Explore the vast range of titles available.

We review science-based adaptation strategies for western North American (wNA) forests that include restoring active fire regimes and fostering resilient structure and composition of forested landscapes. As part of the review, we address common questions associated with climate adaptation and realignment treatments that run counter to a broad consensus in the literature. These include the following: (1) Are the effects of fire exclusion overstated? If so, are treatments unwarranted and even counterproductive? (2) Is forest thinning alone sufficient to mitigate wildfire hazard? (3) Can forest thinning and prescribed burning solve the problem? (4) Should active forest management, including forest thinning, be concentrated in the wildland urban interface (WUI)? (5) Can wildfires on their own do the work of fuel treatments? (6) Is the primary objective of fuel reduction treatments to assist in future firefighting response and containment? (7) Do fuel treatments work under extreme fire weather? (8) Is the scale of the problem too great? Can we ever catch up? (9) Will planting more trees mitigate climate change in wNA forests? And (10) is post-fire management needed or even ecologically justified? Based on our review of the scientific evidence, a range of proactive management actions are justified and necessary to keep pace with changing climatic and wildfire regimes and declining forest heterogeneity after severe wildfires. Science-based adaptation options include the use of managed wildfire, prescribed burning, and coupled mechanical thinning and prescribed burning as is consistent with land management allocations and forest conditions. Although some current models of fire management in wNA are averse to short-term risks and uncertainties, the long-term environmental, social, and cultural consequences of wildfire management primarily grounded in fire suppression are well documented, highlighting an urgency to invest in intentional forest management and restoration of active fire regimes.

Increasingly, severe wildfires have led to declines in biodiversity across all of Earth’s vegetated biomes [D. B. McWethy et al., Nat. Sustain. 2, 797–804 (2019)]. Unfortunately, the displacement of Indigenous peoples and place-based societies that rely on and routinely practice fire stewardship has resulted in significant declines in biodiversity and the functional roles of people in shaping pyrodiverse systems [R. Bliege Bird et al., Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 117, 12904–12914 (2020)]. With the aim of assessing the impacts of Indigenous fire stewardship on biodiversity and species function across Earth’s major terrestrial biomes, we conducted a review of relevant primary data papers published from 1900 to present. We examined how the frequency, seasonality, and severity of humanignited fires can improve or reduce reported metrics of biodiversity and habitat heterogeneity as well as changes to species composition across a range of taxa and spatial and temporal scales. A total of 79% of applicable studies reported increases in biodiversity as a result of fire stewardship, and 63% concluded that habitat heterogeneity was increased by the use of fire. All studies reported that fire stewardship occurred outside of the window of uncontrollable fire activity, and plants (woody and nonwoody vegetation) were the most intensively studied life forms. Three studies reported declines in biodiversity associated with increases in the use of high-severity fire as a result of the disruption of Indigenous-controlled fire regimes with the onset of colonization. Supporting Indigenous-led fire stewardship can assist with reviving important cultural practices while protecting human communities from increasingly severe wildfires, enhancing biodiversity, and increasing ecosystem heterogeneity.

The intersection of expanding human development and wildland landscapes—the “wildland–urban interface” or WUI—is one of the most vexing contexts for fire management because it involves complex interacting systems of people and nature. Here, we document the dynamism and stability of an ancient WUI that was apparently sustainable for more than 500 y. We combine ethnography, archaeology, paleoecology, and ecological modeling to infer intensive wood and fire use by Native American ancestors of Jemez Pueblo and the consequences on fire size, fire–climate relationships, and fire intensity. Initial settlement of northern New Mexico by Jemez farmers increased fire activity within an already dynamic landscape that experienced frequent fires. Wood harvesting for domestic fuel and architectural uses and abundant, small, patchy fires created a landscape that burned often but only rarely burned extensively. Depopulation of the forested landscape due to Spanish colonial impacts resulted in a rebound of fuels accompanied by the return of widely spreading, frequent surface fires. The sequence of more than 500 y of perennial small fires and wood collecting followed by frequent “free-range” wildland surface fires made the landscape resistant to extreme fire behavior, even when climate was conducive and surface fires were large. The ancient Jemez WUI offers an alternative model for fire management in modern WUI in the western United States, and possibly other settings where local management of woody fuels through use (domestic wood collecting) coupled with small prescribed fires may make these communities both self-reliant and more resilient to wildfire hazards.

The catastrophic 2019/2020 Black Summer bushfires were the worst fire season in the recorded history of Southeast Australia. These bushfires were one of several recent global conflagrations across landscapes that are homelands of Indigenous peoples, homelands that were invaded and colonised by European nations over recent centuries. The subsequent suppression and cessation of Indigenous landscape management has had profound social and environmental impacts. The Black Summer bushfires have brought Indigenous cultural burning practices to the forefront as a potential management tool for mitigating climate-driven catastrophic bushfires in Australia. Here, we highlight new research that clearly demonstrates that Indigenous fire management in Southeast Australia produced radically different landscapes and fire regimes than what is presently considered “natural”. We highlight some barriers to the return of Indigenous fire management to Southeast Australian landscapes. We argue that to adequately address the potential for Indigenous fire management to inform policy and practice in managing Southeast Australian forest landscapes, scientific approaches must be decolonized and shift from post-hoc engagement with Indigenous people and perspectives to one of collaboration between Indigenous communities and scientists.

Investigates whether a cultural burning program embedded within a government bureaucracy can meaningfully support Indigenous peoples’ landscape fires. In particular, it presents evidence on how Indigenous and non-Indigenous individuals encountered, interpreted, and prioritized the influence of wildfire science, ecological science, and Indigenous expert knowledge communities. All interviewees considered the knowledge and authority of Indigenous people, specifically the Traditional Custodians, as inseparable to the program. Four moves were made to build support for Indigenous expert knowledge: the reconsideration of who has expert evidence; who has systems of knowledge creation; whose knowledge is relevant across time; and whose knowledge is relevant across contexts. The results reveal how some strongly held non-Indigenous precepts about expert evidence shifted, where knowledge sharing challenges persisted, and the constraints of the governance context. The study recommends material investment in Indigenous peoples’ expert knowledge communities, and prioritizing reflexive research, learning, and teaching about nature and evidence across academia.

Protection of biodiversity, human assets, and cultural heritage pose significant challenges to contemporary planning of bushfire mitigation activities. Current mitigation approaches are not always appropriate, and mismanagement is a source of distress for Indigenous peoples. Increased understanding of Indigenous fire knowledge and increased Indigenous participation may provide insight into more appropriate and inclusive land management for fire mitigation. We analysed contemporary Noongar and Western fire practitioner approaches within an Indigenous fire knowledge (IFK) framework to explore knowledge and aspirations for small reserves in the Southwest Australian Floristic Region (SWAFR) global biodiversity hotspot. We recorded an extensive knowledge base, characterised by a highly nuanced approach to burning, held by the Noongar coauthors. We explore potential approaches to applying this knowledge to build collaborative fire mitigation strategies with mutually beneficial outcomes for biodiversity, cultural heritage, and human assets.

Anthropogenic fire is generally accepted by contemporary foresters as shaping historical landscapes in the southern Appalachian Mountains, the ancestral lands of the Cherokee people. However, the consensus on historical Cherokee cultural burning practices is largely limited to artifactual inferences and colonial documents. While the historical importance of fire for Cherokee people is richly woven into their oral histories, information on historical Cherokee cultural burning in forestry literature is typically presented in the context of contemporary land management practices, themselves rooted in settler colonialism and institutionalized conservation strategies. However, in the broader literature and cultural context it is clear that Cherokee cultural burning likely had deeply rooted symbolic importance and twentieth century fire exclusion policies banning certain burning practices flouted Cherokee rights through direct interference and significant landscape-level change. Our research explores Cherokee fire traditions prior to the exclusion era and assesses the impacts of fire exclusion policies on landscape change as well as Cherokee cultural practices and sovereignty.

Background: Increasing occurrence of megafires and wildfires is threatening the integrity of many natural systems and sustainability of the ecosystem services they provide. For example, the 2019–2020 Australian fires were one of the costliest natural disasters in the country’s recorded history.Aims: This study aims to analyse the extent and severity of the fires on riparian systems across coastal catchments of New South Wales. We open a discussion about whether megafires and wildfires are creating novel riparian ecosystems and if prescribed and cultural burns should be used as a riparian vegetation management technique.Key results: Of the 81 304 km of stream analysed, ~29% (23 266 km) were impacted by extreme or high-severity burning, with vegetation canopy completely consumed, or completely scorched and partially consumed. A further 21% (17 138 km) experienced moderate to low-severity burning, with partial canopy scorching or understorey burning. Such widespread, synchronous burning of riparian systems is unprecedented.Conclusion and implications: Riparian management strategies must evolve to mitigate against future catastrophic fires that are becoming more frequent and severe under climate change. Research needs to establish the extent to which Australian riparian ecosystems are adapted to fire, the regimes and customs of cultural burning in these zones, and how to use such burning in riparian management.