ReviewiScience2026
Mitigating increasing wildfire risk through fuel break innovations.
Review in iScience, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
21 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A warming climate and expanding wildland urban interface are escalating wildfire risk to human life and property in the boreal forests of western North America. To address this heightened risk, fuel breaks, which reduce fuels and enhance tactical use by firefighters, are increasingly being installed around northern communities. However, the current design and implementation of fuel breaks have social and ecological trade-offs that undermine wider acceptance and adoption. Creative fuel break designs could address these trade-offs by supporting complementary activities with ecological and socio-economic values-termed co-benefits-while maintaining tactical use for wildfire operations. Here, we report results from public listening sessions that recorded desired co-benefits from boreal residents. Through collaboration among scientists, land managers, and local communities, we developed four operationally plausible, innovative fuel break scenarios that provide these co-benefits. Fuel breaks with co-benefits can provide multiple needed services to communities across the region, helping them adapt to a rapidly changing climate.
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.