• Energy Research

Abstract Fire is an integral component of ecosystems globally and a tool that humans have harnessed for millennia. Altered fire regimes are a fundamental cause and consequence of global change, impacting people and the biophysical systems on which they depend. As part of the newly emerging Anthropocene, marked by human-caused climate change and radical changes to ecosystems, fire danger is increasing, and fires are having increasingly devastating impacts on human health, infrastructure, and ecosystem services. Increasing fire danger is a vexing problem that requires deep transdisciplinary, trans-sector, and inclusive partnerships to address. Here, we outline barriers and opportunities in the next generation of fire science and provide guidance for investment in future research. We synthesize insights needed to better address the long-standing challenges of innovation across disciplines to (i) promote coordinated research efforts; (ii) embrace different ways of knowing and knowledge generation; (iii) promote exploration of fundamental science; (iv) capitalize on the “firehose” of data for societal benefit; and (v) integrate human and natural systems into models across multiple scales. Fire science is thus at a critical transitional moment. We need to shift from observation and modeled representations of varying components of climate, people, vegetation, and fire to more integrative and predictive approaches that support pathways toward mitigating and adapting to our increasingly flammable world, including the utilization of fire for human safety and benefit. Only through overcoming institutional silos and accessing knowledge across diverse communities can we effectively undertake research that improves outcomes in our more fiery future.

Abstract Fire is an integral component of ecosystems globally and a tool that humans have harnessed for millennia. Altered fire regimes are a fundamental cause and consequence of global change, impacting people and the biophysical systems on which they depend. As part of the newly emerging Anthropocene, marked by human-caused climate change and radical changes to ecosystems, fire danger is increasing, and fires are having increasingly devastating impacts on human health, infrastructure, and ecosystem services. Increasing fire danger is a vexing problem that requires deep transdisciplinary, trans-sector, and inclusive partnerships to address. Here, we outline barriers and opportunities in the next generation of fire science and provide guidance for investment in future research. We synthesize insights needed to better address the long-standing challenges of innovation across disciplines to (i) promote coordinated research efforts; (ii) embrace different ways of knowing and knowledge generation; (iii) promote exploration of fundamental science; (iv) capitalize on the “firehose” of data for societal benefit; and (v) integrate human and natural systems into models across multiple scales. Fire science is thus at a critical transitional moment. We need to shift from observation and modeled representations of varying components of climate, people, vegetation, and fire to more integrative and predictive approaches that support pathways toward mitigating and adapting to our increasingly flammable world, including the utilization of fire for human safety and benefit. Only through overcoming institutional silos and accessing knowledge across diverse communities can we effectively undertake research that improves outcomes in our more fiery future.

Community-based natural resource management (CBNRM) is a concept critical to managing social-ecological systems but whose implementation needs strengthening. Scenario planning is one approach that may offer benefits relevant to CBNRM but whose potential is not yet well understood. Therefore, we designed, trialed, and evaluated a scenario-planning method intended to support CBNRM in three cases, located in Colombia, Mexico, and Argentina. Implementing scenario planning was judged as worthwhile in all three cases, although aspects of it were challenging to facilitate. The benefits generated were relevant to strengthening CBNRM: encouraging the participation of local people and using their knowledge, enhanced consideration of and adaptation to future change, and supporting the development of systems thinking. Tracing exactly when and how these benefits arose was challenging, but two elements of the method seemed particularly useful. First, using a systematic approach to discuss how drivers of change may affect local social-ecological systems helped to foster systems thinking and identify connections between issues. Second, explicitly focusing on how to use and respond to scenarios helped identify specific practical activities, or “response options,” that would support CBNRM despite the pressures of future change. Discussions about response options also highlighted the need for support by other actors, e.g., policy groups: this raised the question of when and how other actors and other sources of knowledge should be involved in scenario planning, so as to encourage their buy-in to actions identified by the process. We suggest that other CBNRM initiatives may benefit from adapting and applying scenario planning. However, these initiatives should be carefully monitored because further research is required to understand how and when scenario-planning methods may produce benefits, as well as their strengths and weaknesses versus other methods.

Community-based natural resource management (CBNRM) is a concept critical to managing social-ecological systems but whose implementation needs strengthening. Scenario planning is one approach that may offer benefits relevant to CBNRM but whose potential is not yet well understood. Therefore, we designed, trialed, and evaluated a scenario-planning method intended to support CBNRM in three cases, located in Colombia, Mexico, and Argentina. Implementing scenario planning was judged as worthwhile in all three cases, although aspects of it were challenging to facilitate. The benefits generated were relevant to strengthening CBNRM: encouraging the participation of local people and using their knowledge, enhanced consideration of and adaptation to future change, and supporting the development of systems thinking. Tracing exactly when and how these benefits arose was challenging, but two elements of the method seemed particularly useful. First, using a systematic approach to discuss how drivers of change may affect local social-ecological systems helped to foster systems thinking and identify connections between issues. Second, explicitly focusing on how to use and respond to scenarios helped identify specific practical activities, or “response options,” that would support CBNRM despite the pressures of future change. Discussions about response options also highlighted the need for support by other actors, e.g., policy groups: this raised the question of when and how other actors and other sources of knowledge should be involved in scenario planning, so as to encourage their buy-in to actions identified by the process. We suggest that other CBNRM initiatives may benefit from adapting and applying scenario planning. However, these initiatives should be carefully monitored because further research is required to understand how and when scenario-planning methods may produce benefits, as well as their strengths and weaknesses versus other methods.

AbstractWildfire activity is increasing globally. The resulting smoke plumes can travel hundreds to thousands of kilometers, reflecting or scattering sunlight and depositing particles within ecosystems. Several key physical, chemical, and biological processes in lakes are controlled by factors affected by smoke. The spatial and temporal scales of lake exposure to smoke are extensive and under‐recognized. We introduce the concept of the lake smoke‐day, or the number of days any given lake is exposed to smoke in any given fire season, and quantify the total lake smoke‐day exposure in North America from 2019 to 2021. Because smoke can be transported at continental to intercontinental scales, even regions that may not typically experience direct burning of landscapes by wildfire are at risk of smoke exposure. We found that 99.3% of North America was covered by smoke, affecting a total of 1,333,687 lakes ≥10 ha. An incredible 98.9% of lakes experienced at least 10 smoke‐days a year, with 89.6% of lakes receiving over 30 lake smoke‐days, and lakes in some regions experiencing up to 4 months of cumulative smoke‐days. Herein we review the mechanisms through which smoke and ash can affect lakes by altering the amount and spectral composition of incoming solar radiation and depositing carbon, nutrients, or toxic compounds that could alter chemical conditions and impact biota. We develop a conceptual framework that synthesizes known and theoretical impacts of smoke on lakes to guide future research. Finally, we identify emerging research priorities that can help us better understand how lakes will be affected by smoke as wildfire activity increases due to climate change and other anthropogenic activities.