Search

Western Canada is increasingly experiencing impactful and complex wildfire seasons. In response, there are urgent calls to implement prescribed and cultural fire as a key solution to this complex challenge. Unfortunately, there has been limited investment in individuals and organizations that can navigate this complexity and work to implement collaborative solutions across physical, cognitive, and social boundaries. In the wildfire context, these boundaries manifest as jurisdictional silos, a lack of respect for certain forms of knowledge, and a disconnect between knowledge and practice. Here, we highlight the important role of “boundary spanners” in building trust, relationships, and capacity to enable collaboration, including through five case studies from western Canada. As individuals and organizations who actively work across and bridge boundaries between diverse actors and knowledge systems, we believe that boundary spanners can play a key role in supporting proactive wildfire management. Boundary spanning activities include: convening workshops, hosting joint training exercises, supporting knowledge exchange and communities of practice, and creating communication tools and resources. These activities can help overcome unevenly valued knowledge, lack of trust, and outdated policies. We need collaborative approaches to implement prescribed and cultural fire, including a strong foundation for the establishment of boundary spanning individuals and organizations.

Indigenous fire stewardship enhances ecosystem diversity, assists with the management of complex resources, and reduces wildfire risk by lessening fuel loads. Although Indigenous Peoples have maintained fire stewardship practices for millennia and continue to be keepers of fire knowledge, significant barriers exist for re-engaging in cultural burning. Indigenous communities in Canada have unique vulnerabilities to large and high-intensity wildfires as they are predominately located in remote, forested regions and lack financial support at federal and provincial levels to mitigate wildfire risk. Therefore, it is critical to uphold Indigenous expertise in leading effective and socially just fire stewardship. In this perspective, we demonstrate the benefits of cultural burning and identify five key barriers to advancing Indigenous fire stewardship in Canada. We also provide calls to action to assist with reducing preconceptions and misinformation and focus on creating space and respect for different knowledges and experiences. Despite growing concerns over wildfire risk and agency-stated intentions to establish Indigenous Peoples as partners in wildfire management, power imbalances still exist. The future and coexistence with fire in Canada needs to be a shared responsibility and led by Indigenous Peoples within their territories.

Abstract Fire regimes in North American forests are diverse and modern fire records are often too short to capture important patterns, trends, feedbacks, and drivers of variability. Tree‐ring fire scars provide valuable perspectives on fire regimes, including centuries‐long records of fire year, season, frequency, severity, and size. Here, we introduce the newly compiled North American tree‐ring fire‐scar network (NAFSN), which contains 2562 sites, >37,000 fire‐scarred trees, and covers large parts of North America. We investigate the NAFSN in terms of geography, sample depth, vegetation, topography, climate, and human land use. Fire scars are found in most ecoregions, from boreal forests in northern Alaska and Canada to subtropical forests in southern Florida and Mexico. The network includes 91 tree species, but is dominated by gymnosperms in the genus Pinus. Fire scars are found from sea level to >4000‐m elevation and across a range of topographic settings that vary by ecoregion. Multiple regions are densely sampled (e.g., >1000 fire‐scarred trees), enabling new spatial analyses such as reconstructions of area burned. To demonstrate the potential of the network, we compared the climate space of the NAFSN to those of modern fires and forests; the NAFSN spans a climate space largely representative of the forested areas in North America, with notable gaps in warmer tropical climates. Modern fires are burning in similar climate spaces as historical fires, but disproportionately in warmer regions compared to the historical record, possibly related to under‐sampling of warm subtropical forests or supporting observations of changing fire regimes. The historical influence of Indigenous and non‐Indigenous human land use on fire regimes varies in space and time. A 20th century fire deficit associated with human activities is evident in many regions, yet fire regimes characterized by frequent surface fires are still active in some areas (e.g., Mexico and the southeastern United States). These analyses provide a foundation and framework for future studies using the hundreds of thousands of annually‐ to sub‐annually‐resolved tree‐ring records of fire spanning centuries, which will further advance our understanding of the interactions among fire, climate, topography, vegetation, and humans across North America.

Wildfires in the wildland-urban interface (WUI) are increasingly threatening lives and livelihoods. These growing impacts have prompted a paradigm shift toward proactive wildfire management that prioritizes prevention and preparedness instead of response. Despite this shift, many communities remain unprepared for wildfires in the WUI due to diverse individual and social-political factors influencing engagement with proactive management approaches. The catastrophic fire seasons of 2017, 2018, and 2021 in British Columbia (BC), Canada, highlighted just how vulnerable communities continue to be and the urgent need to understand the factors limiting engagement to future resilience to wildfire. Our study, conducted prior to the catastrophic fire season in 2017, surveyed 77 community leaders across BC to better understand the factors driving engagement, including risk perception, preferences and support for approaches, and key barriers limiting progress. We demonstrate that wildfire risk is an urgent issue facing communities across BC, but a range of factors drive variable community engagement with proactive wildfire management. First Nations and smaller (≤5,000 residents) communities were less likely to have developed a community wildfire plan, even though First Nations were significantly more concerned than municipalities/regional districts about certain values (such as drinking water and biodiversity) that were at risk from wildfire. In general, proactive approaches that were considered effective were also the most supported. The most highly supported approaches included enforcement of regulations and education, both of which are considered provincial responsibility in BC and are unlikely to alter community values in the WUI. In contrast, approaches involving prescribed burning of the understory had the highest levels of opposition. Despite variability in these individual factors, social-political barriers related to financial and social (time and expertise) capacity primarily limited engagement with proactive wildfire management, including provincial and federal funding programs. However, these barriers are not equally felt across community groups; First Nations identified social capacity (such as expertise on government-sponsored approaches and awareness of funding programs) as significantly more limiting than municipalities/regional districts. Our study illustrates the limitations of implementing a “shared responsibility” of proactive wildfire management in the WUI in BC without targeted supports to address unequal capacity barriers.

In the 2017 and 2018, 2.55 million hectares burned across British Columbia, Canada, including unanticipated large and high-severity fires in many dry forests. To transform forest and fire management to achieve resilience to future megafires requires improved understanding historical fire frequency, severity, and spatial patterns. Our dendroecological reconstructions of 35 plots in a 161-hectare study area in a dry Douglas-fir forest revealed historical fires that burned at a wide range of frequencies and severities at both the plot- and study-area scales. The 23 fires between 1619 and 1943 burned at intervals of 10–30 years, primarily at low- to moderate-severity that scarred trees but generated few cohorts. In contrast, current fire-free intervals of 70–180 years exceed historical maximum intervals. Of the six widespread fires from 1790 to 1905, the 1863 fire affected 86% of plots and was moderate in severity with patches of higher severity that generated cohorts at fine scales only. These results indicate the severity of fires varied at fine spatial scales, and offer little support for the common assertion that periodic, high-severity, stand-initiating events were a component of the mixed-severity fire regime in these forest types. Many studies consider fires in the late 1800s relatively severe because they generated new cohorts of trees, and thus, emphasize the importance of high-severity fires in a mixed-severity fire regime. In our study area, the most widespread and severe fire was not a stand-initiating fire. Rather, the post-1863 cohorts persisted due disruption of the fire regime in the twentieth century when land-use shifted from Indigenous fire stewardship and early European settler fires to fire exclusion and suppression. In absence of low- to moderate-severity fires, contemporary forests are dense with closed canopies that are vulnerable to high-severity fire. Future management should reduce forest densities and to restore stand- and landscape-level heterogeneity and increase forest resilience. The timing and size of repeat treatments such as thinning of subcanopy trees and prescribed burning, including Indigenous fire stewardship, can be guided by our refined understanding of the mixed-severity fire regime that was historically dominated by low- to moderate-severity fires in this dry forest ecosystem.

Disturbances fundamentally alter ecosystem functions, yet predicting their impacts remains a key scientific challenge. While the study of disturbances is ubiquitous across many ecological disciplines, there is no agreed-upon, cross-disciplinary foundation for discussing or quantifying the complexity of disturbances, and no consistent terminology or methodologies exist. This inconsistency presents an increasingly urgent challenge due to accelerating global change and the threat of interacting disturbances that can destabilize ecosystem responses. By harvesting the expertise of an interdisciplinary cohort of contributors spanning 42 institutions across 15 countries, we identified an essential limitation in disturbance ecology: the word ‘disturbance’ is used interchangeably to refer to both the events that cause, and the consequences of, ecological change, despite fundamental distinctions between the two meanings. In response, we developed a generalizable framework of ecosystem disturbances, providing a well-defined lexicon for understanding disturbances across perspectives and scales. The framework results from ideas that resonate across multiple scientific disciplines and provides a baseline standard to compare disturbances across fields. This framework can be supplemented by discipline-specific variables to provide maximum benefit to both inter- and intra-disciplinary research. To support future syntheses and meta-analyses of disturbance research, we also encourage researchers to be explicit in how they define disturbance drivers and impacts, and we recommend minimum reporting standards that are applicable regardless of scale. Finally, we discuss the primary factors we considered when developing a baseline framework and propose four future directions to advance our interdisciplinary understanding of disturbances and their social-ecological impacts: integrating across ecological scales, understanding disturbance interactions, establishing baselines and trajectories, and developing process-based models and ecological forecasting initiatives. Our experience through this process motivates us to encourage the wider scientific community to continue to explore new approaches for leveraging Open Science principles in generating creative and multidisciplinary ideas.

With the growing challenge of addressing modern fire risk, land managers and researchers are increasingly looking to Indigenous knowledge as a primary source of information for enabling resilience of fire-dependent social-ecological systems (SES). Although this is an important step forward for recognizing the contribution of Indigenous peoples to fire-dependent landscapes, current SES research in fire contexts views knowledge as detached from power, reflecting a critique in SES resilience research more broadly. Integrating Indigenous knowledge into dominant colonial management paradigms (such as "command and control" management of fire) without attention to these power asymmetries will lead to inequitable solutions to modern wildfire challenges. To address this gap, we employ the concept of situated resilience - which views knowledge as a process contextualized within power dynamics - to a case study of a fire-dependent SES in the traditional territory of the T'exelc (Williams Lake First Nation), in the land now known as British Columbia, Canada. Through a "collaborative experiment" research design that incorporated iterative, long-term, ethical research relationships guiding knowledge co-production in forest walks, we engaged with T'exelc Elders, archaeologists, and forest managers to explore the context of Indigenous fire knowledge and situate Indigenous definitions of resilience in future forest management. Results indicate that for the T'exelc, the intentional use of fire to support their livelihoods was lost due to colonialism. This colonial context disrupted place-based, intergenerational knowledge transmission and resulted in forest management devoid of respect. However, employing the concept of situated resilience moved us beyond a preoccupation with the content of fire knowledge toward actively shifting the colonial context in which T'exelc knowledge was embedded. Through our collaborative experiment, and the trust built among T'exelc Elders, archaeologists, and forest managers, future forest management will more directly work to restore intergenerational knowledge exchange and respect and situate Indigenous-led resilience to modern wildfire challenges.