalent than in pre-industrial
times. In California, Stephens et al. (2007) estimated that
18 times less area was burned annually between 1950 and
1999 than had burned prior to that time. A compilation
of studies of Canadian boreal forests indicated an average
modern burn rate approximately five times less than the
historical burn rate (Bergeron et al. 2004). Similar statis-
tics for Mexico and Central America are not as well
developed; here, fires continue to burn across large areas
in some years, and ecosystems vary between experiencing
less than and more than historic levels of fire (Rodríguez-
Trejo and Fulé 2003; Martínez Domínguez and
Rodríguez-Trejo 2008).
nEcological consequences of fire exclusion
Excluding fire from previously fire-frequent ecosystems
results in major changes in ecosystem structure, composi-
tion, and function across a variety of scales (Covington
and Moore 1994; Keane et al. 2002; Varner et al. 2005).
The consequences of suppression-altered fire regimes
include a reduction in or loss of ecosystem services, and
vastly altered fuels and potential future fire behavior.
Without the disturbance of periodic fire, tree density
increases (Figure 2) and landscape structure homogenizes
(Taylor 2004; Hutchinson et al. 2008; Nowacki and
Abrams 2008). The influx of fire-sensitive species alters
community composition, stand structure, and ecosystem
processes (Keane et al. 2002; Rodewald and Abrams
2002; McShea et al. 2007; Alexander and Arthur 2010;
Maynard and Brewer 2012). Canopy infilling by shade-
tolerant, fire-sensitive trees and accumulated litter in
unburned forest floors can lead to reduced cover and
diversity (Hiers et al. 2007; Engber et al. 2011). Plant
species that benefit from disturbance and exposed bare
soil typically decline (Harvey et al. 1980; Gilliam and
Platt 1999; Knapp et al. 2007). The effects of fire exclu-
sion also affect animal communities. Loss of herbaceous
species in long-unburned forests has been associated with

Prescribed fire in North American forests KC Ryan et al.
e18
www.frontiersinecology.org © The Ecological Society of America
reduced butterfly diversity compared to more recently
burned forests (Huntzinger 2003). In southeastern pine
savannas and woodlands, avian, herpetofauna, and mam-
malian diversity have declined substantially. The rarity of
many endangered wildlife species, including the red-
cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis) and gopher tor-
toise (Gopherus polyphemus), is thought to be largely due
to the alteration of habitat caused by the lack of fire
(Means 2006).
In drier portions of western North America, greater sur-
face fuel continuity in combination with the influx of
conifer seedlings and saplings contributes to higher fire
intensity and severity, and an increased probability of crown
fires (Agee and Skinner 2005). In contrast, fire exclusion in
fire-prone landscapes of eastern North America (particu-
larly oak, southern pine, and oak–pine ecosystems), is asso-
ciated with the invasion of fire-sensitive species with less
flammable litter, more shaded and moister microclimatic
conditions, and reduced fire activity. The result is a positive
feedback cycle, termed “mesophication” by Nowacki and
Abrams (2008), with lower potential for burning reinforc-
ing the advantage for the invading shade-tolerant, fire-sen-
sitive species.
nRestoring fire as a landscape process
In North America, recognition of the ecological benefits
of prescribed burning was slow in coming and varied geo-
graphically. Fuel accumulation and loss of upland game
habitat occurred especially quickly in productive south-
ern pine forests and woodlands and ecologists in the
southeastern US promoted the use of fire in land manage-
ment from early on (eg Stoddard 1931; Chapman 1932).
In spite of their convincing arguments, fire in the south-
eastern US (and elsewhere) was still frequently viewed as
incompatible with timber production due to the potential
for injury to mature trees and the inevitable loss of tree
seedlings. Since then, research in numerous ecosystems
has helped shape greater public recognition of fire’s inte-
gral role in maintaining “fire-dependent” plant commu-
nities. However, contemporary fires fueled by biomass
that accumulated in the absence of fire now pose a greater
risk of damage to private property, public infrastructure,
and ecosystems. Numerous studies have documented the
capacity for prescribed burning to mitigate extreme wild-
fire behavior and uncharacteristically severe fire effects
(Agee and Skinner 2005; Finney et al. 2005; Prichard et
al. 2010; Cochrane et al. 2012), further reinforcing the
importance of fire management (Ryan and Opperman
2013). Nevertheless, the tension between risks and
recognized benefits remains.
The extent to which fire has been incorporated into
management protocols varies across regions. In the US,
approximately one million ha are burned annually as a
result of prescribed fire (NIFC 2013a). Between 1998 and
2008, US federal agencies also actively managed an aver-
age of 327 lightning-caused wildfires for the purpose of
restoration, and these burned an additional 75 000 ha
annually (NIFC 2013b). US federal fire managers still
have latitude to allow some lightning fires to burn to pro-
vide resource benefits, but since a 2009 policy change,
hectares treated in this way are no longer counted sepa-
rately from total wildfire hectares. In Canada, a small per-
centage of wildfires in remote areas are allowed to burn or
are not aggressively suppressed; these account for the
majority of acres burned (Taylor 1998). Parks Canada and
some First Nations conduct prescribed burns on a limited
basis (Weber and Taylor 1992), but landscape-scale pre-
scribed burning for ecosystem restoration is still relatively
uncommon (Taylor 1998). While statistics for Mexico
and Central America indicate a preponderance of
human-caused fires, most are either escaped agricultural
and pastoral burns or intentional burns that lack clear
ecological objectives (Rodríguez-Trejo and Fulé 2003;
Figure 2. Ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa) forest at the Fort Valley Experimental Forest near Flagstaff, Arizona, showing: (a)
effects of fire exclusion and (b) adjacent stand after multiple prescribed burns. In the absence of fire, forests throughout the
southwestern US have become dense with young trees that not only make prescribed fire more difficult to implement but also
contribute to uncharacteristically intense wildfires.
(a) (b)

KC Ryan et al. Prescribed fire in North American forests
Rodríguez-Trejo 2008). Despite successes in
the development of robust prescribed burn-
ing programs, especially in the southeastern
US (Stephens 2005), almost nowhere has
the use of fire kept pace with or even
approached historic levels (Leenhouts 1998;
Stephens et al. 2007). The reasons for this
“fire deficit” are numerous and can be attrib-
uted to lingering questions about the com-
parability of prescribed or managed burning
to pre-industrial fire, as well as legal, politi-
cal, and operational challenges that accom-
pany burning in the modern era.
nIs prescribed fire an ecological
surrogate for historical fire?
Where restoration or maintenance of eco-
logical processes is the goal, questions persist
about how well current prescribed fires emu-
late the ecological effects of pre-suppression
era fires. One major area of concern is the
extent to which current fuel loading exceeds
pre-industrial levels. Many fire effects are
closely tied to the amount of fuel consumed
(Ryan 2002; Knapp et al. 2007, 2009), and
initial restoration burns after long fire-free
periods can therefore lead to undesirable
effects (Ryan and Frandsen 1991), such as
killing or stressing large remnant trees,
including those of normally very fire-resis-
tant species (Figure 3; Ryan and Reinhardt 1988; Varner
et al. 2005; Hood 2010; Harrington 2012).
Variability in fuel distribution generated by periodic
fire caused historical fires to burn in a patchy mosaic (eg
Show and Kotok 1924). This created numerous unburned
refugia where fire-sensitive plant species or small non-
mobile animals survived to recolonize burned areas.
Increased forest density and accumulation of litter, duff,
and wood debris has produced a more continuous, uni-
formly flammable fuelbed (Knapp and Keeley 2006). As a
result, in long-unburned areas, prescribed fire or wildfire
often leave few such refugia. Subsequent fires at shorter
intervals can re-establish patchiness (Figure 4). However,
prescribed fires are also often ignited in linear strips or at
multiple points along regular grids (Figure 5a). Uniform
ignition, driven by the operational need to maintain con-
trol, produces more uniform burns with fewer residual
unburned patches. In contrast, wildfires typically ignite
landscapes in large fingered fronts or via lofted embers
(spotting), both of which lead to substantial heterogene-
ity in burn patterns. Our understanding of how refugia
and heterogeneity affect organisms at different spatial
scales remains incomplete (Knight and Holt 2005;
Collins et al. 2009).
Many prescribed burns are conducted in different sea-
sons and under higher moisture conditions than histori-
e19
© The Ecological Society of America www.frontiersinecology.org
cal fires (Figure 1; Knapp et al. 2009). A common criti-
cism is that such “cool season” burns fail to achieve fuel
consumption and restoration goals. In the western US,
the lack of fire crew availability frequently pushes pre-
scribed burning to the cool spring or fall margins of the
fire season, whereas the majority of the area historically
burned in the summer, when conditions were warmer and
drier (Figure 1). In the southeastern US, dormant-season
burns are often preferred over late spring/summer (ie
lightning-season) burns (Figure 1) to moderate effects,
reduce the probability of fire escape, and avoid impacts
on breeding birds. Such dormant-season burns are gener-
ally less effective for killing encroaching fire-sensitive
hardwoods (Streng et al. 1993). In western woodlands
and montane forests, fires historically maintained low
tree density by thinning primarily susceptible juveniles
(Cooper 1960; Kilgore 1973), but after prolonged fire
exclusion many invading trees become large and thick-
barked enough to resist stem injury from low-intensity
fires (Schwilk et al. 2009; Engber et al. 2011). Prescribed
fire alone, especially at the low end of the intensity spec-
trum, is therefore often inadequate for meeting forest
restoration and management goals, and may require aug-
mentation by mechanical means. In other situations,
excess fuels, especially around the base of large pines
(Figure 3), may lead to excessive stem and root injury and
(b)
(c)
(a)
Figure 3. Reintroduced fires in this longleaf pine (Pinus palustris) forest in
northern Florida ignited accumulated fuels on the forest floor (a, b) that mound
adjacent to the tree bole (arrow in [c]). Burning of accumulated fuels can stress
and kill large trees in these ecosystems and many other fire-excluded North
American forests.

Prescribed fire in North American forests KC Ryan et al.
death of the remnant trees that managers most wish to
protect (Varner et al. 2005; Hood 2010).
Variations in fire susceptibility among organisms as a
result of differing phenology or life-history stage at the
time of burning can lead to species shifts (Kauffman and
Martin 1990; Howe 1994). However, the majority of stud-
ies show little or no influence of timing of burns, relative
to other factors such as fire intensity, that also typically
vary with season (Knapp et al. 2009). Over the long term,
many plant and animal populations appear to be most
strongly influenced by how fire alters their habitat, regard-
less of burning season (Knapp et al. 2009).
The restoration of structural complexity that was histor-
ically generated by frequent low- to mixed-severity wild-
fire is a key goal of current federal forest land manage-
ment. When prescribed fire is used, restoration benefits
from a variable fire regime – burning at different times of
the year, under different weather and fuel moisture condi-
tions, and employing variable ignition patterns (Knapp et
al. 2009), all factors that complicate fire management
operations. With prescribed burning, maintaining control
of the fire is a primary concern, thereby encouraging the
use of low-intensity fire. In addition, common ignition
patterns, such as strip head fires (linear strips of fire
ignited evenly and in close succession at right angles to
the slope and/or wind direction; Figure 5a), are designed
to homogenize fire behavior, which in turn also tends to
homogenize fire effects. Greater randomness in ignition,
including variable, ground-based firing patterns (Figure
5b) or aerial ignition, may increase heterogeneity and bet-
ter emulate the complexity that historical burning once
produced. Since forest management has embraced stand-
to landscape-scale structural complexity as a tenet, pre-
scribed fire objectives should ideally seek to incorporate
these same outcomes (Noss et al. 2006).
Strategic management of wildfires is an
especially promising means of generating
heterogeneity, due to the inherent variation
in fire intensity and severity within wildfire
boundaries (Collins et al. 2009). In addition,
strategic management of wildfires may allow
larger land areas to be burned than can be
realistically treated with prescribed fire.
nLegal, political, and operational
challenges in a risky world
Research has improved our understanding
of the ecology associated with prescribed
burning and will continue to play an impor-
tant role in successful fire management.
However, ecological concerns typically pale
in comparison to legal, political, and opera-
tional challenges. In the US, tension exists
between fire and a variety of socioenviron-
mental values. Prescribed fire treatments
must be conducted within the framework of
a suite of environmental laws, including the National
Environmental Policy Act, the Clean Air Act, the Clean
Water Act, and the Endangered Species Act, and the
resulting analysis and review processes that accompany
land management often lead to conflicts. For example,
while the Clean Air Act had the beneficial effect of
reducing hazardous particulates from industry and auto-
mobiles, it has also made the use of prescribed fire or
allowing wildfires to burn much more difficult. Smoke
was likely an ever-present reality of fire seasons in the
pre-Euro–American landscape (Leenhouts 1998; Stephens
et al. 2007), but decades of increasingly effective fire sup-
pression and urbanization has resulted in a public that is
out of touch with landscape burning. Recent transmigra-
tions have fragmented the land with subdivisions (Gude
et al. 2013; Peters et al. 2013) and many people are
unaware of the past prevalence of fire and smoke.
Prescribed fire is a point pollution source and therefore
easy to regulate. In times of poor air quality, it is often
politically less challenging to limit land managers’ fire use
than to constrain other sources of pollution (eg emissions
from automobiles or industry).
While some environmental laws have bolstered the
case for managers to use fire (eg the federally listed fire-
obligate red-cockaded woodpecker and many others;
Means 2006), in other situations, environmental laws
can actually impede prescribed burning (Quinn-
Davidson and Varner 2012). The Endangered Species
Act requires managers to analyze the immediate short-
term risks associated with actions such as prescribed burn-
ing, but not the long-term risks associated with inaction.
Thus, the law creates a disincentive to treat lands inhab-
ited by endangered species. Short-term risks to a species
(eg displacement, injury, direct mortality) should ideally
e20
www.frontiersinecology.org © The Ecological Society of America
Figure 4. Unburned patch resulting from reduced flammability of prostrate
ceanothus (Ceanothus prostratus) within a prescribed burn in heterogeneous
fuels, 10 years after the first prescribed burn in Klamath National Forest,
California. Such potential fire refugia may play an important role in the resilience of
species to wildfire or prescribed fire, and are less common in long-unburned areas.

KC Ryan et al. Prescribed fire in North American forests
e21
© The Ecological Society of America www.frontiersinecology.org
be balanced against long-term habitat needs. For exam-
ple, in western forests, fire may consume snags used for
nesting by the northern spotted owl (Strix occidentalis cau-
rina), a species officially listed as “threatened” in the US
and “endangered” in Canada, but fire also creates snags in
the long term, and Irwin et al. (2004) hypothesized that
spotted owls abandon nest sites due to reduced foraging
efficiency in areas where forest density has increased in
the absence of fire. In addition, when wildfire occurs after
long periods of exclusion, it can burn at a higher intensity
and cause nest sites and surrounding forest habitat to be
lost for decades or centuries (eg North et al. 2010).
Similar conflicts between short- and long-term risks have
been described for the effects of fire on endangered bat
species in the hardwood forests of central North America
(Dickinson et al. 2009), where heat and smoke may be
disruptive in the short term but will potentially have pos-
itive effects on snag production, canopy openness, and
prey availability over the long term.
Beyond the ecological considerations are two additional
sources of tension: public acceptance and adequate funding
(Quinn-Davidson and Varner 2012). Throughout North
America, there are wide variations in the public’s willing-
ness to accept smoke, visual impacts, and increased short-
term risks associated with prescribed burning (Weber and
Taylor 1992; McCaffery 2006). The disparity in the type of
land ownership and differences in the legal, political, and
cultural environments affect the attitudes of fire managers
and communities in these fire-prone regions (McCaffrey
2006; Quinn-Davidson and Varner 2012). Wildlands in the
southeastern US are predominantly privately owned,
whereas wildlands in the western states are mostly public.
In several southeastern US states, prescribed burning is
widely considered a public “right”. Legislation protects
burners, whether government or private, unless thresholds
of negligence have been exceeded (Yoder et al. 2004; Sun
and Tolver 2012). Florida has long stood as the model for
prescribed burning legislation (eg Wade and Brenner
1992), and is emulated by other southeastern states (Sun
and Tolver 2012). Further testament to the importance of
prescribed burning in the Southeast are the long-standing
Prescribed Fire Councils that originated in Florida and that
have since expanded to other fire-prone southeastern states.
These “communities of practice” (Wenger 2000) have been
influential in the legislative process and in the training and
education of managers and land owners. In contrast, fledg-
ling Prescribed Fire Councils in the western US have yet to
petition for protective legislation for burners.
Prescribed burning can be negatively affected by those
rare mistakes or unexpected events that can overwhelm
understanding of their ecological and economic benefits.
Over 99% of prescribed fires are successfully held within
planned perimeters (Dether and Black 2006). When pre-
scribed burns go well, the immediate effects are often lit-
tle noticed and landscape changes are gradual. But when
burns escape, the consequences for future burning can be
enormous. For example, high winds caused the May 2000
Cerro Grande prescribed fire in New Mexico’s Bandelier
National Monument to breach control lines and burn
about 19 000 ha and over 250 homes. In Colorado, during
the spring of 2012, embers from a seemingly extinguished
4-day-old prescribed burn reignited in high winds, result-
ing in the Little North Fork Fire that killed three people
and destroyed 27 homes. Such high-profile events have
the immediate effect of halting prescribed burning until
fact-finding concludes; more importantly, they fuel public
fear and increase skepticism regarding prescribed burning.
Managers often receive public praise for suppressing
wildfires but receive little recognition when conducting
successful prescribed burns or allowing wildfires to burn
for resource benefits. Disincentives for using fire, as well
as societal intolerance of risk and a tendency toward
short-term planning, lead to a focus on minimizing short-
term risks (ie injury to species from heat or smoke, fire
Figure 5. Prescribed fire ignition patterns in Klamath National Forest, California. Ignition patterns can influence fire effects. Some
common patterns include: (a) strip head fire, with evenly spaced strips placed sequentially from higher to lower elevations within the
unit; and (b) tree-centered spot firing, with the objective of minimizing flame lengths under desired trees and producing variable flame
lengths elsewhere.
(a) (b)
C Skinner

Prescribed fire in North American forests KC Ryan et al.
escape). Long-term risks (and ecological consequences)
posed by fire exclusion attract less discussion and deci-
sion-making attention than they probably should.
The risk of escape is greater when weather and fuel
moisture conditions approximate historical burning con-
ditions. Prescriptions are therefore often conservative,
requiring fuel moisture, relative humidity, and wind
speeds that minimize the chance of fire escape.
Unfortunately, such conditions are uncommon, resulting
in narrow burn windows of only a few days per year in
many western landscapes (Quinn-Davidson and Varner
2012). Infrequent favorable conditions increase competi-
tion for resources and air quality permits, which are often
major hindrances to burning. Thus, sociopolitical factors
rather than ecological rationales often drive decisions
regarding when and where treatments occur.
nConclusions
Anthropogenic and lightning fires shaped North
American landscapes for millennia, so that many ecosys-
tems are dependent on periodic fire to maintain impor-
tant components (Abrams 1992; McClain and Elzinga
1994; Delcourt and Delcourt 1997; Pausas and Keeley
2009; Nowacki et al. 2012). There is, however, still much
to be learned, particularly with respect to how fire
regimes (ie the frequency, timing, and severity of fire)
affect stand-level processes, and how fire relationships
change at increasing temporal and spatial scales. Most
studies are relatively short term and often use data col-
lected from small plots, whereas fire management plan-
ning occurs across decades and over large landscapes
(Keeley et al. 2009).
Technology has greatly expanded our ability to modify
fire regimes through fire suppression, prescribed burning,
and mechanical manipulation. The ecological legacy of
past practices has altered systems, in some cases irrevoca-
bly. Future climate conditions will further confound our
understanding, and the magnitude and scale of accompa-
nying changes to vegetation and fuels may limit our
capacity to respond. These uncertainties constrain our
ability to reintroduce fire to accomplish a suite of societal
benefits, including protecting lives and property, enhanc-
ing ecosystem services, ecological restoration, and biolog-
ical conservation. Experience indicates that neither lais-
sez faire fire management nor full suppression will
accomplish these goals. With current limits to prescribed
burning, many managers have turned to mechanical sur-
rogates (eg thinning and pile burning). Allowing light-
ning-ignited wildfires to burn for resource benefits where
consistent with local management plans offers promise
for restoring large, relatively roadless landscapes (Noss et
al. 2006; Collins et al. 2009) but may be impractical in
more developed areas.
Humans have been, and will continue to be, a domi-
nant force in shaping the landscape (Denevan 1992;
Nowacki et al. 2012; Ryan and Opperman 2013).
Prescribed burning and managed wildfire have been, and
should continue to be, major tools for affecting that
process. The challenge for all natural resource manage-
ment centers around not only conserving the species but
also preserving and/or restoring biophysical processes.
Given the current lack of public awareness and social
acceptance (McCaffrey et al. 2013), subdivided and frag-
mented landscapes (Gude et al. 2013; Peters et al. 2013),
and limited funding, expansion of prescribed fire pro-
grams will entail a redoubled effort to integrate fire and
ecological sciences into management and policy.
nAcknowledgements
We wish to thank our colleagues for conversations over
the years that helped shape our thinking about the role of
prescribed fire in the past, present, and future. Comments
by R Keane substantially improved the manuscript.
nReferences
Abrams MD. 1992. Fire and the development of oak forests.
BioScience 42: 346–53.
Abrams MD and Nowacki GJ. 2008. Native Americans as active
and passive promoters of mast and fruit trees in the eastern
USA. Holocene 18: 1123–37.
Agee JK. 1993. Fire ecology of Pacific Northwest forests.
Washington, DC: Island Press.
Agee JK and Skinner CN. 2005. Basic principles of forest fuel
reduction treatments. Forest Ecol Manag 211: 83–96.
Alexander HD and Arthur MA. 2010. Implications of a predicted
shift from upland oaks to red maple on forest hydrology and
nutrient availability. Can J For Res 40: 716–26.
Anderson MK. 2005. Tending the wild: Native American know-
ledge and the management of California’s natural resources.
Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Bergeron Y, Flannigan M, Gauthier S, et al. 2004. Past, current and
future fire frequency in the Canadian boreal forest: implica-
tions for sustainable forest management. AMBIO 33: 356–60.
Boyd R. 1999. Indians, fire, and the land in the Pacific Northwest.
Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University Press.
Brown KJ and Hebda RJ. 2002. Ancient fires on southern
Vancouver Island, British Columbia, Canada: a change in
causal mechanisms at about 2000 ybp. Environmental
Archaeology 7: 1–12.
Chapman HH. 1932. Is the longleaf type a climax? Ecology 13:
328–34.
Cochrane MA, Moran CJ, Wimberly MC, et al. 2012. Estimation
of wildfire size and risk changes due to fuels treatments. Int J
Wildland Fire 21: 357–67.
Collins BM, Miller JD, Thode AE, et al. 2009. Interactions among
wildland fires in a long-established Sierra Nevada natural fire
area. Ecosystems 12: 114–28.
Cooper CF. 1960. Changes in vegetation, structure, and growth of
southwestern pine forests since white settlement. Ecol Monogr
30: 129–64.
Covington WW and Moore MM. 1994. Southwestern ponderosa
forest structure: changes since Euro–American settlement. J
Forest 92: 39–47.
Delcourt HR and Delcourt PA. 1997. Pre-Columbian Native
American use of fire on southern Appalachian landscapes.
Conserv Biol 11: 1010–14.
Denevan WM. 1992. The pristine myth: the landscape of the
Americas in 1492. Ann Assoc Am Geogr 82: 369–85.
Dether D and Black A. 2006. Learning from escaped prescribed
e22
www.frontiersinecology.org © The Ecological Society of America

KC Ryan et al. Prescribed fire in North American forests
fires – lessons for high reliability. Fire Management Today 66:
50–56.
Dickinson MB, Lacki MJ, and Cox DR. 2009. Fire and the endan-
gered Indiana bat. In: Hutchinson TF (Ed). Proceedings of the
3rd Fire in Eastern Oak Forests Conference; 20–22 May 2008;
Carbondale, IL. Newtown Square, PA: USDA Forest Service,
Northern Research Station. GTR-NRS-P-46.
Engber EA, Varner JM, Arguello LA, et al. 2011. The effects of
conifer encroachment and overstory structure on fuels and fire
in an oak woodland landscape. Fire Ecology 7: 32–50.
Finney MA, McHugh CW, and Grenfell IC. 2005. Stand- and
landscape-level effects of prescribed burning on two Arizona
wildfires. Can J For Res 35: 1714–22.
Gilliam FS and Platt WJ. 1999. Effects of long-term fire exclusion
on tree species composition and stand structure in an old-
growth Pinus palustris (longleaf pine) forest. Plant Ecol 140:
15–26.
Goebel T, Waters MR, and O’Rourke DH. 2008. The Late
Pleistocene dispersal of modern humans in the Americas.
Science 319: 1497–1502.
Gude PH, Jones K, Rasker R, et al. 2013. Evidence for the effect of
homes on wildfire suppression costs. Int J Wildland Fire;
doi:10.1071/WF11095.
Guyette RP and Spetich MA. 2003. Fire history of oak–pine forests
in the lower Boston Mountains, Arkansas, USA. Forest Ecol
Manag 180: 463–74.
Haines DA and Sando RW. 1969. Climatic conditions preceding
historically great fires in the North Central Region. St Paul,
MN: USDA Forest Service, North Central Forest Experiment
Station. Research Paper NC-34.
Harrington MG. 2012. Duff mound consumption and cambium
injury for centuries-old western larch from prescribed burning
in western Montana. Int J Wildland Fire; doi:10.1071/WF12038.
Harvey HT, Shellhammer HS, and Stecker HE. 1980. Giant sequoia
ecology: fire and reproduction. Washington, DC: US DOI
National Park Service. Scientific Monograph Series No 12.
Hiers JK, O’Brien JJ, Will RE, et al. 2007. Forest floor depth medi-
ates understory vigor in xeric Pinus palustris ecosystems. Ecol
Appl 17: 806–14.
Hood SM. 2010. Mitigating old tree mortality in long-unburned,
fire-dependent forests: a synthesis. Fort Collins, CO: USDA
Forest Service. RMRS-GTR-238.
Howe HF. 1994. Response of early-and late-flowering plants to fire
season in experimental prairies. Ecol Appl 4: 121–33.
Huntzinger M. 2003. Effects of fire management practices on but-
terfly diversity in the forested western United States. Biol
Conserv 113: 1–12.
Hutchinson TF, Long RP, Ford RD, et al. 2008. Fire history and the
establishment of oaks and maples in second-growth forests.
Can J For Res 38: 391–403.
Irwin LL, Fleming TL, and Beebe J. 2004. Are spotted owl popula-
tions sustainable in fire-prone forests? J Sustainable For 18:
1–28.
Kauffman JB and Martin RE. 1990. Sprouting shrub response to
different seasons and fuel consumption levels of prescribed fire
in Sierra Nevada mixed conifer ecosystems. Forest Sci 36:
748–64.
Kay CE. 2007. Are lightning fires unnatural? A comparison of abo-
riginal and lightning ignition rates in the United States. In:
Masters RE and Galley KEM (Eds). Proceedings of the 23rd
Tall Timbers Fire Ecology Conference: Fire in Grassland and
Shrubland Ecosystems. Tallahassee, FL: Tall Timbers Research
Station.
Keane RE, Ryan KC, Veblen TT, et al. 2002. Cascading effects of fire
exclusion in Rocky Mountain ecosystems: a literature review.
Fort Collins, CO: USDA Forest Service. RMRS-GTR-91.
Keeley JE. 2002. Native American impacts on fire regimes of the
California coastal ranges. J Biogeogr 29: 303–20.
Keeley JE, Aplet GH, Christensen NL, et al. 2009. Ecological foun-
dations for fire management in North American forest and
shrubland ecosystems. Portland, OR: USDA Forest Service,
Pacific Northwest Research Station. GTR-PNW-779.
Kilgore BM. 1973. The ecological role of fire in Sierran conifer
forests: its application to National Park Management.
Quaternary Res 3: 496–513.
Knapp EE, Estes BL, and Skinner CN. 2009. Ecological effects of
prescribed fire season: a literature review and synthesis for
managers. Albany, CA: USDA Forest Service, Pacific
Southwest Research Station. PSW-GTR-224.
Knapp EE and Keeley JE. 2006. Heterogeneity in fire severity with
early season and late season prescribed burns in a mixed conifer
forest. Int J Wildland Fire 15: 37–45.
Knapp EE, Schwilk DW, Kane JM, et al. 2007. Role of burning sea-
son on initial understory vegetation response to prescribed fire
in a mixed conifer forest. Can J For Res 37: 11–22.
Knight TM and Holt RD. 2005. Fire generates spatial gradients in
herbivory: an example from a Florida sandhill ecosystem.
Ecology 86: 587–93.
Krezek-Hanes CC, Ahern F, Cantin A, et al. 2011. Trends in large
fires in Canada, 1959–2007. Ottawa, Canada: Canadian
Councils of Resource Ministers. Canadian Biodiversity: Eco-
system Status and Trends 2010, Technical Thematic Report No
6. www.biodivcanada.ca/default.asp?lang=En&n=137E1147-0.
Leenhouts B. 1998. Assessment of biomass burning in the conter-
minous United States. Conserv Ecol 2: 1.
Littell JS, McKenzie D, Peterson DL, et al. 2009. Climate and wild-
fire area burned in western US ecoprovinces, 1916–2003. Ecol
Appl 19: 1003–21.
Martinez Domínguez R and Rodríguez-Trejo DA. 2008. Forest fires
in Mexico and Central América. In: González-Cabán A (Ed).
Proceedings of the Second International Symposium on Fire
Economics, Planning, and Policy: A Global View. Albany, CA:
USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station.
PSW-GTR-208.
Maynard EE and Brewer JS. 2012. Restoring perennial warm-sea-
son grasses as a means of reversing mesophication of oak wood-
lands in northern Mississippi. Restor Ecol 20: 1–8.
McCaffrey S. 2006. Prescribed fire: what influences public
approval? In: Dickinson MB (Ed). Fire in eastern oak forests:
delivering science to land managers. Newtown Square, PA:
USDA Forest Service, Northern Research Station. Gen Tech
Rep NRS-P-1.
McCaffrey S, Toman E, Stidham M, et al. 2013. Social science
research related to wildfire management: an overview of recent
findings and future research needs. Int J Wildland Fire 22:
15–24.
McClain WE and Elzinga SL. 1994. The occurrence of prairie and
forest fires in Illinois and other midwestern states, 1679–1853.
Erigenia 13: 79–90.
McShea WJ, Healy WM, Devers P, et al. 2007. Forestry matters:
decline of oak will impact wildlife in hardwood forests. J
Wildlife Manage 71: 1717–28.
Means DB. 2006. Vertebrate faunal diversity of longleaf pine
ecosystems. In: Jose S, Jokela EJ, and Miller DL (Eds). The
longleaf pine ecosystem: ecology, silviculture, and restoration.
New York, NY: Springer.
Motzkin G, Patterson WA, and Foster DR. 1999. A historical per-
spective on pitch pine–scrub oak communities in the
Connecticut Valley of Massachusetts. Ecosystems 2: 255–73.
NIFC (National Interagency Fire Center). 2013a. Prescribed fires.
www.nifc.gov/fireInfo/fireInfo_stats_prescribed.html. Viewed
27 Mar 2013.
NIFC (National Interagency Fire Center). 2013b. Wildland fire
use fires. www.nifc.gov/fireInfo/fireInfo_stats_fireUse.html.
Viewed 27 Mar 2013.
North M, Stine P, Zielinski W, et al. 2010. Harnessing fire for
wildlife. The Wildlife Professional 4: 30–33.
Noss RF, Franklin JF, Baker WL et al. 2006. Managing fire-prone
e23
© The Ecological Society of America www.frontiersinecology.org

Prescribed fire in North American forests KC Ryan et al.
forests in the western United States. Front Ecol Environ 4:
481–87.
Nowacki GJ and Abrams MD. 2008. The demise of fire and
“mesophication” of forests in the eastern United States.
BioScience 58: 123–38.
Nowacki GJ, MacCleery DW, and Lake FK. 2012. Native
Americans, ecosystem development, and historical range of
variation. In: Wiens JA, Hayward GD, Safford HD, and Giffen
CM (Eds). Historical environmental variation in conservation
and natural resource management. Chichester, UK: John
Wiley & Sons.
Pausas JG and Keeley JE. 2009. A burning story: the role of fire in
the history of life. BioScience 59: 593–601.
Peters MP, Iverson LR, Matthews SN, et al. 2013. Wildfire hazard
mapping: exploring site conditions in eastern US
wildland–urban interfaces. Int J Wildland Fire; doi:10.1071/
WF12177.
Platt WJ. 1999. Southeastern pine savannas. In: Anderson RC,
Fralish JS, and Baskin JM (Eds). Savannas, barrens, and rock
outcrop plant communities of North America. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
Power MJ, Mayle FE, Bartlein PJ, et al. 2012. Climatic control of
the biomass-burning decline in the Americas after AD 1500.
Holocene 23: 3–13.
Prichard SJ, Peterson DL, and Jacobson K. 2010. Fuel treatments
reduce the severity of wildfire effects in dry mixed conifer for-
est, Washington, USA. Can J For Res 40: 1615–26.
Pyne SJ. 1982. Fire in America: a cultural history of wildland and
rural fire. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Pyne SJ, Andrews PJ, and Laven RD. 1996. Introduction to wild-
land fire. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.
Quinn-Davidson LN and Varner JM. 2012. Impediments to pre-
scribed fire across agency, landscape and manager: an example
from northern California. Int J Wildland Fire 21: 210–18.
Rodríguez-Trejo DA. 2008. Fire regimes, fire ecology, and fire man-
agement in Mexico. AMBIO 37: 548–56.
Rodríguez-Trejo DA and Fulé PZ. 2003. Fire ecology of Mexican
pines and a fire management proposal. Int J Wildland Fire 12:
23–37.
Rodewald AD and Abrams MD. 2002. Floristics and avian com-
munity structure: implications for regional changes in eastern
forest composition. Forest Sci 48: 267–72.
Ryan KC. 2002. Dynamic interactions between forest structure and
fire behavior in boreal ecosystems. Silva Fennica 36: 13–39.
Ryan KC and Reinhardt ED. 1988. Predicting post-fire mortality of
seven western conifers. Can J For Res 18: 1291–97.
Ryan KC and Frandsen WH. 1991. Basal injury from smoldering
fires in mature Pinus ponderosa Laws. Int J Wildland Fire 1:
107–18.
Ryan KC, Jones AT, Koerner CL, et al. 2012. Wildland fire in
ecosystems – effects of fire on cultural resources and ecosys-
tems. Ft Collins, CO: USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain
Research Station. RMRS-GTR-91.
Ryan KC and Opperman TS. 2013. LANDFIRE – a national vege-
tation/fuels data base for use in fuels treatment, restoration, and
suppression planning. Forest Ecol Manag 294: 208–16.
Schroeder MJ and Buck CC. 1970. Fire weather: a guide to appli-
cation of meteorological information to forest fire control oper-
ations. Washington, DC: USDA Forest Service. Agriculture
Handbook 360.
Schwilk DW, Keeley JE, Knapp EE, et al. 2009. The national fire
and fire surrogate study: effects of fuel reduction methods on
forest vegetation structure and fuels. Ecol Appl 19: 285–304.
Show SB and Kotok EI. 1924. The role of fire in the California
pine forests. US Department of Agriculture Bulletin 1294.
Spetich MA, Perry RW, Harper CA, et al. 2011. Fire in eastern
hardwood forests through 14 000 years. In: Greenberg CH,
Collins BS, and Thompson III FR (Eds). Sustaining young for-
est communities. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer.
Stambaugh MC, Guyette RP, and Marschall JM. 2011. Longleaf
pine (Pinus palustris Mill) fire scars reveal new details of a fre-
quent fire regime. J Veg Sci 22: 1094–04.
Stephens SL. 2005. Forest fire causes and extent on United States
Forest Service lands. Int J Wildland Fire 14: 213–22.
Stephens SL, Martin RE, and Clinton NE. 2007. Prehistoric fire
area and emissions from California’s forests, woodlands, shrub-
lands, and grasslands. Forest Ecol Manag 251: 205–16.
Stoddard HL. 1931. The bobwhite quail: its habits, preservation
and increase. New York, NY: Charles Scribner’s Sons.
Streng DR, Glitzenstein JS, and Platt WJ. 1993. Evaluating effects of
season of burn in longleaf pine forests: a critical literature review
and some results from an ongoing long-term study. In: Hermann
SM (Ed). The longleaf pine ecosystem: ecology, restoration and
management. Proceedings of the 18th Tall Timbers Fire Ecology
Conference. Tallahassee, FL: Tall Timbers Research Station.
Sun C and Tolver B. 2012. Assessing administrative laws for
forestry prescribed burning in the southern United States: a
management-based regulation approach. Int Forest Rev 14:
337–48.
Swetnam TW and Betancourt JL. 1990. Fire–Southern Oscillation
relations in the southwestern United States. Science 249:
1017–20.
Taylor AH. 2004. Identifying forest reference conditions on early
cut-over lands, Lake Tahoe Basin, USA. Ecol Appl 14:
1903–20.
Taylor S. 1998. Prescribed fire in Canada…a time of transition.
Wildfire 7: 34–37.
Vale T (Ed). 2002. Fire, native peoples, and the natural landscape.
Washington, DC: Island Press.
Varner JM, Gordon DR, Putz FE, et al. 2005. Restoring fire to long-
unburned Pinus palustris ecosystems: novel fire effects and con-
sequences for long-unburned ecosystems. Restor Ecol 13:
536–44.
Wade D and Brenner J. 1992. Florida’s 1990 Prescribed Burning
Act: protection for responsible burners. J Forest 90: 27–30.
Weber MG and Taylor SW. 1992. The use of prescribed fire in the
management of Canada’s forested lands. Forest Chron 68:
324–34.
Wenger E. 2000. Communities of practice and social learning sys-
tems. Organization 7: 225–46.
Westerling AL, Hidalgo HG, Cayan DR, et al. 2006. Warming and
earlier spring increase western US forest wildfire activity.
Science 313: 940–43.
Yoder J, Engle D, and Fuhlendorf S. 2004. Liability, incentives, and
prescribed fire for ecosystem management. Front Ecol Environ
2: 361–66.
e24
www.frontiersinecology.org © The Ecological Society of America