What do you mean, ‘megafire’?

Abstract

Background
‘Megafire’ is an emerging concept commonly used to describe fires that are extreme in terms of size, behaviour, and/or impacts, but the term’s meaning remains ambiguous.

Approach
We sought to resolve ambiguity surrounding the meaning of ‘megafire’ by conducting a structured review of the use and definition of the term in several languages in the peer‐reviewed scientific literature. We collated definitions and descriptions of megafire and identified criteria frequently invoked to define megafire. We recorded the size and location of megafires and mapped them to reveal global variation in the size of fires described as megafires.

Results
We identified 109 studies that define the term ‘megafire’ or identify a megafire, with the term first appearing in the peer‐reviewed literature in 2005. Seventy‐one (~65%) of these studies attempted to describe or define the term. There was considerable variability in the criteria used to define megafire, although definitions of megafire based on fire size were most common. Megafire size thresholds varied geographically from > 100–100,000 ha, with fires > 10,000 ha the most common size threshold (41%, 18/44 studies). Definitions of megafire were most common from studies led by authors from North America (52%, 37/71). We recorded 137 instances from 84 studies where fires were reported as megafires, the vast majority (94%, 129/137) of which exceed 10,000 ha in size. Megafires occurred in a range of biomes, but were most frequently described in forested biomes (112/137, 82%), and usually described single ignition fires (59% 81/137).

Conclusion
As Earth’s climate and ecosystems change, it is important that scientists can communicate trends in the occurrence of larger and more extreme fires with clarity. To overcome ambiguity, we suggest a definition of megafire as fires > 10,000 ha arising from single or multiple related ignition events. We introduce two additional terms – gigafire (> 100,000 ha) and terafire (> 1,000,000 ha) – for fires of an even larger scale than megafires.

Full text

Global Ecol Biogeogr. 2022;00:1–17.
|
1wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/geb
Received: 5 November 2021
|
Revised: 24 February 2022
|
Accepted: 19 March 2022
DOI: 10.1111/geb.13499
PERSPECTIVE
What do you mean, ‘megafire’?
Grant D. Linley1 | Chris J. Jolly1,2 | Tim S. Doherty3 | William L. Geary4,5 |
Dolors Armenteras6 | Claire M. Belcher7 | Rebecca Bliege Bird8 | Andrea Duane9 |
Michael- Shawn Fletcher10,11,12 | Melisa A. Giorgis13 | Angie Haslem14 |
Gavin M. Jones15,16 | Luke T. Kelly17 | Calvin K. F. Lee18 | Rachael H. Nolan19,2 0 |
Catherine L. Parr21,22,23 | Juli G. Pausas24 | Jodi N. Price1 | Adrián Regos9,25,26,27 |
Euan G. Ritchie28 | Julien Ruffault29 | Grant J. Williamson20,30 | Qianhan Wu18 |
Dale G. Nimmo1
1The Gulbali Institute, School of A gricultural, Environmental and Veterinary Sciences, Charles Sturt University, Albury, New South Wales, Australia
2School of Natural Sciences, Macquarie University, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
3School of Life and Environmental Sciences, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
4Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning, Biodiversity Division, Biodiversity Strategy and Knowledge Branch, East Melbourne, Victoria,
Australia
5Centre for Integrative Ecology, School of Life and Environmental Sciences, Deakin University, Burwood, Victoria, Australia
6Landscape Ecology and Ecosystem Modelling - ECOLMOD, Departamento de Biología, Facultad de Ciencias, Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Sede Bogotá,
Colombia
7wildFIRE Lab, Hatherly Laboratories, University of Exeter, Devon, UK
8Department of Anthropology, Pennsylvania State University, State College, Pennsylvania, USA
9Forest Science Center of Catalonia, Solsona, Spain
10School of Geography, Ear th and Atmospheric Sciences, The Universit y of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
11Indigenous Knowledge Institute, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
12Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence for Australian Biodiversity and Heritage, The Australian National Universit y, Canberra, Australian Capital
Territory, Australia
13Cátedra de Biogeografía, Departamento de Diversidad Biológica y Ecología, Facultad de Ciencias Exactas Físicas y Naturales, Universidad Nacional de
Córdoba, Córdoba, Argentina
14Research Centre for Future Landscapes, Department of Ecology, Environment and Evolution, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
15US Depar tment of Agriculture – Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA
16Biology Department, Universit y of New Mexico, Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA
17School of Ecosystem and Forest Sciences, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Vic toria, Australia
18School of Biological Sciences, University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China
19Hawkesbury Institute for the Environment, Western Sydney University, Penrith, New South Wales, Australia
20NSW Bushfire Risk Management Research Hub, Wollongong, New South Wales, Australia
21School of Environmental Sciences, Universit y of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK
22Department of Zoology & Entomology, University of Pretoria, Pretoria, South Africa
23School of Animal, Plant and Environmental Sciences, Universit y of the Witwatersrand, Wits, South Africa
24Centro de Investigaciones sobre Desertificación (CIDE- CSIC), Valencia, Spain
25CIBIO- InBIO— Centro de Investigação em Biodiversidade e Recursos Genéticos, Universidade do Por to, Vila do Conde, Portugal
26BIOPOLIS Program in Genomics, Biodiversity and L and Planning, CIBIO, Vairão, Portugal
27Depar tamento de Zooloxía, Xenética e Antropoloxía Física, Universidade de Santiago de Compostela, Santiago de Compostela, Spain
This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution- NonCommercial- NoDerivs License, which permits use and distribution in
any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non- commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.
© 2022 The Authors. Global Ecology and Biogeography published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Grant D. L indley and Chri s J. Jolly should b e considered jo int first auth ors.

2
|
LI NLEY Et aL.
1 | INTRODUCTION
Fire has shaped life on Earth for hundreds of millions of years, mod-
ifying ecosystems (Pausas & Keeley, 2021), affecting evolutionary
processes (Nimmo et al., 2021; Pausas & Parr, 2018), and altering
species distributions (Archibald et al., 2018; He et al., 2019). Although
humans have long influenced fire regimes (Bowman et al., 2011; Ellis
et al., 2021), recent human- induced change is rapidly altering fire
activity across the globe (Andela et al., 2017; Bowman et al., 2020).
Climatic change (Abatzoglou & Williams, 2016; Jolly et al., 2015),
coupled with landscape modification (Cochrane, 20 03), the dis-
placement of Indigenous peoples (Fletcher, Hamilton, et al., 2021;
Fletcher, Romano, et al., 2021), and the introduction of new spe-
cies (Fusco et al., 2019), have altered fire regimes across the world,
imperilling species and ecosystems (Kelly et al., 2020). Projections
suggest an increase in global fire activity across vast portions of the
28Centre for Integrative Ecology, School of Life and Environmental Sciences, Deakin University, Burwood, Victoria, Australia
29INRAE, URFM, Avignon, France
30School of Natural Sciences, University of Tasmania, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia
Correspondence
Dale G. Nimmo, The Gulbali Institute,
School of Agricultural, Environmental
and Veterinary Sciences, Charles Sturt
University, Albury, NSW 2640, Australia.
Email: dnimmo@csu.edu.au
Funding information
Threatened Species Recovery Hub; NSW
Bushfire Risk Management Research Hub;
Australian Wildlife Society; World Wildlife
Fund
Handling Editor: Benjamin Poulter
Abstract
Background: ‘Megafire’ is an emerging concept commonly used to describe fires that
are extreme in terms of size, behaviour, and/or impacts, but the term’s meaning re-
mains ambiguous.
Approach: We sought to resolve ambiguity surrounding the meaning of ‘megafire’
by conducting a structured review of the use and definition of the term in several
languages in the peer- reviewed scientific literature. We collated definitions and de-
scriptions of megafire and identified criteria frequently invoked to define megafire.
We recorded the size and location of megafires and mapped them to reveal global
variation in the size of fires described as megafires.
Results: We identified 109 studies that define the term ‘megafire’ or identify a mega-
fire, with the term first appearing in the peer- reviewed literature in 2005. Seventy-
one (~65%) of these studies attempted to describe or define the term. There was
considerable variability in the criteria used to define megafire, although definitions
of megafire based on fire size were most common. Megafire size thresholds varied
geographically from > 100– 100,000 ha, with fires > 10,000 ha the most common
size threshold (41%, 18/44 studies). Definitions of megafire were most common from
studies led by authors from North America (52%, 37/71). We recorded 137 instances
from 84 studies where fires were reported as megafires, the vast majority (94%,
129/137) of which exceed 10,000 ha in size. Megafires occurred in a range of biomes,
but were most frequently described in forested biomes (112/137, 82%), and usually
described single ignition fires (59% 81/137).
Conclusion: As Earth’s climate and ecosystems change, it is important that scientists
can communicate trends in the occurrence of larger and more extreme fires with clar-
ity. To overcome ambiguity, we suggest a definition of megafire as fires > 10,000 ha
arising from single or multiple related ignition events. We introduce two additional
terms – gigafire (> 100,000 ha) and terafire (> 1,000,000 ha) – for fires of an even
larger scale than megafires.
KEYWORDS
Anthropocene, catastrophic fire, climate change, extreme wildfire event, mega- fire, Pyrocene,
wildfire disaster

|
3
LINLE Y Et aL.
Earth’s surface in the coming decades (IPCC, 2021; United Nations
Environment Programme, 2022; Wu et al., 2021).
At the centre of observed changes in global fire activity has been
the apparent rise of the 'megafire’. But what, exactly, is a megafire?
Despite early adopters of the term providing relatively clear defini-
tions (Williams et al., 2005), a cursory search of the literature finds
that the concept has evolved, such that Tedim et al. (2018) note ‘dis-
agreement over the parameters used to define megafire makes this
term a problematic one’. ‘Megafire’ is now used to describe a variety
of fire scenarios, from spatially and temporally discrete fire events
(e.g., Keeley & Zedler, 2009), to groups of fires that are clustered in
space and time (e.g., Walker et al., 2018), to the sum of fire activ-
ity over an entire fire season (e.g., Lapere et al., 2021). Megafires
are defined by various parameters – individually and in combina-
tion – including fire size (Godfree et al., 2021), behaviour (French
et al., 2016), resistance to containment (Tedim et al., 2015), and
socio- economic or environmental outcomes (Groisman et al., 2 017).
Linguistic uncertainty pervades many areas of science (Johnson
& Lidström, 2018), and includes vagueness (the inability of a con-
cept to categorize borderline cases); ambiguity (terms having mul-
tiple meanings); context dependency (a lack of context that would
allow meaning to be understood); and indeterminacy (unforeseen
ambiguity arising through changes in meaning over time) (Regan
et al., 2002). Megafire suffers from all of these uncertainties. Yet, as
the world warms and fire regimes become increasingly novel, a stan-
dard terminology for descriptors of fire is critical. In the context of
changing fire regimes, the unstandardized use of the term ‘megafire’
could contribute to mismatches between perceptions and reality of
trends in fire activity. For example, Doerr and Santín (2016) contrast
the widespread perception of increasing fire activity with empirical
data that, at the time of publication, demonstrated an overall de-
crease in fire at both global and some regional scales. Such miscon-
ceptions can have real- world consequences, such as investment in
policies (e.g., fire suppression) that are not supported by place- based
evidence (Doerr & Santín, 2016). A consistent and clear terminology
describing megafires could help to reduce misconceptions about the
ecological role of large fires, while aiding in understanding their driv-
ers, trends and impacts, from regional to global scales.
One approach to tackling linguistic uncertainty is to provide
clearer definitions while making conscious decisions about the
term’s future usage (Regan et al., 2002). Resolving the linguis-
tic ambiguity surrounding the term ‘megafire’ would allow clearer
communication between scientists and the general public, but it
is important that any revised definition is reconcilable with past
usage (Regan et al., 2002). To this end, we review the use of the
term ‘megafire’ in several languages in the peer- reviewed scientific
literature, identify key criteria used to define megafire, and record
the size of fires described as megafires around the world. We also
consider related concepts (e.g., ‘extreme wildfire event’) to help as-
sess gaps in the terminology surrounding extremely large fires and
their impacts. After identifying clear foci of megafire definitions, we
propose a terminological standardization, which involves additional
terms to provide further granularity and consistency to the study of
large fires globally. It is our hope that removing linguistic uncertainty
of ‘megafire’ will result in more rigorous use of the term amongst
scientists, while also clarifying its use in communications between
scientists, policy makers, and the broader public.
2 | METHODS
2.1 | Structured review of the peer- reviewed
scientific literature
We conducted a structured review of the peer- reviewed scientific
literature to investigate the use of the term ‘megafire’ and how it
has been defined. We considered a study appropriate for inclusion
when an explicit definition was supplied for the term ‘megafire’, or
when a study simply referred to the occurrence of a ‘megafire’ in
any part of the study. Given that our focus was specifically on mega-
fire, studies that referenced other terms for large fires (e.g., ‘very
large fire’, ‘catastrophic fire’ or ‘extreme wildfire’) were not included.
Our search database included field studies, modelling studies and
reviews referring to the term ‘megafire’. We recognize that our focus
on the use of the term ‘megafire’ by scientists in the peer- reviewed
literature means that the term’s use in other areas (e.g., media, so-
cial media, policy discussions, policy documents, laws) is overlooked.
However, our objective is to understand how megafire is used in a
scientific context, and thus we limit the scope of our review to the
peer- reviewed scientific literature.
We searched Scopus and Web of Science in January 2022
(English, French, Italian, Portuguese and Spanish) for combinations
of search terms involving ‘megafire*/mégafeu*/megaincendi*/mega-
fogo*’, ‘mega- fire*/mega- incendi*/mega- fogo*’, ‘mega’ and/or ‘fire/
incendi*/fogo*’ (Appendices S1 and S2). These terms also cover
other Iberian languages, such as Catalan and Galician. Ignoring non-
English language studies can introduce bias into syntheses (Trisos
et al., 2021). We detected and collected additional mentions of
‘megafire’ from peer- reviewed scientific literature published during
our search period via Google Scholar alerts. We attempted to rep-
licate this search for a Chinese translation or equivalent of ‘mega-
fire’ in Scopus, Web of Science and the China National Knowledge
Infrastructure (CNKI); however, no Chinese equivalent of ‘megafire’
could be identified (Appendix S1). The closest Chinese equivalent
was 特别重 大森林火灾, ‘specially heavy forest fire’, which refers to
fires that either affect > 1, 0 0 0 ha of for est, or th at cau se > 30 death s
or > 100 serious injuries (General Office of the State Council, 2018).
Our database searches returned 556 unique results, with an ad-
ditional seven studies found via Google Scholar alerts, giving a total
of 563 studies (English: n = 557; Portuguese: n = 2; and Spanish:
n = 4). We then screened results by reading the title and abstracts,
removing studies that failed to meet our inclusion criteria, retaining
247 studies that were appropriate for full- text review (Appendix S2).
From this, 109 studies mentioned ‘megafire’ and were appropriate
for analysis (English: n = 106; Portuguese: n = 1; Spanish: n = 2).
Studies were excluded if they neither defined the term megafire, nor

4
|
LI NLEY Et aL.
described the occurrence of a megafire. Of these 109 studies, 71
studies defined or described the term ‘megafire’ and 84 studies ref-
erenced the occurrence of 137 megafire events. The search located
definitions from 12 scientific fields, with ecology (70%; 50/71), bio-
geography (7%; 5/71), economics (4%; 3/71) and meteorology (4%;
3/71) most well represented.
2.2 | What defines a ‘megafire’?
Afte r revie wing the 71 stud ies that define or de scr ibe the term ‘me g-
afire’, we created a checklist of criteria used to define or describe
‘megafire’ (Table 1). In some cases, studies that used the term did
not explicitly define it. For instance, Keeley and Zedler (2009) refer
to a series of megafires ~50,000 ha or larger, but do not state ex-
plicitly that 50,000 ha is a size threshold for megafires. By contrast,
Whitney et al. (2015) refer to megafires as ‘wildfires >100 km2’, pro-
viding an explicit statement of the size threshold to be considered a
megafire. For the collation of definitions, we only included studies
that explicitly stated the defining characteristics of megafire. The
criteria included in each definition were then recorded. The ‘loca-
tion’ of each megafire definition was defined by the first author’s
primary affiliation.
For the 84 studies that made reference to specific megafires, we
recorded the fire location and the size/area of the fire being referred
to as a megafire. Based on the location of each ‘megafire’ event
reported in the literature, we assigned them to a broad terrestrial
biome following Olson et al. (2001). Megafires were also catego-
rized according to whether they constituted: (a) a single, discrete fire
event from a specific ignition source (i.e., ‘single ignition fires’); (b)
multiple fire events that were clustered in space and time and typ-
ically arose from a common ignition source, whilst having different
ignition points (‘multiple ignition fires’); or (c) multiple fire events that
arose from separate ignition sources, and were typically spatially or
temporally discontinuous (‘separate ignition fires’), for instance, the
sum of all fire activity across a large geographic area over an entire
fire season. Given that some studies reported on many megafires,
we also recorded the smallest megafire recorded in each study to
avoid any single study (and hence interpretation of what constitutes
a megafire) overshadowing broader trends. The smallest fire was
used because this represents the lower size limit of what the authors
regard as a megafire in each study.
3 | RESULTS
‘Megafire’ appeared in the peer- reviewed scientific literature as
early as 2005, described in relation to fire management policy in the
United States as ‘The largest fires, classified as “megafires” by pub-
lic agencies’ (Stephens & Ruth, 2005). The concept has since been
used increasingly to describe fires across the globe (Figure 1). The
term ‘megafire’ was initially used to describe fires that were so large
and complex, and so extreme in their behaviour, that they required
different approaches to suppression compared to other large fires
(Williams et al., 2005). We identified seven criteria that are regu-
larly invoked to define ‘megafire’ (Table 1) and categorized them as
being attribute- oriented (i.e., fire size, behaviour, resistance to con-
trol, novelty) or impact- oriented (i.e., fire severity, socio- economic
costs, environmental effects, and human fatalities) (see Table 2 for
examples). In total, 96% (68/71 studies) of definitions included at
least one attribute- oriented criterion, 32% (23/71) included at least
one impact- oriented criterion, and 28% (20/71) included at least
one of both. A total of 68% (48/71) of studies defined megafires
by attribute- oriented criteria only, whereas 4% (3/71) were defined
only by impact- oriented criteria.
The most common criterion used to define megafire was fire size
(i.e., area burned), mentioned in 85% (60/71) of definitions, with 35%
(25/71) of studies defining megafire by size alone (Figure 2). The re-
maining 65% of studies that defined megafire by fire size in combi-
nation with at least one other criterion, did so using combinations
of all seven other criteria (Table 1). Environmental impacts of mega-
fire were referred to in combination with fire size most often (23%,
14/60), and human impacts least often (10%, 6/60). Hence, there is
substantial variability regarding other criteria that, when combined
with fire size, were used to define megafire. The next most com-
mon criterion after fire size was socio- economic impacts, referred
to in 28% (20/71) of definitions, followed by fire behaviour and en-
vironmental impacts, which were each referred to in 23% (16/71)
TAB LE 1 Criteria used to define or describe megafires throughout the published literature
Criteria Description
Fire size or burnt area Reference to the size of a fire event or total area burned, either qualitatively (i.e., ‘large’) or quantitatively
(e.g., > 10,000 ha)
Fire behaviour Reference to high fire intensity or extreme fire behaviour (e.g., fast rate of spread)
Resistance to control Reference to the incapacity to control or suppress fire, or the need for new approaches to do so
Novelty Reference to fire deviating from the historical range of fire activity for a given ecosystem, typically in relation to fire
size or behaviour
Fire severity Reference to high severity fire
Socio- economic impacts Reference to social or economic impacts of fire
Environmental impacts Reference to environmental or ecological impacts of fire
Human impacts Reference to loss of human life or assets from fire

|
5
LINLE Y Et aL.
of definitions. Studies that did not consider fire size as a criterion
for megafire (15%, 11/71) tended to consider socio- economic im-
pacts (64%, 7/11) and resistance to control (64%, 7/11) as defining
features. Authors from South America were more likely to consider
impacts in their definition of megafire, particularly socio- economic
impacts (Figure 2), whereas authors from Oceania were proportion-
ately more likely to include fire severity in their definition (Figure 2).
Of the studies that used size to define megafire, 73% (44/60)
identified a specific size threshold, whereas the remaining stud-
ies made a more general reference to fire size or burnt area (e.g.,
FIGURE 1 The number of studies that
defined, described or reported a ‘megafire’
found during a structured review of
the peer- reviewed scientific literature.
Continent was assigned as that of the first
author’s primary affiliation. Note: at the
time of this review 2022 was incomplete
(denoted by an asterisk)
TAB LE 2 Examples of how megafire has been defined or described throughout the published literature, and the criteria in which we
categorized these definitions into
Reference Type Description
Alló and Loureiro (2020) Fire size, fire behaviour, novelty ‘A megafire is defined as a wildfire that shows a behavior outside
the capacity of the extinction system, either because of the
high flame lengths, high speed of propagation, or because of the
presence of canopy fire activity. According to official statistics, a
megafire contains a burned surface area greater than 500 ha of
for es t.’
Diakakis et al. (2017) Resistance to control, socio- economic
impacts
‘Mega- fires expand during extremely dry, hot and windy weather
conditions and are fuelled by dense vegetation and unmanaged
forest fuels (Williams et al., 2011). Most of the time mega-
fires overwhelm the most advanced fire fighting systems and
organizations with consequences reaching beyond damages to
property and infrastructure requiring a large commitment of
financial and other resources (Omi, 2005).’
French et al. (2016) Fire size, fire behaviour ‘We describe this fire as a megafire because of both the area burnt
and its severity.’
Godfree et al. (2021) Fire size ‘Most megafires (here defined as >0.1 Mha) arose following the
merging of multiple, independent large fires.’
Groisman et al. (2017)Socio- economic impacts,
environmental impacts, human
impacts
‘A typical feature of the current fire regime is increasing frequency
and severity of mega- fires, defined as fires that involve high
suppression costs, property losses, natural resource damages,
and loss of life (Williams, 2 013).’
Pausas and Keeley (2021) Fire size, novelty ‘Wildfires at the extreme of the frequency size distribution for a
given ecosystem, typically megafires are outliers (in a statistical
sense) in relation to the historical fire size distribution. They are
often driven by strong winds and/or high and continuous fuel
loads (i.e. wind- driven or fuel- driven wildfires).’
Schofield et al. (2020) Fire size, fire behaviour ‘Including so- called “megafires” that burn >10,000 ha at high severity
(Stephens et al., 2014).’
Tedim et al. (2015) Resistance to control ‘Mega- fires exceed all efforts at direct control even in the best
prepared regions of the world (Bartlett et al., 20 07; Ozturk
et al., 2010; Stephens & Ruth, 2005; Williams, 2010).’

6
|
LI NLEY Et aL.
‘a very large burnt area’; Maditinos & Vassiliadis, 2 011). Of those
studies that specified size th resholds fo r megafir es, the most com-
monly used threshold was ≥ 10,000 ha (41%, 18/44) (Figure 3).
The second most commonly specified size thresholds were in
the 10,001– 50,000 ha range (Figure 3), specified in 32% (14/44)
of definitions (e.g., Anthony et al., 2021; Barton & Poulos, 2019;
Maezumi et al., 2018). The lowest thresholds identified were
100 ha (Fidelis et al., 2018) and 500 ha (Alló & Loureiro, 2020;
Mancini et al., 2017). When European authors provided a size
threshold, it was typically smaller than that proposed by authors
from North America and Oceania (Figure 3). Some studies de-
fined megafires statistically relative to a region- specific baseline
(e.g., Pausas & Keeley, 2021; Santos et al., 2022). For instance,
Khorshidi et al. (2020) defined megafires as those > 27,000 ha,
corresponding to the 99.98th percentile of fire size in the study
region.
Definitions of megafire were provided in studies led by au-
thors from five continents but were most often defined in studies
led by authors from North America (52%, 37/71) and Europe (24%,
17/ 71) (Figure 3). There appears to be geographic variation in the
criteria used to define megafire (Figure 2), with studies led by North
American authors more likely to include fire size in their definition
than European authors (Figure 2). When European authors did in-
clude fire size in their definition of megafire, they were less likely to
provide a quantitative size or area threshold (Figures 2 and 3).
When defining megafire, 76% (54/71) of authors referred to a
previous definition, sometimes outside of the peer- reviewed sci-
entific literature. The most commonly cited study was Stephens
et al. (2014), which was referred to in 28% (20/71) of instances, fol-
lowed by Williams (2013), referred to in 8% (6/71) of instances. Of
the studies that cited Stephens et al. (2014) when defining megafire,
80% (16/20) used fire size to define megafire and 65% (13/20) iden-
tified 10,000 ha as the minimum size threshold. By contrast, only
one study that cited Stephens et al. (2014) identified ‘resistance
to control’ as a defining feature of megafire (Smith et al., 2016),
and one other included socio- economic impacts in their definition
(Jung, 2020). Hence, Stephens et al. (2014) is used often to argue
for a strict, area- based definition of megafire (i.e., fires that burn
> 10,000 ha), even though that work provides a far more expan-
sive definition of megafire, including consideration of novelty, socio-
economic impacts, and human impacts, as well as size.
We recorded 137 instances from 84 studies where fires were
reported as megafires in the literature (Figure 4). These reported
megafires varied in size by many orders of magnitude, from 1,042 ha
(Gutiérrez et al., 2020) to 18,983,588 ha (Lee et al., 2021), but were
predominantly either 10,001– 100,000 ha (34%, 46/137) or 100,001–
1,000,000 ha (47%, 64/137) (Figure 4). Overall, 94% (129/137) of
fires described as ‘megafires’ exceeded the 10,000- ha size thresh-
old, leaving 6% of fires below the threshold (8/137) (Figure 4). There
was a strong geographic bias in the distribution of reported mega-
fires; over half occurred (56%, 77/137) in North America, with a
particular concentration of megafires being described on the east
coast of the United States, and one sixth in Europe (17%, 23/137)
(Figure 4, Appendix S3). Most (82%, 112/137) megafires reported
in the literature burned forested biomes (Appendix S4); however,
megafires were also reported from grassland, shrubland and savanna
biomes (18%, 25/137; Appendix S4). Megafire was most often used
to describe single ignition fires (59%, 81/137; Appendix S5), but was
also used to describe multiple ignition fires (21%, 29/137) and sepa-
rate ignition fires (20%, 27/137) (Appendix S5).
4 | DISCUSSION
Our review has shown that megafire is a multifaceted concept with
definitions encompassing a broad range of criteria, from the attrib-
utes of fire events to their socio- economic and environmental im-
pacts. Attribute- oriented definitions, such as fire size and behaviour,
pred omi nate. While in itially fr ame d as a conc ept centred on fire s tha t
were abnormally difficult to suppress (Stephens & Ruth, 2005), the
megafire concept has been applied inconsistently in the scientific
literature. Megafire has often been described as a spatial concept,
frequently with reference to specific size thresholds, but with vari-
ability across the literature regarding what those thresholds should
FIGURE 2 The number (a) and proportion (b) of definitions or
descriptions of megafire that invoke various criteria
Human impacts
Environmental impacts
Socio−economic impacts
Fire severity
Novelty
Resistance to control
Fire behaviour
Fire size
0102
03
0
Number of studies
Asia
Europe
North America
Oceania
South America
(a)
Human impacts
Environmental impacts
Socio−economic impacts
Fire severity
Novelty
Resistance to control
Fire behaviour
Fire size
.00.25 .50.75 1.00
Proportion of studies
(b)

|
7
LINLE Y Et aL.
be. Me gaf ire is commonly use d to describe fires in forest biom es ar is-
ing from a single ignition source, or multiple ignition sources that are
related, and occasionally to describe fires in non- forest ecosystems
(e.g., grasslands, savannas) and extreme fire seasons arising from un-
related ignitions (sensu Duane et al., 2021). Clearly, megafire is cur-
rently being used to describe a considerable range of fire activity.
4.1 | Defining megafire
What makes for a useful scientific definition? In our view, scien-
tifi c def ini tions should be un ambig uou s and allow for st andardized
and repeatable measurement, and hence also, direct comparisons
of studies, including meta- analyses. Further, scientific terminol-
ogy should seek to avoid redundancy by using multiple terms
describing the same phenomena (Driscoll et al., 2019; Pulsford
et al., 2016). Instead, related terms should complement one an-
other, allowing for complex phenomena to be described by combi-
nations of non- overlapping concepts. Therefore, before answering
‘what is a megafire?’, it is worth considering terms with existing
definitions that relate closely, and at times, overlap with some
megafire definitions.
Tedim et a l . (2018) use the term ‘wildfire disaster’ to describe fires
based on their socio- economic and ecological impacts, otherwise
referred to as ‘catastrophic fires’. ‘Disaster’ – an event that causes
great damage – makes it clear that wildfire disasters are defined by
their impacts, not their inherent characteristics. Wildfire disasters
can be small or large in size, and occur due to fire behaviour and/or
inadequate planning and protection (Tedim et al., 2018). Therefore,
wildfire disaster captures the criterion of resistance to control and
impact- oriented definitions of megafire. We would add that wildfire
disasters should encapsulate other forms of damage, such as harm
done to the values of local and Indigenous peoples, which can have
profound individual and cultural impacts.
Another recently defined and related term is ‘extreme wildfire
events’ (Duane et al., 2021; Tedim et al., 2018). Extreme wildfire
events are defined as ‘a pyro- convective phenomenon overwhelm-
ing capacity of control (fireline intensity currently assumed
≥10,000 kW m−1; rate of spread >50 m/min), exhibiting spotting dis-
tance >1 km, and erratic and unpredictable fire behavior and spread’
(Tedim et al., 2018). Thus, although extreme wildfire events are often
large, they are characterized by their fire behaviour and resistance
to control, not by their size (Tedim et al., 2018). Duane et al. (2021)
classified several relatively small fires as extreme wildfire events
(e.g., Greece’s Attica fire, which burned 1,276 ha in 2018). Bowman
et al. (2017) note that extreme wildfire events can be wildfire disasters,
but that there are many instances in which they are not. For exam-
ple, when extreme wildfire events burn in remote areas with low pop-
ulation density. When combined with the concept of wildfire disaster,
extreme wildfire events describe fires – small or large – that exhibit
extreme behaviour and may result in substantial socio- economic and
human costs (Bowman et al., 2017).
FIGURE 3 (a) Map of published
megafire definitions, the minimum size
threshold specific in the definition, and
the location of their first author’s primary
affiliation; and (b) the number of studies
that define megafire within various
minimum size categories, and how this
varies according to the lead author’s
geographic location. Specific minimum
size ranges were: no defined size, 0–
1,000, 1,001– 10,000, 10,001– 50,000 and
50,001– 100,000 ha
í
í




í  
/RQJLWXGH
/DWLWXGH
1RGHILQHGVL]H
íNKD
NíNKD
NíNKD
NíNKD
(a)















6RXWK$PHULFD
2FHDQLD
1RUWK$PHULFD
(XURSH
$VLD
1RGHILQHGVL]H
íNKD
NíNKD
NíNKD
NíNKD
'HILQHGILUHVL]H
&RQWLQHQW





6WXGLHV
(b)

8
|
LI NLEY Et aL.
What remains undescribed by both wildfire disaster and extreme
wildfire event is the spatial component of fires (i.e., fire size). Other
terms do exist that capture the spatial components of fire: these in-
clude large fire, very large fires and extremely large fires. However, like
‘megafire’, these terms lack consistent definitions (Tedim et al., 2018).
Despite fire size not being a defining feature in early definitions of
megafire (Williams, 2013), there is now a broad perception across
the literature that megafires are defined by their size, particularly
when the concept is operationalized (e.g., to track drivers and trends
in megafires; Keeley & Zedler, 2009). Further, there has been wide-
spread adoption of a size threshold, that of > 10,000 ha, particularly
amongst scientists based in North America, and the vast majority of
fires described as megafire in the literature (94%) exceed this mini-
mum size threshold.
4.2 | Megafire: moving forward
Given the concepts outlined above, megafire could fill a termino-
logical gap in fire science by being a purely spatial concept, com-
plementing existing terms such as wildfire disaster and extreme fire
events. In many instances, megafire appears already to be filling that
gap, given the widespread adoption of size thresholds. Specific size
thresholds, such as > 10,000 ha, offer a clear and absolute measure
of fire size that can be applied across the world. As stated earlier,
for scientific definitions to be useful, they should be unambiguous,
measurable and repeatable. Therefore, based on our review, we sug-
gest megafire be defined as:
Spatially and temporally continuous fire arising from
single ignition or multiple related ignition events that
exceed 10,000 ha in area.
For context, 10,000 ha is approximately 40% bigger than
Manhattan or ~14,000 football/soccer fields. The 10,000- ha thresh-
old is the most widely used threshold in definitions of megafire,
capturing > 90% of described megafires. It is therefore consistent
with current usage, an important consideration when clarifying defi-
nitions to resolve linguistic uncertainty (Regan et al., 2002). This
definition excludes multiple fires that are spatially and temporally
discontinuous and arise from separate ignitions, such as the sum of
fire activity across a defined area over an entire fire season. Duane
et al. (2021) refer to these as ‘extreme fire seasons’. The proposed
definition of megafire does not capture the complexity of some ex-
isting definitions, but is scientifically precise and measurable, and
complementary to other fire concepts that capture some of the cri-
teria omitted in this definition (i.e., fire behaviour, socio- economic
and environmental impacts, see Conclusions). The simplicity of the
definition reduces the amount and type of data needed to identify
megafires. If adopted further, it could facilitate clearer communica-
tion amongst scientists, and between scientists, policy makers, and
the broader public.
FIGURE 4 (a) Map of reported
megafires and their corresponding size
and location as reported in the literature;
and (b) number of instances where studies
mention a megafire event, provide its size
and the corresponding continent. Size
ranges used were 0– 10,000, 10,001–
100,000, 100,001– 1,000,000, 1,000,001–
10,000,000 and > 10,000,000 ha
í
í




í  
/RQJLWXGH
/DWLWXGH
íNKD
NíNKD
NíPLOKD
PLOíPLOKD
!PLOKD
(a)

















6RXWK$PHULFD
2FHDQLD
1RUWK$PHULFD
(XURSH
$VLD
$IULFD
íNKD
NíNKD
NíPLOKD
PLOíPLOKD
!PLOKD
$FWXDOILUHVL]H
&RQWLQHQW




,QVWDQFHV
(b)

|
9
LINLE Y Et aL.
Given that the definition above refers only to fire size and ig-
nition, megafires according to this definition can occur in a range
of biomes, including forests, grasslands, savannas and deserts. This
classification will allow researchers to identify trends in the oc-
currence of megafire at regional, continental, or global scales, the
prevalence of megafire in different ecosystem types, the drivers
of megafire occurrence, their social and economic impacts, and to
synthesize with greater ease the ecological effects of megafire. This
definition will mean that megafires are unlikely to occur in some
places, which is similar to other abiotic disturbances that are spe-
cific to, or more prevalent in, particular regions of the globe, such
as cyclones and earthquakes. We offer an alternative conceptual
framework for a more context- specific measure of extreme fire
below. Although our definition includes a discrete size threshold
(i.e., 10,000 ha), approaches to modelling megafire occurrence could
soften this threshold by applying, for instance, fuzzy set theory to
model the degree of membership of any given fire in our ‘megafire’
category (Regan et al., 2002). We also acknowledge that there is
value in documenting and modelling exact fire sizes (i.e., as opposed
to fire size categories) and their distributions over space and time,
and we encourage fire scientists to continue to do so in future work.
‘Megafire’ is intended to add to, not replace, detailed and nuanced
analyses of trends in fire size.
While a useful starting point, there is substantial variability in fire
size beyond this threshold, therefore requiring further granularity in
fire size categories. Fires > 100,000 or > 1,000,000 ha are not un-
precedented (Duane et al., 2021), and likely have distinct social and
ecological impacts. The trends, patterns, drivers and impacts of fires
in these size categories might also be distinct.
Fires in the western United States that exceed perceived
size thresholds of ‘megafire’ are already being described by the
term ‘gigafire’, initially in popular media and, more recently, in the
peer- reviewed scientific literature (Langpap & Wu, 2021; Zhuang
et al., 2021). This term is potentially useful in describing fires far
larger than the minimum size threshold for megafires, but with an
important caveat. The use of ‘mega’ and ‘giga’ alike in describing fires
must be in relation to the Ancient Greek etymology of these pre-
fixes, where ‘mega’ means ‘large’ and ‘giga’ means ‘giant’, as opposed
to their use in the International System of Units (ISU) system (i.e.,
mega = 106, giga = 109). Such numerical classifications span a far
greater range of sizes than fire when measured by standard units of
area used to describe fire (e.g., ha or km2), and so the ISU framework
cannot be applied to characterize fire size in a meaningful way.
With this in mind, gigafire, or ‘giant fire’, could be used to char-
acterize fires an order of magnitude greater than the minimum size
threshold for megafires (i.e., fires of > 100,000 ha in area, equiva-
lent in size to ~140,000 football/soccer fields; Table 3). Following
this logic, it would be possible also to define an even larger fire
size category, an order of magnitude larger than the minimum size
threshold for gigafire, as ‘terafire’ (derived from the Ancient Greek
term ‘tera’ that translates to ‘monster’; i.e., fires of > 1,000,000 ha in
area, equivalent in size to ~1.4 million football/soccer fields; Table 3).
The size threshold of 100,000 ha for gigafire corresponds
with, and we suggest replaces, some existing definitions of mega-
fires (e.g., Adams, 2013), and many fires currently described as
megafires would also be defined as gigafires under this definition
(Figure 4). For instance, many of Australia’s 2019– 2020 ‘mega-
fires’ would fall under the gigafire concept as described. We know
of no other term for fires > 1,000,000 ha, but fires of such size
do occur (Duane et al., 2021); for instance, in 2016, a wildfire in
the Kimberley region of Western Australia burned > 1.2 M ha.
The mega, giga, tera hierarchy, although not aligned to the ISU
TAB LE 3 Definitions of terms used to describe large and novel fires
Ter m Definition
Extreme wildfire event A pyro- convective phenomenon overwhelming capacity of control (fireline intensity currently assumed
≥ 10,000 kW/m; rate of spread > 50 m/min), exhibiting spotting distance > 1 km, and erratic and unpredictable fire
behaviour and spread. It represents a heightened threat to crews, population, assets, and natural values, and likely
causes relevant negative socio- economic and environmental impacts (Tedim et al., 2018).
Wildfire disaster Wildfires that have at least one of the following criteria: (a) cause human casualties (either firefighters or civilians), (b)
consume people’s primary residences, and (c) are declared ‘disasters’ by governments (Bowman et al., 2 017).
Environmentally
extreme fire
A fire event (single ignition or multiple, related ignitions) that is extreme in at least one dimension (e.g., size, intensity,
severity) relative to a historic baseline. Environmentally extreme wildfires are extreme events (Katz et al., 2005),
and their extremity can be estimated using extreme value theory (e.g., a 1/100- year event, Gaines & Denny, 1993).
Extreme wildfire
season
Fire seasons in which the burnt area is extreme relative to a historic baseline (Duane et al., 2021). Extreme wildfire
seasons are often the result of numerous, unrelated ignitions.
特别重 大森 林火灾
(specially heavy
forest fire)
Fires that affect > 1,000 ha of forest, result in > 30 human fatalities, or result in serious injury to > 100 people
(General Office of the State Council, 2018).
Megafire Spatially and temporally continuous fire arising from single ignition or multiple related ignition events that exceed
10,000 ha in area.
Gigafire Spatially and temporally continuous fire arising from single ignition or multiple related ignition events that exceed
100,000 ha in area.
Ter afi re Spatially and temporally continuous fire arising from single ignition or multiple related ignition events that exceed
1,000,000 ha in area.

10
|
LI NLEY Et aL.
system in this instance, provides a familiar language for increas-
ing size- based thresholds. Given unprecedented fires in recent
years that have burned areas far in excess of 10,000 ha (e.g., Boer
et al., 2020; Keeley & Syphard, 2021; Mack et al., 2011), and the
projected increase in extreme fire weather (IPCC, 2021; United
Nations Environment Programme, 2022), the use of these terms
may become increasingly necessary to describe fires in the coming
decades.
4.3 | Environmentally extreme fire
The definition of megafire offered above fails to encapsulate the
context dependence of fire size and behaviour that is captured
in some previous descriptions (e.g., Khorshidi et al., 2020). What
constitutes a ‘large’ fire in one ecosystem may not apply to oth-
ers, as it depends on the historical variability of fire size (Pausas
& Keeley, 2021). Hence, a remaining challenge for the characteri-
zation of fire is to identify common thresholds for what consti-
tutes environmentally extreme fire. We suggest that this concept
of extreme fire, relative to a specific context or baseline, is best
captured within the broader concept of ‘ecological extremes’
(e.g., Gaines & Denny, 1993; Katz et al., 2005). Extreme eco-
logical events are rare – but not always unprecedented – events
that play a disproportionate role in ecosystems (Gutschick &
BassiriRad, 2003). ‘Extremity’ can be measured in terms of the in-
terval between events of a given magnitude in relation to the his-
torical frequency distribution (e.g., a 1/100- year event; Gutschick
& BassiriRad, 2003). Extreme value theory can be applied to fire
size (Moritz, 1997 ), but can also be applied to other measures of
fire, such as fire intensity or the extent of areas burnt at high se-
verity (Keyser & Westerling, 2019). However, because extreme
events are extreme only in relation to a ‘baseline’, they will be sen-
sitive to shifts in baselines that are known to occur in fire regimes.
For instance, burning by Martu in Australia’s western deserts de-
couples the relationship between climate and fire, such that large
fires are less likely to occur in areas subject to frequent Martu
burning, even when climatic conditions favour them (Bliege Bird
et al., 2012). What const itutes an ‘ex treme fire event’ under Martu
stewardship may fit within the norm of fire activity in the absence
of Martu burning.
The complementarity of the definitions offered here and else-
where is considerable (Table 3). Under a spatial definition, megafires
can be extreme wildfire events, extreme ecological events, and wildfire
disasters, but they are not necessarily any of these. Megafires are
more likely to be wildfire disasters when they are extreme wildfire
events occurring in densely populated areas. By contrast, megafires
could burn under benign conditions in remote areas, without trig-
gering the loss of life or property, but exceeding the thresholds for
being defined as a megafire. Megafires are more likely to be extreme
ecological events in ecosystems that historically do not experience
large fires or have altered or interrupted fire regimes, whereas they
may be a normal occurrence in others.
5 | CONCLUSIONS
As Earth’s climate shifts, and the risk of larger and more extreme
fire events increases in some locations, it is important that scien-
tists are able to communicate trends in the occurrence of such fires
without ambiguity. Ensuring that scientific terminology appropri-
ately and consistently describes fire events is one way of promoting
clear communication within the scientific community and beyond
(Tedim et al., 2018). We have provided a rationale for one approach
for achieving this, but we recognize that not everyone will agree with
our chosen terminology and we welcome debate on the issue. While
our structured review of ‘megafire’ incorporated scientific literature
in three languages, our review does not explicitly examine perspec-
tives beyond the scientific community. Importantly, the scientific
literature is biased towards particular voices, and away from oth-
ers (e.g., local and Indigenous perspectives; see Fletcher, Hamilton,
et al., 2021; Fletcher, Romano, et al., 2021; Nuñez et al., 2021), and
our review of the scientific literature undoubtably carries these bi-
ases. We therefore invite dialogue that can enhance the diversity
of perspectives regarding the characterization of fire, resulting in
clearer, more measurable, and repeatable descriptions of large fires
across the globe.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We thank the World Wildlife Fund and Australian Wildlife Society
for supporting GDL’s research, and the National Environmental
Science Program’s Threatened Species Recovery Hub (CJJ, DGN)
and the Australian Research Council (DGN; DE170101466). RHN
and GJW are funded by NSW Department of Planning, Industries
and Environment through the NSW Bushfire Risk Management
Research Hub. AR is supported by the Spanish Ministry of Science
and Innovation (IJC2019- 041033- I) and the Portuguese national
funds through FCT Foundation for Science and Technology, I.P.,
under the FirESmart project (PCIF/MOG/0083/2017).
AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS
GDL and CJJ contributed equally to this paper and should be con-
sidered joint first authors. GDL, CJJ and DGN conceived the study.
GDL, CKFL, QW, AR and JR conducted the structured review. GDL,
CJJ, DGN, TSD, WLG, CKFL, QW, AR and JR discussed and inter-
preted the data. GDL, CJJ, WLG and DGN curated, analysed and
visualised the data. GDL, CJJ and DGN led the writing and revision
of the manuscript with contribution from all authors.
DATA AVAIL AB I LI T Y STATE MEN T
A list of the references from which the data were extracted can
be found in the Appendix A: Data sources. The data used in this
study are openly available at zenodo.org: https://doi.org/10.5281/
zenodo.6252145.
ORCID
Grant D. Linley https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3512-2748
Chris J. Jolly https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5234-0897

|
11
LINLE Y Et aL.
Tim S. Doherty https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7745-0251
William L. Geary https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6520-689X
Dolors Armenteras https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0922-7298
Claire M. Belcher https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3496-8290
Andrea Duane https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7687-4546
Michael- Shawn Fletcher https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1854-5629
Melisa A. Giorgis https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6126-6660
Angie Haslem https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2849-9486
Gavin M. Jones https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5102-1229
Luke T. Kelly https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3127-3111
Calvin K. F. Lee https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8277-8614
Rachael H. Nolan https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9277-5142
Catherine L. Parr https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1627-763X
Juli G. Pausas https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3533-5786
Jodi N. Price https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2899-7693
Adrián Regos https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1983-936X
Euan G. Ritchie https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4410-8868
Julien Ruffault https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3647-8172
Grant J. Williamson https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3469-7550
Qianhan Wu https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7557-8152
Dale G. Nimmo https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9814-1009
REFERENCES
Abatzoglou, J. T., & Williams, A. P. (2016). Impact of anthropogenic cli-
mate change on wildfire across western US forests. Proceedings of
the Nation al Academy of Scienc es of the United States of Ame rica, 113,
11770 – 11775. ht tps://doi.org /10.1073/pnas.16071 71113
Adams, M. A. (2013). Mega- fires, tipping points and ecosystem services:
Managing forests and woodlands in an uncertain future. Forest
Ecology and Management, 294, 250– 261. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
foreco.2012.11.039
Alló, M., & Loureiro, M. L. (2020). Assessing preferences for wildf ire pre-
vention policies in Spain. Forest Policy and Economics, 115, 102145.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2020.102145
Andela, N., Morton, D. C., Giglio, L., Chen, Y., Van der Werf, G. R.,
Kasibhatla, P. S., DeFries, R. S., Collatz, G. J., Hantson, S., Kloster,
S., Bachelet, D., Forrest, M., Lasslop, G., Li, F., Mangeon, S., Melton,
J. R., Yue, C., & Randerson, J. T. (2017). A human- driven decline
in global burned area. Science, 356, 1356– 1362. ht t p s ://d o i .
org/10.1126/scien ce.aal4108
Anthony, C. R., Foster, L. J., Hagen, C. A ., & Dugger, K. M. (2021). Acute
and lagged fitness consequences for a sagebrush obligate in a
post mega- wildfire landscape. Ecology and Evolution. ht tps://d oi.
org/10.1002/ece3.8488
Archibald, S., Lehmann, C. E. R., Belcher, C. M., Bond, W. J., Bradstock,
R. A., Daniau, A.- L., Dexter, K. G., Forrestel, E. J., Greve, M., He,
T., Higgins, S. I., Hoffmann, W. A., Lamont, B. B., McGlinn, D. J.,
Moncrieff, G. R., Osborne, C. P., Pausas, J. G., Price, O., Ripley, B.
S., … Zanne, A. E. (2018). Biological and geophysical feedbacks
with fire in the Earth system. Environmental Research Letters, 13,
033003. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748- 9326/aa9ead
Bartlett, T., Leonard, M., & Morgan, G. (2007). The megafire phenome-
non: some Australian perspective. The 2007 Institute of Foresters
of Australia and New Zealand Institute of Forestry Conference:
Program, Abstracts and Papers, Institute of Foresters of Australia,
Canberra.
Barton, A. M., & Poulos, H. M. (2019). Response of Arizona cypress
(Hesperocyparis arizonica) to the Horseshoe Two Megafire in a
south- eastern Arizona Sky Island mountain range. International
Journal of Wildland Fire, 28, 62– 69. https://doi.org/10.1071/
WF18133
Bliege Bird, R., Codding, B. F., Kauhanen, P. G., & Bird, D. W. (2012).
Aboriginal hunting buffers climate- driven fire- size variability in
Australia’s spinifex grasslands. Proceedings of the National Academy
of Sciences of the United States of America, 109, 10287– 10292.
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.12045 85109
Boer, M. M., deDios, V. R., & Bradstock, R. A. (2020). Unprecedented
burn area of Australian mega forest fires. Nature Climate Change,
10, 170– 172. h t t p s : / / d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 1 0 3 8 / s 4 1 5 5 8 - 0 2 0 - 0 7 1 6 - 1
Bowman, D. M. J. S., Balch, J., Artaxo, P., Bond, W. J., Cochrane, M.
A., D’Antonio, C. M., DeFries, R., Johnston, F. H., Keeley, J. E.,
Krawchuk, M. A., Kull, C. A., Mack, M., Moritz, M. A., Pyne, S., Roos,
C. I., Scott, A . C., Sodhi, N. S., & Swetnam, T. W. (2011). The human
dimension of fire regimes on Earth: The human dimension of fire
regimes on Earth. Journal of Biogeography, 38, 2223– 2236. h t t p s : //
doi.org/10.1111/j.1365- 2699.2011.02595. x
Bowman, D. M. J. S., Kolden, C. A., Abatzoglou, J. T., Johnston, F. H.,
van derWerf, G. R., & Flannigan, M. (2020). Vegetation fires in the
Anthropocene. Nature Reviews Earth & Environment, 1, 500– 515.
h t t p s : / / d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 1 0 3 8 / s 4 3 0 1 7 - 0 2 0 - 0 0 8 5 - 3
Bowman, D. M. J. S., Williamson, G. J., Abatzoglou, J. T., Kolden, C. A.,
Cochrane, M. A ., & Smith, A. M. S. (2017). Human exposure and
sensitivity to globally extreme wildfire events. Nature Ecology &
Evolution, 1, 0058. h t t p s : / / d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 1 0 3 8 / s 4 1 5 5 9 - 0 1 6 - 0 0 5 8
Cochrane, M. A. (2003). Fire science for rainforests. Nature, 421, 913–
919. https://doi.org/10.1038/natur e01437
Diakakis, M., Nikolopoulos, E. I., Mavroulis, S., Vassilakis, E., &
Korakaki, E. (2017). Observational evidence on the effects of
mega- fires on the frequency of hydrogeomorphic hazards. The
case of the Peloponnese fires of 2007 in Greece. Science of the
Total Environment, 592, 262– 276. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scito
tenv.2017.03.070
Doerr, S. H., & Santín, C. (2016). Global trends in wildfire and its impacts:
Perceptions versus realities in a changing world. Philosophical
Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 371,
20150345.
Dr is coll , D. A., Balo uch, S. , Bur ns, T. J., Garvey, T. F., Wevi ll, T., Yokoch i,
K., & Doherty, T. S. (2019). A critique of “countryside biogeog-
raphy” as a guide to research in human- dominated landscapes.
Journal of Biogeography, 46, 2 850 – 2859. https://doi.org/10.1111/
jbi.13712
Duane, A., Castellnou, M., & Brotons, L. (2021). Towards a compre-
hensive look at global drivers of novel extreme wildfire events.
Climatic Change, 165, 43. https://doi.org/10.1007/s1058 4- 021-
0 3 0 6 6 - 4
Ellis, E. C., Gauthier, N., Klein Goldewijk, K., Bliege Bird, R., Boivin,
N., Díaz, S., Fuller, D. Q., Gill, J. L., Kaplan, J. O., Kingston, N.,
Locke, H., McMichael, C. N. H., Ranco, D., Rick, T. C., Shaw, M. R.,
Stephens, L., Svenning, J.- C., & Watson, J. E. M. (2021). People
have shaped most of terrestrial nature for at least 12,000 years.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United
States of America, 118, e2023483118. https://doi.org/10.1073/
pnas.20234 83118
Fidelis, A., Alvarado, S., Barradas, A., & Pivello, V. (2018). The year 2017:
Megafires and management in the Cerrado. Fire, 1, 49. h t t p s : //doi .
org/10.3390/fire1 030 049
Fletcher, M.- S., Hamilton, R., Dressler, W., & Palmer, L. (2021). Indigenous
knowledge and the shackles of wilderness. Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 118,
e2022218118. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.20222 18118
Fletcher, M.- S., Romano, A., Connor, S., Mariani, M., & Maezumi, S. Y.
(2021). Catastrophic bushfires, Indigenous fire knowledge and
reframing science in southeast Australia. Fire, 4, 61. ht t p s : //d o i .
org/10.3390/fire4 030061

12
|
LI NLEY Et aL.
French, B. J., Prior, L. D., Williamson, G. J., & Bowman, D. M. J. S.
(2016). Cause and effects of a megafire in sedge- heathland in the
Tasmanian temperate wilderness. Australian Journal of Botany, 64,
513– 525. https://doi.org/10.1071/BT16087
Fusco, E. J., Finn, J. T., Balch, J. K., Nagy, R. C., & Bradley, B. A . (2019).
Invasive grasses increase fire occurrence and frequency across
US ecoregions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
of the United States of America, 116 , 23594– 23599. ht t p s : //d o i .
org /10.1073/pnas.19082 53116
Gaines, S. D., & Denny, M. W. (1993). The largest, smallest, highest, low-
est, longest, and shortest: Extremes in ecology. Ecology, 74, 1677–
1692. https://doi.org/10.2307/1939926
General Office of the State Council. (2018). Regulations on fire prevention
for forests. Decree of the State Council of the Peo ple's Republic of China,
541. https://www.gov.cn/flfg/2008- 12/05/conte nt_11714 07.htm
Godfree, R. C., Knerr, N., Encinas- Viso, F., Albrecht, D., Bush, D.,
Christine Cargill, D., Clements, M., Gueidan, C., Guja, L. K.,
Harwood, T., Joseph, L., Lepschi, B., Nargar, K., Schmidt- Lebuhn, A.,
& Broadhurst, L. M. (2021). Implications of the 2019– 2020 mega-
fires for the biogeography and conservation of Australian vegeta-
tion. Nature Communications, 12, 1023. https://doi.org/10.1038/
s 4 1 4 6 7 - 0 2 1 - 2 1 2 6 6 - 5
Groisman, P., Shugart, H., Kicklighter, D., Henebry, G., Tchebakova, N.,
Maksyutov, S., Monier, E., Gutman, G., Gulev, S., Qi, J., Prishchepov,
A., Kukavskaya, E., Porfiriev, B., Shiklomanov, A ., Loboda, T.,
Shiklomanov, N., Nghiem, S., Bergen, K., Albrechtová, J., … Zolina,
O. (2017). Northern Eurasia Future Initiative (NEFI): Facing the
challenges and pathways of global change in the twenty- first cen-
tury. Progress in Earth and Planetary Science, 4, 1– 48. ht t p s : //d o i .
o r g / 1 0 . 1 1 8 6 / s 4 0 6 4 5 - 0 1 7 - 0 1 5 4 - 5
Gutiérrez, N. A., Medina, L. C., Lackington, T. R., & Kovalskys, D. S.
(2020). De protagonistas a denegados: El doble trauma en un caso
de relocalización post- incendio en Valparaíso, Chile. Scripta Nova.
Revista Electrónica De Geografía Y Ciencias Sociales, 24, 636.
Gutschick, V. P., & BassiriRad, H. (2003). Extreme events as shaping
physiology, ecology, and evolution of plants: Toward a unified defi-
nition and evaluation of their consequences. New Phytologist, 160,
2 1 – 4 2 . https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1469- 8137.2003.00866.x
He, T., Lamont, B. B., & Pausas, J. G. (2019). Fire as a key driver of Earth’s
biodiversity. Biological Reviews, 94 (6), 1983– 2010. h t t p s : //d o i .
org /10.1111/brv.125 44
IPCC (2021). Climate Change 2021: the physical science basis.
Contribution of Working group I to the Sixth Assessment Report
of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Masson-
Delmotte, V., P. Zhai, A. Pirani, S.L.Connors, C. Péan, S. Berger, N.
Caud, Y. Chen, L. Goldfarb, M.I. Gomis, M. Huang, K. Leitzell, E.
Lonnoy, J.B.R. Matthews, T.K. Maycock, T. Waterfield, O. Yelekçi,
R. Yu, and B. Zhou (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press. InPress.
Johnson, A. F., & Lidström, S. (2018). The balance between concepts
and complexity in ecology. Nature Ecology & Evolution, 2, 585– 587.
h t t p s : / / d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 1 0 3 8 / s 4 1 5 5 9 - 0 1 8 - 0 5 0 7 - 5
Jolly, W. M., Cochrane, M. A., Freeborn, P. H., Holden, Z. A., Brown, T.
J., Williamson, G. J., & Bowman, D. M. (2015). Climate- induced
variations in global wildfire danger from 1979 to 2013. Nature
Communications, 6, 1– 11. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomm s8537
Ju ng, T. S. (202 0). Bat s in the chang ing bore al fo res t: Re spo nse to a mega-
fire by endangered little brown bats (Myotis lucifugus). Écoscience,
27, 59– 70.
Katz, R. W., Brush, G. S., & Parlange, M. B. (2005). Statistics of extremes:
Modeling ecological disturbances. Ecology, 86, 1124– 113 4. ht t p s://
doi.org/10.1890/04- 0606
Keeley, J. E., & Syphard, A. D. (2021). Large California wildfires: 2020 fires
in historical context. Fire Ecology, 17, 22. https://doi.org/10.1186/
s 4 2 4 0 8 - 0 2 1 - 0 0 1 1 0 - 7
Keeley, J. E., & Zedler, P. H. (2009). Large, high- intensity fire events
in southern California shrublands: Debunking the fine- grain
age patch model. Ecological Applications, 19, 69– 94. h t t p s : //d o i .
org/10.1890/08- 0281.1
Kelly, L. T., Giljohann, K. M., Duane, A., Aquilué, N., Archibald, S., Batllori,
E., Bennett, A. F., Buckland, S. T., Canelles, Q., Clarke, M. F., Fortin,
M.- J., Hermoso, V., Herrando, S., Keane, R. E., Lake, F. K., McCarthy,
M. A., Morán- Ordóñez, A., Parr, C. L., Pausas, J. G., … Brotons, L.
(2020). Fire and biodiversity in the Anthropocene. Science, 370,
eabb0355. https://doi.org/10.1126/scien ce.abb0355
Keyser, A. R., & Westerling, A. L. (2019). Predicting increasing high se-
verity area burned for three forested regions in the western United
States using extreme value theory. Forest Ecology and Management,
432, 694– 706. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2018.09.027
Khorshidi, M. S., Dennison, P. E., Nikoo, M. R., AghaKouchak, A., Luce,
C. H., & Sadegh, M. (2020). Increasing concurrence of wildfire driv-
ers tripled megafire critical danger days in southern California be-
tween 1982 and 2018. Environmental Research Letters, 15, 104002.
https://doi.org/10.1088/1748- 9326/abae9e
Langpap, C ., & Wu, J. (20 21). Preempti ve incentives an d liabil it y rules
for wildfire risk management. American Journal of Agricultural
Economics, 103, 1783– 1801. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajae.
12220
Lapere, R., Mailler, S., & Menut, L . (2021). The 2017 mega- fires in cen-
tral Chile: Impacts on regional atmospheric composition and me-
teorology assessed from satellite data and chemistry- transport
modeling. Atmosphere, 12, 344. https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos
12030344
Lee, J. S., Callaghan, C. T., & Cornwell, W. K. (2021). Using citizen science
to measure recolonisation of birds after the Australian 2019– 2020
mega- fires. Austral Ecology. https://doi.or g/10.1111/aec .13105
Mack, M. C., Bret- Harte, M. S., Hollingsworth, T. N., Jandt, R. R., Schuur,
E. A. G., Shaver, G. R., & Verbyla, D. L. (2011). Carbon loss from
an unprecedented Arctic tundra wildfire. Nature, 475, 489– 492.
https://doi.org/10.1038/natur e10283
Maditinos, Z., & Vassiliadis, C. (2011). Mega fires: Can they be managed
effectively?Disaster Prevention and Management: An International
Journal, 20, 41– 52. ht tps://doi.org /10.1108/09653 56111 1111072
Maezumi, S. Y., Robinson, M., deSouza, J., Urrego, D. H., Schaan, D.,
Alves, D., & Iriarte, J. (2018). New insights from pre- Columbian
land use and fire management in Amazonian dark earth forests.
Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution, 6, 111. https://doi.org/10.3389/
fevo.2018.0 0111
Mancini, L. D., Barbati, A., & Corona, P. (2017). Geospatial analysis
of woodland fire occurrence and recurrence in Italy. Annals of
Silvicultural Research, 41, 41– 47.
Moritz, M. A. (1997). Analyzing extreme disturbance events: Fire in los
padres national forest. Ecological Applications, 7, 1252– 1262.
Nimmo, D. G., Carthey, A. J. R., Jolly, C. J., & Blumstein, D. T. (2021).
Welcome to the Pyrocene: Animal survival in the age of mega-
fire. Global Change Biology, 5684– 5693. https://doi.org /10.1111/
gcb.15834
Nuñez, M. A., Chiuffo, M. C., Pauchard, A., & Zenni, R. D. (2021). Making
ecology really global. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 36, 766– 769.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2021.06.004
Olson, D. M., Dinerstein, E., Wikramanayake, E. D., Burgess, N. D.,
Powell, G. V. N., Underwood, E. C., D’amico, J. A., Itoua, I., Strand,
H. E., Morrison, J. C., Loucks, C. J., Allnutt, T. F., Ricketts, T. H.,
Kura, Y., Lamoreux, J. F., Wettengel, W. W., Hedao, P., & Kassem, K.
R. (2001). Terrestrial ecoregions of the world: A new map of life on
earth. BioScience, 51, 933.
Omi, P. N. (2005). Forest fires: A reference handbook. ABC- CLIO.
Ozturk, M., Gucel , S., Kucuk, M., & Sakcali, S. (2010). Forest diversit y, cli-
mate change and forest fires in the Mediterranean region of Turkey.
Journal of Environmental Biology, 31, 1– 9.
Pausas, J. G., & Keeley, J. E. (2021). Wildfires and global change.
Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 19, 387– 395. ht t p s : //d o i .
org/10.1002/fee. 2359

|
13
LINLE Y Et aL.
Pausas, J. G., & Parr, C. L. (2018). Towards an understanding of the evo-
lutionary role of fire in animals. Evolutionary Ecology, 32, 113– 125.
h t t p s : / / d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 1 0 0 7 / s 1 0 6 8 2 - 0 1 8 - 9 9 2 7 - 6
Pulsford, S. A ., Lindenmayer, D. B., & Driscoll, D. A. (2016). A succession
of theories: Purging redundancy from disturbance theory: Purging
redundancy from disturbance theory. Biological Reviews, 91, 148–
16 7. htt ps://doi.org/10.1111/br v.12163
Regan, H. M., Colyvan, M., & Burgman, M. A. (2002). A taxonomy and
treatment of uncertainty for ecology and conservation biology.
Ecological Applications, 12, 618– 628.
Santos, X., Belliure, J., Gonçalves, J., & Pausas, J. G. (2022). Resilience of
reptiles to megafires. Ecological Applications, 32, e2518. ht t p s : //doi.
org/10.1002/eap.2518
Schofield, L. N., Eyes, S. A., Siegel, R. B., & Stock, S. L. (2020). Habitat
selection by spotted owls after a megafire in Yosemite National
Park. Forest Ecology and Management, 478, 118511. h t tps://doi.
org/10.1016/j.foreco.2020.118511
Smith, D. S., Fettig, S. M., & Bowker, M. A. (2016). Elevated Rocky
Mountain elk numbers prevent positive effects of fire on quak-
ing aspen (Populus tremuloides) recruitment. Forest Ecology
and Management, 362, 46– 54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
foreco.2015.11.020
Stephens, S. L., Burrows, N., Buyantuyev, A., Gray, R. W., Keane,
R. E., Kubian, R., Liu, S., Seijo, F., Shu, L., Tolhurst, K. G., & van-
Wagtendonk, J. W. (2014). Temperate and boreal forest mega-
fires: Characteristics and challenges. Frontiers in Ecology and the
Environment, 12, 115– 122. https://doi.org/10.1890/120332
Stephens, S. L ., & Ruth, L. W. (2005). Federal forest- fire policy in the
United States. Ecological Applications, 15, 532– 542. h t tps://doi.
org/10.1890/04- 0545
Tedim, F., Leone, V., Amraoui, M., Bouillon, C., Coughlan, M., Delogu,
G., Fernandes, P., Ferreira, C., McCaffrey, S., McGee, T., Parente,
J., Paton, D., Pereira, M., Ribeiro, L., Viegas, D., & Xanthopoulos,
G. (2018). Defining extreme wildfire events: Difficulties, chal-
lenges, and impacts. Fire, 1, 9. https://doi.org/10.3390/fire1
010009
Tedim, F., Remelgado, R., Carvalho, S., & Martins, J. (2015). The largest
forest fires in Portugal: The constraints of burned area size on the
comprehension of fire severity. Journal of Environmental Biology, 36,
1 3 3 – 1 4 3 .
Trisos, C. H., Auerback, J., & Katti, M. (2021). Decoloniality and anti-
oppressive practices for a more ethical ecology. Nature Ecology &
Evolution, 5, 1205– 1212. https://doi.org /10.1038/s4155 9- 021-
0 1 4 6 0 - w
United Nations Environment Programme (2022). Spreading like wildfire
– The rising threat of extraordinary landscape fires. A UNEP Rapid
Response Assessment. UNEP, Nairobi.
Walker, X. J., Rogers, B. M., Baltzer, J. L., Cumming, S. G., Day, N. J.,
Goetz, S. J., Johnstone, J. F., Schuur, E. A. G., Turetsky, M. R., &
Mack, M. C. (2018). Cross- scale controls on carbon emissions from
boreal forest megafires. Global Change Biology, 24, 4251– 4265.
https://doi.or g/10.1111/gcb.14287
Whitney, J. E., Gido, K. B., Pilger, T. J., Propst, D. L., & Turner, T. F. (2015).
Consecutive wildfires affect stream biota in cold- and warmwater
dryland river networks. Freshwater Science, 34, 1510– 1526. h t t p s : //
doi.org/10.1086/683391
Williams, J. E. (2010). The 1910 Fires a centur y later: Could they hap-
pen again. Proceedings of the Inland Empire Society of American
Foresters Annual Meeting, Wallace, ID, USA
Williams, J. E. (2013). Exploring the onset of high- impact mega-
fires through a forest land management prism. Forest Ecology
and Management, 294, 4– 10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
foreco.2012.06.030
Williams, J. E., Albright, D. O., Hoffmann, A. A., Eritsov, A. N., Moore,
P. F., Mendes de Morais, J. C., Leonard, M., San Miguel- Ayanz, J.,
Xanthopoulos, G., & Van Lierop, P. (2011). Findings and implications
from a coarse- scale global assessment of recent selected mega-
fires. International Wildland Fire Conference, South Africa.
Williams, J. E., Hamilton, L., Mann, R., Rounsaville, M., Leonard, H.,
Daniels, O., & Bunnell, D. (2005). The mega- fire phenomenon: Toward
a more effective management model. A concept paper. Brookings
Institution. http://www.bushf irecrc.com/sites/ defau lt/files/
manag ed/resou rce/mega- fire_conce pt_paper_septe mber_20_
Wu, C., Venevsky, S., Sitch, S., Mercado, L. M., Huntingford, C., & Staver,
A. C. (2021). Historical and future global burned area with changing
climate and human demography. One Earth, 4, 517– 530. ht t ps: //doi.
org/10.1016/j.oneear.2021.03.002
Zhuang, Y., Fu, R., Santer, B. D., Dickinson, R. E., & Hall, A. (2021).
Quantifying contributions of natural variability and anthropogenic
forcings on increased fire weather risk over the western United
States. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United
States of America, 118, e2023483118. ht tps://doi.org/10.1073/
pnas. 21118 75118
BIOSKETCHES
Grant LinLey is a PhD Candidate at Charles Sturt University’s
Gulbali Institute and Chris Jolly is a Postdoctoral Research Fellow
at Macquarie University's School of Natural Sciences, and both
study the effects of megafire on wildlife. This team is composed
of fire scientists from around the world.
SUPPORTING INFORMATION
Additional supporting information may be found in the online
version of the article at the publisher’s website.
How to cite this article: Linley, G. D., Jolly, C. J., Doherty, T.
S., Geary, W. L., Armenteras, D., Belcher, C. M., Bliege Bird,
R., Duane, A., Fletcher, M.- S., Giorgis, M. A., Haslem, A.,
Jones, G. M., Kelly, L. T., Lee, C. K. F., Nolan, R. H., Parr, C. L.,
Pausas, J. G., Price, J. N., Regos, A., … Nimmo, D. G. (2022).
What do you mean, ‘megafire’? Global Ecology and
Biogeography, 00, 1– 17. https://doi.org/10 .1111/geb.13499
APPENDIX A
DATA SO U RC ES
Abella, S. R. & Fornwalt, P. J. (2015) Ten years of vegetation assem-
bly after a North American mega fire. Global Change Biology, 21,
789– 802.
Adams, M. A. (2013) Mega- fires, tipping points and ecosystem
services: Managing forests and woodlands in an uncertain future.
Forest Ecology and Management, 294, 250– 261.
Ager, A. A., Day, M. A., McHugh, C. W., Short, K., Gilbertson- Day,
J., Finney, M. A. & Calkin, D. E. (2014) Wildfire exposure and fuel
management on western US national forests. Journal of Enviro nmental
Management, 145, 54– 70.
Alló, M. & Loureiro, M. L. (2020) Assessing preferences for wild-
fire prevention policies in Spain. Forest Policy and Economics, 115,
102145.

14
|
LI NLEY Et aL.
Anthony, C. R., Foster, L. J., Hagen, C. A . & Dugger, K. M. (2021).
Acute and lagged fitness consequences for a sagebrush obligate in a
post mega- wildfire landscape. Ecology and Evolution.
Baranowski, K., Faust, C. L., Eby, P. & Bharti, N. (2021).
Quantifying the impacts of Australian bushfires on native forests
and gray- headed flying foxes. Global Ecology and Conservation, 27,
e01566.
de la Barrera, F., Barraza, F., Favier, P., Ruiz, V. & Quense, J. (2018)
Megafires in Chile 2017: Monitoring multiscale environmental im-
pacts of burned ecosystems. Science of The Total Environment, 637,
1526– 1536.
Barton, A. M. & Poulos, H. M. (2019) Response of Arizona cypress
(Hesperocyparis arizonica) to the Horseshoe Two Megafire in a south-
eastern Arizona Sky Island mountain range. International Journal of
Wildland Fire, 28, 62– 69.
Berroeta, H., Pinto de Carvalho, L., Castillo- Sepúlveda, J. &
Opazo, L. (2021). Sociospatial ties and postdisaster reconstruction:
An analysis of the assemblage in the mega- fire of Valparaíso. Journal
of community psychology, 49, 95– 117.
Boer, M. M., de Dios, V. R. & Bradstock, R. A. (2020) Unprecedented
burn area of Australian mega forest fires. Nature Climate Change, 10,
170– 172.
Bowman, D. M. J. S., Perry, G. L. W., Higgins, S. I., Johnson,
C. N., Fuhlendorf, S. D. & Murphy, B. P. (2016) Pyrodiversity is
the coupling of biodiversity and fire regimes in food webs.
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences,
371, 20150169.
Bowman, D. M. J. S., Williamson, G. J., Price, O. F., Ndalila, M. N.
& Bradstock, R. A. (2021) Australian forests, megafires and the risk
of dwindling carbon stocks. Plant, Cell & Environment, 44, 347– 355.
Brookes, W., Daniels, L. D., Copes- Gerbitz, K., Baron, J. N. &
Carroll, A. L. (2021). A disrupted historical fire regime in central
British Columbia. Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution, 9, 676961.
Bytnerowicz, A., Hsu, Y.- M., Percy, K., Legge, A., Fenn, M. E.,
Schilling, S., Frączek, W. & Alexander, D. (2016) Ground- level air
pollution changes during a boreal wildland mega- fire. Science of The
Total Environment, 572, 755– 769.
Cai, W., Yang, J., Liu, Z., Hu, Y. & Weisberg, P. J. (2013) Post- fire
tree recruitment of a boreal larch forest in Northeast China. Forest
Ecology and Management, 307, 20– 29.
Calhoun, K. L., Chapman, M., Tubbesing, C., McInturff, A., Gaynor,
K. M., Van Scoyoc, A., Wilkinson, C. E., Parker- Shames, P., Kurz, D.
& Brashares, J. (2021). Spatial overlap of wildfire and biodiversity in
California highlights gap in non- conifer fire research and manage-
ment. Diversity and Distributions.
Casas, Á., García, M., Siegel, R. B., Koltunov, A., Ramírez, C. &
Ustin, S. (2016) Burned forest characterization at single- tree level
with airborne laser scanning for assessing wildlife habitat. Remote
Sensing of Environment, 175, 231– 241.
Coen, J. L., Stavros, E. N. & Fites- Kaufman, J. A. (2018)
Deconstructing the King megafire. Ecological Applications, 28,
1565– 1580.
Collins, L., Bradstock, R. A., Clarke, H., Clarke, M. F., Nolan,
R. H. & Penman, T. D. (2021) The 2019/2020 mega- fires exposed
Australian ecosystems to an unprecedented extent of high- severity
fire. Environmental Research Letters, 16 , 044029.
Crandall, T., Jones, E., Greenhalgh, M., Frei, R. J., Griffin, N.,
Severe, E., Maxwell, J., Patch, L., St. Clair, S. I., Bratsman, S., Merritt,
M., Norris, A. J., Carling, G. T., Hansen, N., St. Clair, S. B. & Abbott,
B. W. (2021). Megafire affects stream sediment flux and dissolved
organic matter reactivity, but land use dominates nutrient dynamics
in semiarid watersheds. PloS one, 16, e0257733.
Crates, R., Rayner, L., Stojanovic, D., Scheele, B. C., Roff, A.,
MacKenzie, J. & Heinsohn, R. (2021). Poor- quality monitoring data
underestimate the impact of Australia’s megafires on a critically en-
dangered songbird. Diversity and Distributions.
Davies, K. W., Boyd, C. S., Bates, J. D. & Hulet, A. (2016) Winter
grazing can reduce wildfire size, intensity and behaviour in a shrub-
grassland. International Journal of Wildland Fire, 25, 191– 199.
Diakakis, M., Nikolopoulos, E. I., Mavroulis, S., Vassilakis, E. &
Korakaki, E. (2017) Observational evidence on the effects of mega-
fires on the frequency of hydrogeomorphic hazards. The case
of the Peloponnese fires of 2007 in Greece. Science of The Total
Environment, 592, 262– 276.
Dickson- Hoyle, S., Ignace, R. E., Ignace, M. B., Hagerman, S. M.,
Daniels, L. D. & Copes- Gerbitz, K. (2021). Walking on two legs: a
pathway of Indigenous restoration and reconciliation in fire- adapted
landscapes. Restoration Ecology, e13566.
Dimitrakopoulos, A., Gogi, C., Stamatelos, G. & Mitsopoulos,
I. (2011) Statistical analysis of the fire environment of large forest
fires (>1000 ha) in Greece. Polish Journal of Environmental Studies,
20, 327– 332.
Fernández- Guisuraga, J. M., Verrelst, J., Calvo, L. & Suárez-
Seoane, S. (2021). Hybrid inversion of radiative transfer models
based on high spatial resolution satellite reflectance data improves
fractional vegetation cover retrieval in heterogeneous ecological
systems after fire. Remote Sensing of Environment, 255, 112304.
Fernández- Manso, A., Quintano, C. & Roberts, D. A. (2020) Can
landsat- derived variables related to energy balance improve un-
derstanding of burn severity from current operational techniques?
Remote Sensing, 12, 890.
FerreirA- leiTe, F., Lourenço, L. & Bento- Gonçalves, A. (2013).
Large forest fires in mainland Portugal, brief characteriza-
tion. Méditerranée. Revue géographique des pays méditerranéens/
Journal of Mediterranean geography, 121, 53– 65.
Fidelis, A., Alvarado, S., Barradas, A. & Pivello, V. (2018) The year
2017: Megafires and management in the Cerrado. Fire, 1, 49.
French, B. J., Prior, L. D., Williamson, G. J. & Bowman, D. M. J. S.
(2016) Cause and effects of a megafire in sedge- heathland in the
Tasmanian temperate wilderness. Australian Journal of Botany, 64,
513– 525.
Gallagher, R. V., Allen, S., Mackenzie, B. D. E., Yates, C. J., Gosper,
C. R., Keith, D. A., Merow, C., White, M. D., Wenk, E., Maitner, B. S.,
He, K., Adams, V. M. & Auld, T. D. (2021) High fire frequency and

|
15
LINLE Y Et aL.
the impact of the 2019– 2020 megafires on Australian plant diversity.
Diversity and Distributions, 27, 1166– 1179.
Ganey, J. L., Wan, H. Y., Cushman, S. A. & Vojta, C. D. (2017)
Conflicting perspectives on spotted owls, wildfire, and forest resto-
ration. Fire Ecology, 13, 146– 165.
Garcia, M., Saatchi, S., Casas, A., Koltunov, A., Ustin, S., Ramirez,
C., Garcia- Gutierrez, J. & Balzter, H. (2017) Quantifying biomass
consumptio n and carbon rel ease from the California Rim fire by inte-
grating airborne LiDAR and Landsat OLI data. Journal of Geophysical
Research: Biogeosciences, 122, 340– 353.
García- Carmona, M., Marín, C., García- Orenes, F. & Rojas, C.
(2021). Contrasting organic amendments induce different short-
term responses in soil abiotic and biotic properties in a fire- affected
native Mediterranean forest in Chile. Journal of Soil Science and Plant
Nutrition, 21(3), 2105- 2114.
García- Llamas, P., Suárez- Seoane, S., Taboada, A., Fernández-
García, V., Fernández- Guisuraga, J. M., Fernández- Manso, A.,
Quintano, C., Marcos, E. & Calvo, L. (2019a) Assessment of the
influence of biophysical properties related to fuel conditions on
fire severity using remote sensing techniques: a case study on a
large fire in NW Spain. International Journal of Wildland Fire, 28,
512– 520 .
García- Llamas, P., Suárez- Seoane, S., Taboada, A., Fernández-
Manso, A., Quintano, C., Fernández- García, V., Fernández-
Guisuraga, J. M., Marcos, E. & Calvo, L. (2019b) Environmental
drivers of fire severity in extreme fire events that affect
Mediterranean pine forest ecosystems. Forest Ecology and
Management, 433, 24– 32.
Geary, W. L., Buchan, A., Allen, T., Attard, D., Bruce, M. J.,
Collins, L., Ecker, T. E., Fairman, T. A., Hollings, T., Loeffler, E.,
Muscatello, A., Parkes, D., Thomson, J., White, M. & Kelly, E.
(2021). Responding to the biodiversity impacts of a megafire: A
case study from south- eastern Australia’s Black Summer. Diversity
and Distributions.
General Office of the State Council (2018). Regulations on Fire
Prevention for Forests. Decree of the State Council of the People’s
Republic of China. 541. http://www.gov.cn/flfg/2008- 12/05/conte
nt_11714 07.htm
Gill, A. M. & Stephens, S. L. (2009) Scientific and social chal-
lenges for the management of fire- prone wildland– urban interfaces.
Environmental Research Letters, 4, 034014.
Godfree, R. C., Knerr, N., Encinas- Viso, F., Albrecht, D., Bush,
D., Christine Cargill, D., Clements, M., Gueidan, C., Guja, L. K.,
Harwood, T., Joseph, L., Lepschi, B., Nargar, K., Schmidt- Lebuhn, A.
& Broadhurst, L. M. (2021) Implications of the 2019– 2020 megafires
for the biogeography and conservation of Australian vegetation.
Nature Communications, 12, 1023.
Groisman, P., Shugart, H., Kicklighter, D., Henebry, G.,
Tchebakova, N., Maksyutov, S., Monier, E., Gutman, G., Gulev, S.,
Qi, J., Prishchepov, A., Kukavskaya, E., Porfiriev, B., Shiklomanov, A.,
Loboda, T., Shiklomanov, N., Nghiem, S., Bergen, K., Albrechtová, J.,
Chen, J., Shahgedanova, M., Shvidenko, A., Speranskaya, N., Soja, A.,
de Beurs, K., Bulygina, O., McCarty, J., Zhuang, Q. & Zolina, O. (2017)
Northern Eurasia Future Initiative (NEFI): facing the challenges and
pathways of global change in the twenty- first century. Progress in
Earth and Planetary Science, 4, 1– 48.
Guerra, C., Plaza, H. & Vargas, J. (2018). Estrés postraumático en
adolescentes expuestos a un mega incendio: Asociaciones con fac-
tores cognitivos y emocionales. Psicoperspectivas, 17, 175– 186.
Gustafsson, L., Berglind, M., Granström, A., Grelle, A., Isacsson,
G., Kjellander, P., Larsson, S., Lindh, M., Pettersson, L. B., Strengbom,
J., Stridh, B., Sävström, T., Thor, G., Wikars, L.- O. & Mikusiński, G.
(2019) Rapid ecological response and intensified knowledge accu-
mulation following a north European mega- fire. Scandinavian Journal
of Forest Research, 34, 234– 253.
Gustafsson, L., Granath, G., Nohrstedt, H. Ö., Leverkus, A. B. &
Johansson, V. (2021). Burn severity and soil chemistry are weak
drivers of early vegetation succession following a boreal mega- fire
in a production forest landscape. Journal of Vegetation Science, 32,
e12966.
Gutiérrez, N. A., Medina, L. C., Lackington, T. R. & Kovalskys, D.
S. (2020). De protagonistas a denegados: el doble trauma en un caso
de relocalización post- incendio en Valparaíso, Chile. Scripta Nova.
Revista Electrónica de Geografía y Ciencias Sociales, 24, 636.
Hagmann, R. K., Merschel, A. G. & Reilly, M. J. (2019) Historical
patterns of fire severity and forest structure and composition in a
landscape structured by frequent large fires: Pumice Plateau ecore-
gion, Oregon, USA. Landscape Ecology, 34, 551– 568.
Jia, S., Kim, S. H., Nghiem, S. V., Doherty, P. & Kafatos, M. C.
(2020) Patterns of population displacement during mega- fires in
California detected using Facebook Disaster Maps. Environmental
Research Letters, 15, 074029.
Jolly, C. J., Dickman, C. R., Doherty, T. S., van Eeden, L. M., Geary,
W. L., Legge, S. M., Woinarski, J. C. Z. & Nimmo, D. G. (2021). Animal
mortality during fire. Global Change Biology.
Jolly, C. J., Moore, H. A., Cowan, M. A., Cremona, T., Dunlop, J. A.,
Legge, S. M., Linley, G. D., Miritis, V., Woinarski, J. C. Z. & Nimmo,
D. G. (2022). Taxonomic revision reveals potential impacts of Black
Summer megafires on a cryptic species. Pacific Conservation Biology.
Jones, B. A., Thacher, J. A., Chermak, J. M. & Berrens, R. P.
(2016a) Wildfire smoke health costs: a methods case study for a
Southwestern US ‘mega- fire.’ Journal of Environmental Economics and
Policy, 5, 181– 199.
Jones, B. A. & McDermott, S. (2021a). The local labor market im-
pacts of US megafires. Sustainability, 13, 9078.
Jones, B. A. & McDermott, S. (2021b). Infant health outcomes in
mega- fire affected communities. Applied Economics Letters.
Jones, G. M., Gutiérrez, R., Tempel, D. J., Whitmore, S. A., Berigan,
W. J. & Peery, M. Z. (2016b) Megafires: an emerging threat to old-
forest species. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 14, 300– 306.
Jones, G. M., Kramer, H. A., Berigan, W. J., Whitmore, S. A.,
Gutiérrez, R. J. & Peery, M. Z. (2021). Megafire causes persistent
loss of an old- forest species. Animal Conservation, 24, 925– 936.
Jung, T. S. (2020) Bats in the changing boreal forest: response
to a megafire by endangered little brown bats (Myotis lucifugus).
Écoscience, 27, 59– 70.

16
|
LI NLEY Et aL.
Keeley, J. E. & Zedler, P. H. (2009) Large, high- intensity fire events
in southern California shrublands: debunking the fine- grain age
patch model. Ecological Applications, 19, 69– 94.
Khorshidi, M. S., Dennison, P. E., Nikoo, M. R., AghaKouchak, A.,
Luce, C. H. & Sadegh, M. (2020) Increasing concurrence of wildfire
drivers tripled megafire critical danger days in southern California
between 1982 and 2018. Environmenta l Research Letters, 15, 10 40 02.
Kramer, A., Jones, G. M., Whitmore, S. A., Keane, J. J., Atuo, F. A.,
Dotters, B. P., Sawyer, S. C., Stock, S. L., Gutiérrez, R. J. & Peery, M.
Z. (2021) California spotted owl habitat selection in a fire- managed
landscape suggests conservation benefit of restoring historical fire
regimes. Forest Ecology and Management, 479, 118576.
Kreling, S. E., Gaynor, K. M., McInturff, A., Calhoun, K. L. &
Brashares, J. S. (2021). Site fidelity and behavioral plasticity regu-
late an ungulate’s response to extreme disturbance. Ecology and
Evolution, 11, 15683– 15694.
Lapere, R., Mailler, S. & Menut, L. (2021) The 2017 mega- fires
in central Chile: Impacts on regional atmospheric composition and
meteorology assessed from satellite data and chemistry- transport
modeling. Atmosphere, 12, 344.
Lee, J. S., Callaghan, C. T. & Cornwell, W. K. (2021). Using citi-
zen science to measure recolonisation of birds after the Australian
2019– 2020 mega- fires. Austral Ecology.
Lindley, T. T., Speheger, D. A., Day, M. A., Murdoch, G. P., Smith,
B. R., Nauslar, N. J. & Daily, D. C. (2019) Megafires on the Southern
Great Plains. Journal of Operational Meteorology, 7, 164– 179.
Liu, Y., Stantur f, J. & Goo drick, S. (2010) Trends in glob al wildfire pote n-
tial in a changing climate. Forest Ecology and Management, 259, 685– 697.
Mackey, B., Lindenmayer, D., Norman, P., Taylor, C. & Gould,
S. (2021). Are fire refugia less predictable due to climate
change? Environmental Research Letters, 16, 114028.
Maditinos, Z. & Vassiliadis, C. (2011) Mega fires: can they be
managed effectively? Disaster Prevention and Management: An
International Journal, 20, 41– 52.
Maezumi, S. Y., Robinson, M., de Souza, J., Urrego, D. H., Schaan,
D., Alves, D. & Iriarte, J. (2018) New insights from pre- Columbian
land use and fire management in Amazonian dark earth forests.
Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution, 6, 111.
Mancilla- Ruiz, D., Barrera, F. D. L., González, S. & Huaico, A.
(2021). The effects of a megafire on ecosystem services and the
pace of landscape recovery. Land, 10, 1388.
Mancini, L. D., Barbati, A. & Corona, P. (2017) Geospatial analy-
sis of woodland fire occurrence and recurrence in Italy. Annals of
Silvicultural Research, 41, 41– 47.
Martins, P. I., Belém, L. B. C., Szabo, J. K., Libonati, R. & Garcia, L.
C. (2022). Prioritising areas for wildfire prevention and post- fire res-
toration in the Brazilian Pantanal. Ecological Engineering, 176, 106517.
Martinsson, J., Pédehontaa- Hiaa, G., Malmborg, V., Madsen, D. &
Rääf, C. (2021) Experimental wildfire induced mobility of radioce-
sium in a boreal forest environment. Science of The Total Environment,
792, 148310.
Maxwell, C. J., Serra- Diaz, J. M., Scheller, R. M. & Thompson, J. R.
(2020) Co- designed management scenarios shape the responses of
seasonally dry forests to changing climate and fire regimes. Journal
of Applied Ecology, 57, 1328– 1340.
Merino, A., Jiménez, E., Fernández, C., Fontúrbel, M. T.,
Campo, J. & Vega, J. A. (2019) Soil organic matter and phos-
phorus dynamics after low intensity prescribed burning in for-
ests and shrubland. Journal of Environmental Management, 234,
214– 225.
Morgan, G. W., Tolhurst, K. G., Poynter, M. W., Cooper, N.,
McGuffog, T., Ryan, R., Wouters, M. A., Stephens, N., Black, P.,
Sheehan, D., Leeson, P., Whight, S. & Davey, S. M. (2020) Prescribed
burning in south- eastern Australia: history and future directions.
Australian Forestry, 83, 4– 28.
Natole Jr, M., Ying, Y., Buyantuev, A., Stessin, M., Buyantuev, V.
& Lapenis, A. (2021). Patterns of mega- forest fires in east Siberia
will become less predictable with climate warming. Environmental
Advances, 4, 100041.
Navarro, K. M., Cisneros, R., O’Neill, S. M., Schweizer, D., Larkin,
N. K. & Balmes, J. R. (2016) Air- quality impacts and intake fraction
of PM2.5 during the 2013 Rim Megafire. Environmental Science &
Technology, 50, 11965– 11973.
Newsome, T. M. & Spencer, E. E. (2021) Megafires attract avian
scavenging but carcasses still persist. Diversity and Distributions.
Nimmo, D. G., Carthey, A. J., Jolly, C. J. & Blumstein, D. T. (2021).
Welcome to the Pyrocene: Animal survival in the age of mega-
fire. Global Change Biology, 27, 5684– 5693.
Oliveira, M., Delerue- Matos, C., Pereira, M. C. & Morais, S. (2020)
Environmental particulate matter levels during 2017 large forest
fires and megafires in the center region of Portugal: A public health
concern? International Journal of Environmental Research and Public
Health, 17, 1032.
Pausas, J. G. & Keeley, J. E. (2021) Wildfires and global change.
Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 19, 387– 395.
Pickell, P. D., Chavardès, R. D., Li, S. & Daniels, L. D. (2020).
FuelNet: An Artificial Neural Network for Learning and Updating
Fuel Types for Fire Research. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and
Remote Sensing, 59, 7338– 7352.
Pliscoff, P., Folchi, M., Aliste, E., Cea, D. & Simonetti, J. A. (2020)
Chile mega- fire 2017: An analysis of social representation of forest
plantation territory. Applied Geography, 119, 102226.
Potter, B. E., & McEvoy, D. (2021). Weather factors associated
with extremely large fires and fire growth days. Earth Interactions, 25,
16 0 – 176 .
Quintano, C., Fernández- Manso, A., Calvo, L. & Roberts, D. A.
(2019) Vegetation and soil fire damage analysis based on species dis-
tribution modeling trained with multispectral satellite data. Remote
Sensing, 11, 1832.
Quintano, C., Fernández- Manso, A. & Roberts, D. A. (2020)
Enhanced burn severity estimation using fine resolution ET and
MESMA fraction images with machine learning algorithm. Remote
Sensing of Environment, 244, 111815.
Robson, B. J., Chester, E. T., Matthews, T. G. & Johnston, K. (2018)
Post- wildfire recovery of invertebrate diversity in drought- affected
headwater streams. Aquatic Sciences, 80, 21.

|
17
LINLE Y Et aL.
San- Miguel- Ayanz, J., Moreno, J. M. & Camia, A. (2013) Analysis of
large fires in European Mediterranean landscapes: Lessons learned
and perspectives. Forest Ecology and Management, 294, 11– 22.
Santos, X., Belliure, J., Gonçalves, J. & Pausas, J. G. (2022).
Resilience of reptiles to megafires. Ecological Applications, 32, e2518.
Schofield, L. N., Eyes, S. A., Siegel, R. B. & Stock, S. L. (2020)
Habitat selection by spotted owls after a megafire in Yosemite
National Park. Forest Ecology and Management, 478, 118511.
Siegel, R. B., Eyes, S. A., Tingley, M. W., Wu, J. X., Stock, S. L.,
Medley, J. R., Kalinowski, R. S., Casas, A., Lima- Baumbach, M. & Rich,
A. C. (2019) Short- term resilience of Great Gray Owls to a megafire
in California, USA . The Condor, 121, duy019.
Silvestro, R., Saulino, L., Cavallo, C., Allevato, E., Pindozzi, S.,
Cervelli, E., Conti, P., Mazzoleni, S. & Saracino, A. (2021). The foot-
print of wildfires on Mediterranean forest ecosystem services in
Vesuvius National Park. Fire, 4, 95.
Smith, D. S., Fettig, S. M. & Bowker, M. A . (2016) Elevated Rocky
Mountain elk numbers prevent positive effects of fire on quak-
ing aspen (Populus tremuloides) recruitment. Forest Ecology and
Management, 362, 46– 54.
Stephens, S. L., Burrows, N., Buyantuyev, A., Gray, R. W.,
Keane, R. E., Kubian, R., Liu, S., Seijo, F., Shu, L., Tolhurst, K. G. &
van Wagtendonk, J. W. (2014) Temperate and boreal forest mega-
fires: characteristics and challenges. Frontiers in Ecology and the
Environment, 12, 115– 122.
Stephens, S. L. & Ruth, L. W. (2005) Federal forest- fire policy in
the United States. Ecological Applications, 15, 532– 542.
Stillman, A. N., Siegel, R. B., Wilkerson, R. L., Johnson, M. &
Tingley, M. W. (2019) Age- dependent habitat relationships of a
burned forest specialist emphasise the role of pyrodiversity in fire
management. Journal of Applied Ecology, 56, 880– 890.
Tang, C. Q., He, L.- Y., Su, W.- H., Zhang, G.- F., Wang, H.- C., Peng,
M.- C., Wu, Z.- L. & Wang, C.- Y. (2013) Regeneration, recovery and
succession of a Pinus yunnanensis community five years after a
mega- fire in central Yunnan, China. Forest Ecology and Management,
294, 188– 196.
Tedim, F., Remelgado, R., Borges, C., Carvalho, S. & Martins, J.
(2013) Exploring the occurrence of mega- fires in Portugal. Forest
Ecology and Management, 294, 86– 96.
Tedim, F., Remelgado, R., Carvalho, S. & Martins, J. (2015) The
largest forest fires in Portugal: the constraints of burned area size on
the comprehension of fire severity. Journal of Environmental Biology,
36, 133– 143.
Torkkola, J. J., Chauvenet, A. L., Hines, H., & Oliver, P. M. (2021).
Distributional modelling, megafires and data gaps highlight prob-
able underestimation of climate change risk for two lizards from
Australia’s montane rainforests. Austral Ecology.
Walker, X. J., Rogers, B. M., Baltzer, J. L., Cumming, S. G., Day, N.
J., Goetz, S. J., Johnstone, J. F., Schuur, E. A. G., Turetsky, M. R. &
Mack, M. C. (2018) Cross- scale controls on carbon emissions from
boreal forest megafires. Global Change Biology, 24, 4251– 4265.
Waltz, A. E. M., Stoddard, M. T., Kalies, E. L., Springer, J. D.,
Huffman, D. W. & Meador, A. S. (2014) Effectiveness of fuel reduction
treatments: Assessing metrics of forest resiliency and wildfire severity
after the Wallow Fire, AZ. Forest Ecology and Management, 334, 4 3 – 5 2 .
Ward, M., Tulloch, A. I. T., Radford, J. Q., Williams, B. A., Reside,
A. E., Macdonald, S. L., Mayfield, H. J., Maron, M., Possingham, H.
P., Vine, S. J., O’Connor, J. L., Massingham, E. J., Greenville, A. C.,
Woinarski, J. C. Z., Garnett, S. T., Lintermans, M., Scheele, B. C.,
Carwardine, J., Nimmo, D. G., Lindenmayer, D. B., Kooyman, R. M.,
Simmonds, J. S., Sonter, L. J. & Watson, J. E. M. (2020) Impact of
2019– 2020 mega- fires on Australian fauna habitat. Nature Ecology &
Evolution, 4, 1321– 1326.
Whitney, J. E., Gido, K. B., Pilger, T. J., Propst, D. L. & Turner, T. F.
(2015) Consecutive wildfires affect stream biota in cold- and warm-
water dryland river networks. Freshwater Science, 34, 1510– 1526.
Williams, J. E. (2013) Exploring the onset of high- impact mega-
fires through a forest land management prism. Forest Ecology and
Management, 294, 4– 10.
Wintle, B. A., Legge, S. & Woinarski, J. C. Z. (2020) After the
megafires: What next for Australian wildlife? Trends in Ecology &
Evolution, 35, 753– 757.
Wood, C. M. (2021). Optimizing landscape- scale monitor-
ing programmes to detect the effects of megafires. Diversity and
Distributions.
Wright, B. R., Laffineur, B., Royé, D., Armstrong, G. & Fensham, R.
J. (2021). Rainfall- linked megafires as innate fire regime elements in
arid Australian spinifex (Tri odi a spp.) grasslands. Frontiers in Ecology
and Evolution, 9, 296.
Xaud, H. A. M., Martins, F. da S. R. V. & Santos, J. R. dos (2013)
Tropical forest degradation by mega- fires in the northern Brazilian
Amazon. Forest Ecology and Management, 294, 97– 106.
Xu, W., He, H. S., Fraser, J. S., Hawbaker, T. J., Henne, P. D., Duan,
S. & Zhu, Z. (2020) Spatially explicit reconstruction of post- megafire
forest recovery through landscape modeling. Environmental
Modelling & Software, 134, 104884.
Yang, X., Zhao, C., Yang, Y., Yan, X. & Fan, H. (2021). Statistical
aerosol properties associated with fire events from 2002 to 2019
and a case analysis in 2019 over Australia. Atmospheric Chemistry and
Physics, 21, 3833– 3853.
Zhang, R., Qu, J. J., Liu, Y., Hao, X., Huang, C. & Zhan, X. (2015)
Detection of burned areas from mega- fires using daily and historical
MODIS surface reflectance. International Journal of Remote Sensing,
36, 1167– 1187.