ReviewThe New phytologist2021
Tree crown injury from wildland fires: causes, measurement and ecological and physiological consequences.
Review in The New phytologist, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Toward a functional understanding of novel fire regimes in tropical forests.American journal of botany · 2025Review
- Testing key tenets of pyro-ecophysiology: Indicators of drought response in relation to shoot flammability.American journal of botany · 2025Article
- Integrating fire predisposition assessment into decision support systems for mountain forest management.MethodsX · 2025Article
- Stable isotope analysis in tree rings of conifer species relevant to fire history study.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2025Article
- Tree mortality after a spring fire: the role of reduced live leaf area in depletion of early growing season bole NSC.Tree physiology · 2024Article
- Integrating plant physiology into simulation of fire behavior and effects.The New phytologist · 2023Review
- A novel post-fire method to estimate individual tree crown scorch height and volume using simple RPAS-derived data.Fire ecology · 2023Article
- Reimagine fire science for the anthropocene.PNAS nexus · 2022Article
- Gymnosperm Resprouting-A Review.Plants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The dead foliage of scorched crowns is one of the most conspicuous signatures of wildland fires. Globally, crown scorch from fires in savannas, woodlands and forests causes tree stress and death across diverse taxa. The term crown scorch, however, is inconsistently and ambiguously defined in the literature, causing confusion and conflicting interpretation of results. Furthermore, the underlying mechanisms causing foliage death from fire are poorly understood. The consequences of crown scorch - alterations in physiological, biogeochemical and ecological processes and ecosystem recovery pathways - remain largely unexamined. Most research on the topic assumes the mechanism of leaf and bud death is exposure to lethal air temperatures, with few direct measurements of lethal heating thresholds. Notable information gaps include how energy transfer injures and kills leaves and buds, how nutrients, carbohydrates, and hormones respond, and what physiological consequences lead to mortality. We clarify definitions to encourage use of unified terminology for foliage and bud necrosis resulting from fire. We review the current understanding of the physical mechanisms driving foliar injury, discuss the physiological responses, and explore novel ecological consequences of crown injury from fire. From these elements, we propose research needs for the increasingly interdisciplinary study of fire effects.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.