25 Apr 2013

Fires Burn More Fiercely As Northern Forests Warm

From North America to Siberia, rising temperatures and drier woodlands are leading to a longer burning season and a significant increase in forest fires. Scientists warn that this trend is expected continue in the years ahead.
By dylan walsh

When the wildfire reached Jon Cummings’ backyard last summer, it had already traversed 50 miles of rugged terrain in Idaho’s Salmon-Challis National Forest. Thick smoke dimmed daylight and embers sailed on hot currents. While firefighters were able to preserve Cummings’ house and property, his neighbors up the river were less fortunate. “No houses burned, but when those folks came home it was a total moonscape,” he said.

Wildfires last summer burned more than 9 million acres across the U.S., predominantly in the West and Southwest. Only two other times in the past 50 years have fires burned so extensively: first in 2006, then again in 2007. Twice more in the last decade fires fell just short of claiming this much acreage.

Fire in Southern California
Justin Sullivan/Getty Images
Winds stoke wildfires in Southern California in 2007.
Increasingly, forestry experts say this ominous trend bears the fingerprints of climate change: As average air temperatures rise and water evaporates more rapidly from vegetation and soil, the parallel rise in precipitation needed to offset these changes has not kept pace. Most models predict the deficit will only worsen in years to come.

“The initial signs of climate change — they’re here,” says Amber Soja, a senior research scientist at NASA who studies the interaction of fire and climate. “We have evidence in our wildfires.”

In the Rocky Mountains, reduced snowpack in winter, earlier melting in spring, fewer inches of rainfall, and warmer autumns are all contributing to a fire season that has lengthened by nearly 80 days in the last three decades, researchers say. The duration of individual fires has also jumped, from an average of one week to five weeks.

Anthony Westerling, a fire specialist at the University of California, Merced, and an expert on fires in the U.S. West, notes that intensifying aridity in the Rocky Mountains as the region warms will exacerbate the problem. “There is going to be a huge percentage increase in burned area that we’ve only just begun to see,” he said.

Similar changes are emerging around the world, researchers note, most notably in the boreal forests that stretch across the northern latitudes from
‘There is going to be a huge percentage increase in burned area,’ says one scientist.
Alaska east through Siberia. In Canada, the average amount of land burned annually by wildfires has doubled since the 1970s, according to Mike Flannigan, a professor of wildland fire at the University of Alberta. “And we expect another doubling to quadrupling of fire over this next century,” said Flannigan. “We attribute this — and I’ll be quite clear — to human-caused climate change.”

In Russia, where Soja focuses her research, the figures have also ratcheted up. A bad fire season now burns tens of millions of acres. Just last year, a record 74 million acres were consumed by wildfire, largely in the taiga of eastern and central Siberia. “It’s about time we change our definition of normal, because there is just so much burning in Russia,” she said.

But growth in the number of acres burned is not all that defines wildfire severity. Of equal concern is the depth to which many fires now reach, pushing farther underground into parched soils.

This is especially problematic in the boreal forests, which store more than 30 percent of the world’s terrestrial carbon, much of it bound in peat bogs — essentially carbon-rich mosses that have accreted, layer upon layer, over millennia. As these bogs dry out and become more flammable, wildfires bore farther down, releasing much more carbon than a conventional forest fire.

Flannigan pointed to a 2002 study of particularly severe peat fires in Indonesia in 1997 that released the carbon equivalent of an estimated 20 to 30 percent of that year’s global greenhouse gas emissions. “But the peat
Boreal forests could be contributors to global warming rather than mitigating forces against it.
reserves in the boreal dwarf those of Indonesia,” he said. “If these go, emissions from the Indonesian fires would be a drop in the bucket.”

These changing conditions put northern forests at risk of being transformed from repositories, or sinks, of carbon, to overall sources of CO2. The forests would then be contributors to global warming rather than mitigating forces against it.

The shift from carbon sink to source has already been documented in British Columbia: A 2008 analysis published in Nature concluded that, since 2003, fires and unprecedented tree death from bark beetle infestations had turned almost 150,000 square miles of forest in the province — an area the size of Montana — into a source of carbon dioxide emissions. All of Canada’s vast forestland now sits precariously on this fulcrum, and may soon emit more carbon than it sequesters, according to the Canadian Forest Service.

“As wildfires continue to increase, we expect to see our [Canadian] forests become a carbon source,” said Flannigan.

While forest regeneration would normally help to counterbalance these emissions, ecosystem shifts under the pressure of climate change are now casting uncertainty on this cycle. In a process called “green desertification,” for instance, grassland steppe across Russia is replacing taiga in the aftermath of severe fires; the standard mix of conifers and hardwoods that constitute the taiga show no signs of returning. “It’s likely that the entire 21st century will be dominated by these transition effects,” says Westerling, who has observed similar changes in the western U.S. “Places where these fire disturbances are increasing dramatically are going to look very different in the near future.”

NASA Russia Wildfires 2010
Fires burned in western Russia in July, 2010, causing serious health impacts.
The health effects of severe wildfires also present a growing concern, particularly as populations expand along forest fringes. Insurance giant Munich Re estimated that particulate matter and “toxic smoke” from Russia’s 2010 wildfires, combined with record temperatures, accounted for an additional 56,000 deaths in July and August of that year, most of these in Moscow. And last year a program manager with the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare declared an air quality “crisis” in the small town of Salmon, near Jon Cummings’ property.

This year, like last, the U.S. Forest Service forecasts persistent drought and elevated fire risks across the western and southern U.S. “We anticipate 2013 to be another challenging year to manage fire,” said Tom Tidwell, chief of the Forest Service, in a February 20 memo.

For most of the 20th century, the U.S. Forest Service pursued an aggressive agenda of fire suppression that allowed forest understory — which in earlier eras had been routinely thinned out by fires — to grow thick and fuel more intense blazes. “Forest ecosystems have evolved with fire,” explains Keith Konen, a silviculturist for the Forest Service in Montana. “Through 100-plus years of fire suppression this natural process has been altered.”

In 1995, the Forest Service established a new fire policy, which recognized that “wildland fire, as a critical natural process, must be reintroduced into the ecosystem.” Since then, in an effort to remove understory growth, the Forest Service has allowed fires in some federal forests to burn out on their own. Today, however, climate change has further complicated the Forest Service’s job: The agency must oversee the continued use of fuel-culling fires at a time when a warming climate makes controlling these fires riskier, says Scott Stephens, a professor of fire sciences at the University of California, Berkeley.

Currently, 65 million acres of Forest Service land — or one-third of the agency’s total holdings — remain at high or very high risk of catastrophic wildfires due to the buildup of fuel. Only a small fraction of this buildup is managed or removed through timber harvesting and fire in a given year.
A third of U.S. Forest Service land remains at high risk of catastrophic wildfires.

Under a new planning rule introduced last year, the Forest Service is drawing up management plans for individual national forests that incorporate new science on climate change and fire suppression. Stephens said Forest Service officials are increasingly shying away from mechanical thinning of forests and prescribed burns, in favor of allowing naturally occurring fires to burn in a controlled manner to eliminate thick understory.

“Fire management is being funded now to emphasize the resource benefits of lightning fires,” said Stephens. He expressed guarded optimism that the Forest Service’s new policies will help reduce the severity of fires in the American West. “I think [they] have the potential to get things done at scales that make a difference and reduce the trend of large fires,” he said.

But other researchers are skeptical. A 2009 study of the boreal forest published in Global Change Biology and coauthored by Flannigan reflects the prevailing sentiment: “There may be only a decade or two before increased fire activity means fire management agencies cannot maintain their current levels of effectiveness,” write the authors.

Intensifying wildfires, coupled with austerity budgets that have reduced firefighting capabilities, are a global problem. Soja, the NASA fire expert, said that budget cuts in Russia have led to reduced firefighting capabilities since the early nineties. “It’s just not possible for Russia, for the Canadians, to manage these large fires,” Soja said.

Westerling says that the same may be true of the U.S. “We just have nothing like the resources you would need to treat these areas on an ongoing basis,” he said, referring to the logging, thinning of understory, or controlled burns that can lessen the intensity of forest fires. The Forest Service’s fire prevention and suppression funds have been slashed by more than $500 million, or about 15 percent, since 2010.

“Fires are simply going to be reintroduced by nature, augmented by climate change,” he said. “I think the land’s going to burn, and then we’ll go from there.”


Dylan Walsh is a freelance writer whose work has appeared in the New York Times, the Guardian, and Huffington Post, among other publications. He is also an editor at The Solutions Journal.

SHARE: Tweet | Digg | | Reddit | Mixx | Facebook | Stumble Upon


Earlier predictions were for many forests to convert to grasslands and savannahs as average annual temperatures increased. The mechanisms are obviously insect damage and fire. Are economists taking this into account as the annual timber supply decreases?

Posted by Herb Curl on 25 Apr 2013

As a professional forester I am somewhat disappointed that it was not pointed out the role that housing development has played in the alteration of forest management. Allowing fires to burn within one mile, and more than likely, two miles of residential areas will not be accepted by the general population. I am all for reintroducing fire as much as possible in the landscape but mechanical treatments, i.e. logging, on these borders is needed as well.

Posted by John K. Northey on 25 Apr 2013

If fires are going to burn in the West- more of those forests should be thinned and send the poorer quality wood to biomass energy plants- at least then the burning wood will serve society.

Joe Zorzin
Forester for 40 years
Posted by Joe Zorzin on 27 Apr 2013

Professional foresters are not biologists or ecologists and have for too long controlled the stewardship of public lands. Foresters see trees as a commodity but the ecosystem services from watershed protection and carbon sequestration are critical as climate disruption stresses their services.

Prescribed fire is and has been used without true scientific validity. In the Southeast Appalachians prescribed fire increases runoff (flooding) and removes leaf litter needed to protect and grow humus to enrich soil, increase the sponge effect and the resilience needed as AGW increases.

Posted by Dennis Stansell on 27 Apr 2013

With 70,000 square miles of beetle-killed forest in the US, and "almost 150,000" in Canada's British Columbia, just how many gigatonnes of carbon are being left to go up in smoke ?

At a conservative average of 80tsC /hectare, that's 4.56GtC, off 9.30Gts dry wood. Times 3.664 gives 16.70Gts CO2, which is about half our annual global anthro-CO2 output. But wildfires also emit methane, and much of the dead wood won't burn but would rot down, with fungi in the trunks rotting the wood anaerobically to turn carbon to methane, with its GW potency over the crucial 20yr time horizon of about 100 times that of CO2 . If just 6\% of the 4.56GtC goes up as CH4 the total equals 49.89GtCO2E (CO2 equivalent) which is about 147\% of the annual anthro-CO2 output.

With a Neo-Con ruling Canada, and a Neo-Lib prevaricator-in-chief in the White House, almost sweet FA is being done to resolve this threat. Massively wrong-headed enviro-isolationism also shrilly opposes any and all intervention in forests (which in rational cultures is known as 'forestry'). The present volume of deadwood could be carefully harvested into mobile charcoal retorts before replanting, with a resulting valuable yield of around 3.28Gts of Biochar, which would raise the fertility and improve drought-resistance and saturation-resistance of around 400 million acres of farmland. In terms of geopolitics, this would sequester a highly significant fraction of the nations' 'historic emissions,' aka Carbon Debt.

The beetle-killed forests are plainly the best opportunity on the planet for the launch of the essential global program of Carbon Recovery. The ongoing neglect of this combined resource-&-threat is highly culpable, and is a worldwide shame on both nations.

So when are North American environmentalists going to start demanding action - and start bringing together the many constituencies that have a direct interest in this initiative ?



Posted by Lewis Cleverdon on 29 Apr 2013

Let's see, the Forest Servise reintroduced wildland fires in 1995. Then the government slashed funding for their budget. Are some people still surprised that the acreage burned has increased since then? I suspect mankind is largely responsible for the increase, but climate change is not likely the culprit.

Posted by Daniel on 30 Apr 2013

As a response to Dennis Stansell (27 April comment above), Sir, you are incorrect.

Foresters are exactly "biologists and ecologists" specialising in the field of Forest Science. That is what we spend so much time at Universtiy to become.

Please go research your assumptions, and find out what Foresters do. Logging (or economic return from forest areas) is a small part. it is a fundamental principle of the profession that there can be no economic return, nor many of the other uses society gains from a forest, without practices that ensure the long term sustained health of the WHOLE ecosystem. Thats kinda the point of what Foresters do - look after the forest as a whole, and provide a valuable commodity in a sustainable way.

We grow trees dude!

we choose a profession working in Forests, not a profession working in urban or agricultural settings.

Proud to be a Forester.

rant over (for now)

Posted by Matt Anscomb on 30 Apr 2013

@Lewis: I am inclined to agree that changing climates (natural, fiscal, political) may require dramatic new interventions to save borreal forests, but the following study appears to cast some doubt on the effectiveness of bio-char sequestration:

Posted by Armchair Pessimist on 09 Aug 2013



How Tracking Product Sources May Help Save World’s Forests
Global businesses are increasingly pledging to obtain key commodities only from sources that do not contribute to deforestation. Now, nonprofit groups are deploying data tools that help hold these companies to their promises by tracing the origins of everything from soy to timber to beef.

Are Trees Sentient Beings? Certainly, Says German Forester
In his bestselling book, The Hidden Life of Trees, Peter Wohlleben argues that to save the world’s forests we must first recognize that trees are “wonderful beings” with innate adaptability, intelligence, and the capacity to communicate with — and heal — other trees.

Ghost Forests: How Rising Seas Are Killing Southern Woodlands
A steady increase in sea levels is pushing saltwater into U.S. wetlands, killing trees from Florida as far north as New Jersey. But with sea level projected to rise by as much as six feet this century, the destruction of coastal forests is expected to become a worsening problem worldwide.

Exploring How and Why Trees ‘Talk’ to Each Other
Ecologist Suzanne Simard has shown how trees use a network of soil fungi to communicate their needs and aid neighboring plants. Now she’s warning that threats like clear-cutting and climate change could disrupt these critical networks.

Trouble in Paradise: A Blight Threatens Key Hawaiian Tree
The ʻohiʻa is Hawaii’s iconic tree, a keystone species that maintains healthy watersheds and provides habitat for numerous endangered birds. But a virulent fungal disease, possibly related to a warmer, drier climate, is now felling the island’s cherished 'ohi'a forests.


Donate to Yale Environment 360