Suggestions(1)
Exact(10)
Experimental model runs were conducted on a hypothetical landscape at fire rotations ranging from 5 to 50 years.
Also, although our simulated fire regimes bracketed a wide range of fire rotations, future fire regimes may be more extreme than modeled here (e.g., Barbero et al. 2015).
Yet, it is unclear how shorter fire rotations and greater area burned under climate change will affect species dispersal and establishment opportunities.
Historical fire rotations were 178 357 years in Wyoming big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata ssp. wyomingensis) and 90 143 years in mountain big sagebrush (A. tridentata ssp. vaseyana).
Old closed-canopy forests appear to comprise a relatively minor landscape component in mixed-severity fire regimes with fire rotations of 50 years or less.
Each of these four fire regions were distinctly parametrized within three fire regime scenarios to reflect relatively long, medium, and short fire rotations and to nominally represent suppressed, historical, and future fire regimes, respectively (Table 3).
Similar(50)
The fire rotation period was 51 years.
The fire rotation may decrease to <30 years with a 4.5 5.5°C warmer spring-summer temperature by mid-century [6].
A fire rotation of 70 80 years was estimated for the historic fire regime while the current fire regime resulted in a fire rotation of 340 450 years, underscoring the fact that fire is currently lacking in the system.
In contrast, analysis of digital fire records reveals that the fire rotation between 1981 and 2010 was substantially shorter than historical; if only natural fires are considered, the piñon-juniper fire rotation was 364 yr, and if anthropogenic fires were included, the fire rotation was 233 yr.
We asked if the modern fire rotation is similar to or longer than the historical fire rotation before arrival of Euro-American settlers on the northern woodland boundary in northwestern Colorado and northeastern Utah.
Write better and faster with AI suggestions while staying true to your unique style.
Since I tried Ludwig back in 2017, I have been constantly using it in both editing and translation. Ever since, I suggest it to my translators at ProSciEditing.

Justyna Jupowicz-Kozak
CEO of Professional Science Editing for Scientists @ prosciediting.com