Increases in burned area across the western United States (US) since the mid‐1980s have been widely documented and linked partially to climate factors, yet evaluations of trends in fire severity are lacking. Here we evaluate fire severity trends and their interannual relationships to climate for western US forests from 1985 to 2017. Significant increases in annual area burned at high severity (AAB_hs) were observed across most ecoregions, with an overall eightfold increase in AAB_hs across western US forests. The relationships we identified between the annual fire severity metrics and climate, as well as the observed and projected trend toward warmer and drier fire seasons, suggest that climate change will contribute to increased fire severity in future decades where fuels remain abundant. The growing prevalence of high‐severity fire in western US forests has important implications to forest ecosystems, including an increased probability of fire‐catalyzed conversions from forest to alternative vegetation types.

Climate change is increasing fire activity in the western United States, which has the potential to accelerate climate-induced shifts in vegetation communities. Wildfire can catalyze vegetation change by killing adult trees that could otherwise persist in climate conditions no longer suitable for seedling establishment and survival. Recently documented declines in postfire conifer recruitment in the western United States may be an example of this phenomenon. However, the role of annual climate variation and its interaction with long-term climate trends in driving these changes is poorly resolved. Here we examine the relationship between annual climate and postfire tree regeneration of two dominant, low-elevation conifers (ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir) using annually resolved establishment dates from 2,935 destructively sampled trees from 33 wildfires across four regions in the western United States. We show that regeneration had a nonlinear response to annual climate conditions, with distinct thresholds for recruitment based on vapor pressure deficit, soil moisture, and maximum surface temperature. At dry sites across our study region, seasonal to annual climate conditions over the past 20 years have crossed these thresholds, such that conditions have become increasingly unsuitable for regeneration. High fire severity and low seed availability further reduced the probability of postfire regeneration. Together, our results demonstrate that climate change combined with high severity fire is leading to increasingly fewer opportunities for seedlings to establish after wildfires and may lead to ecosystem transitions in low-elevation ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir forests across the western United States. Significance Changes in climate and disturbance regimes may cause abrupt shifts in vegetation communities. Identifying climatic conditions that can limit tree regeneration is important for understanding when and where wildfires may catalyze such changes. This study quantified relationships between annual climate conditions and regeneration of Pinus ponderosa (ponderosa pine) and Pseudotsuga menziesii (Douglas-fir), two ecologically and economically important conifer species in low-elevation forests of western North America. We found that regeneration exhibited a threshold response to annual climate conditions and the forests we sampled crossed these climate thresholds in the past 20 years, resulting in fewer recruitment opportunities through time. In areas that have crossed climatic thresholds for regeneration, stand-replacing fires may result in abrupt ecosystem transitions to nonforest states.

Satellite-inferred burn severity data have become increasingly popular over the last decade for management and research purposes. These data typically quantify spectral change between pre-and post-fire satellite images (usually Landsat). There is an active debate regarding which of the two main equations, the delta normalized burn ratio (dNBR) and its relativized form (RdNBR), is most suitable for quantifying burn severity; each has its critics. In this study, we propose and evaluate a new Landsat-based burn severity metric, the relativized burn ratio (RBR), that provides an alternative to dNBR and RdNBR. For 18 fires in the western US, we compared the performance of RBR to both dNBR and RdNBR by evaluating the agreement of these metrics with field-based burn severity measurements. Specifically, we evaluated (1) the correspondence between each metric and a continuous measure of burn severity (the composite burn index) and (2) the overall accuracy of each metric when classifying into discrete burn severity classes (i.e., unchanged, low, moderate, and high). Results indicate that RBR corresponds better to field-based measurements (average R² among 18 fires = 0.786) than both dNBR (R² = 0.761) and RdNBR (R² = 0.766). Furthermore, the overall classification accuracy achieved with RBR (average among 18 fires = 70.5%) was higher than both dNBR (68.4%) and RdNBR (69.2%). Consequently, we recommend RBR as a robust alternative to both dNBR and RdNBR for measuring and classifying burn severity.

We review science‐based adaptation strategies for western North American (wNA) forests that include restoring active fire regimes and fostering resilient structure and composition of forested landscapes. As part of the review, we address common questions associated with climate adaptation and realignment treatments that run counter to a broad consensus in the literature. These include the following: (1) Are the effects of fire exclusion overstated? If so, are treatments unwarranted and even counterproductive? (2) Is forest thinning alone sufficient to mitigate wildfire hazard? (3) Can forest thinning and prescribed burning solve the problem? (4) Should active forest management, including forest thinning, be concentrated in the wildland urban interface (WUI)? (5) Can wildfires on their own do the work of fuel treatments? (6) Is the primary objective of fuel reduction treatments to assist in future firefighting response and containment? (7) Do fuel treatments work under extreme fire weather? (8) Is the scale of the problem too great? Can we ever catch up? (9) Will planting more trees mitigate climate change in wNA forests? And (10) is post‐fire management needed or even ecologically justified? Based on our review of the scientific evidence, a range of proactive management actions are justified and necessary to keep pace with changing climatic and wildfire regimes and declining forest heterogeneity after severe wildfires. Science‐based adaptation options include the use of managed wildfire, prescribed burning, and coupled mechanical thinning and prescribed burning as is consistent with land management allocations and forest conditions. Although some current models of fire management in wNA are averse to short‐term risks and uncertainties, the long‐term environmental, social, and cultural consequences of wildfire management primarily grounded in fire suppression are well documented, highlighting an urgency to invest in intentional forest management and restoration of active fire regimes.

Fire suppression is the primary management response to wildfires in many areas globally. By removing less-extreme wildfires, this approach ensures that remaining wildfires burn under more extreme conditions. Here, we term this the “suppression bias” and use a simulation model to highlight how this bias fundamentally impacts wildfire activity, independent of fuel accumulation and climate change. We illustrate how attempting to suppress all wildfires necessarily means that fires will burn with more severe and less diverse ecological impacts, with burned area increasing at faster rates than expected from fuel accumulation or climate change. Over a human lifespan, the modeled impacts of the suppression bias exceed those from fuel accumulation or climate change alone, suggesting that suppression may exert a significant and underappreciated influence on patterns of fire globally. Managing wildfires to safely burn under low and moderate conditions is thus a critical tool to address the growing wildfire crisis.

Theory suggests that natural fire regimes can result in landscapes that are both self‐regulating and resilient to fire. For example, because fires consume fuel, they may create barriers to the spread of future fires, thereby regulating fire size. Top‐down controls such as weather, however, can weaken this effect. While empirical examples demonstrating this pattern–process feedback between vegetation and fire exist, they have been geographically limited or did not consider the influence of time between fires and weather. The availability of remotely sensed data identifying fire activity over the last four decades provides an opportunity to explicitly quantify the ability of wildland fire to limit the progression of subsequent fire. Furthermore, advances in fire progression mapping now allow an evaluation of how daily weather as a top‐down control modifies this effect. In this study, we evaluated the ability of wildland fire to create barriers that limit the spread of subsequent fire along a gradient representing time between fires in four large study areas in the western United States. Using fire progression maps in conjunction with weather station data, we also evaluated the influence of daily weather. Results indicate that wildland fire does limit subsequent fire spread in all four study areas, but this effect decays over time; wildland fire no longer limits subsequent fire spread 6–18 years after fire, depending on the study area. We also found that the ability of fire to regulate subsequent fire progression was substantially reduced under extreme conditions compared to moderate weather conditions in all four study areas. This study increases understanding of the spatial feedbacks that can lead to self‐regulating landscapes as well as the effects of top‐down controls, such as weather, on these feedbacks. Our results will be useful to managers who seek to restore natural fire regimes or to exploit recent burns when managing fire.