ArticlePloS one2026
Landscape-level effectiveness of fuel treatments in a forest-dominated ecosystem in the Southern United States.
Article in PloS one, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Optimal interventions to curb urban conflagration.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Wildfire has become an increasing threat to natural ecosystems and human livelihood alike in many parts of the world. Vegetation fuel treatments are considered a viable option for mitigating wildfire risk and damage; yet existing studies have yielded mixed or inconclusive results on fuel treatment effectiveness especially at the landscape level. Using fire behavior simulations and statistical analysis of simulation outputs, we assessed landscape-level effectiveness of prescribed burning (PB) and thinning from below (TFB) relative to their site-level effectiveness in terms of area burned (AB) and total cost of treatment and timber loss (TC) in a forest-dominated ecosystem in the southern United States. We found that effectiveness of a treatment varied with measurement metrics and extent, vegetation characteristics and dynamics, and their interactions with the treatment. PB and TFB were less effective at the landscape level than at the site level where fires burned only inside the treatment area. At both site and landscape levels, the effectiveness of PB and TFB in reducing AB and TC largely depended on the quantity of biomass and fire ignition location. TFB outperformed PB in mitigating both AB and TC with a larger timber volume, a longer delay in fire occurrence after treatment, or a higher uncertainty of fire ignition location. TFB was also more effective than PB in reducing TC at the landscape level. By clarifying the conditions under which a fuel treatment can mitigate the area burned and the total cost, this study advanced knowledge of fuel treatment effectiveness especially at the landscape level. Such knowledge can aid in developing and deploying treatment strategies to minimize fire extent and adverse economic consequences in the study region and beyond.
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.