Fuel reduction treatments to reduce fire risk have become commonplace in the fire adapted forests of western North America. These treatments generate significant woody debris, or slash, and burning this material in piles is a common and inexpensive approach to reducing fuel loads.

The view that subalpine forest vegetation dynamics in western North America are "driven" by a particular disturbance type (i.e. fire) has shaped our understanding of their disturbance regimes.

During periods with epidemic mountain pine beetle (Dendroctonus ponderosae Hopkins) populations in lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta Dougl. ex Loud. var. latifolia Engelm.) forests, large amounts of tree foliage are thought to undergo changes in moisture content and chemistry brought about by tree decline and death. However, many of the presumed changes have yet to be quantified.

Episodic stand-replacing wildfire is a significant disturbance in mesic and moist Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii (Mirb.) Franco) forests of the Pacific Northwest.

Smoke from forest fires is a serious and increasing land management concern. However, a paucity of information exists that is specific to public perceptions of smoke.

Linked atmospheric and wildfire changes will complicate future management of native coldwater fishes in fire-pronelandscapes, and new approaches to management that incorporate uncertainty are needed to address this challenge.

Although disturbances such as fire and native insects can contribute to natural dynamics of forest health, exceptional droughts, directly and in combination with other disturbance factors, are pushing some temperate forests beyond thresholds of sustainability.

The extent to which terrestrial ecosystems can sequester carbon to mitigate climate change is a matter of debate.

As climate change has contributed to longer fire seasons and populations living in fire-prone ecosystems increase, wildfires have begun to affect a growing number of people. As a result, interest in understanding the wildfire evacuation decision process has increased.

Research across a variety of risk domains finds that the risk perceptions of professionals and the public differ. Such risk perception gaps occur if professionals and the public understand individual risk factors differently or if they aggregate risk factors into overall risk differently.