Prescribed fire is unlikely to reduce net PM_2.5 emissions in most locations.

Authors

Mark R Kreider, Shawn P Urbanski, Joseph Fargione

Published in

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. Volume 123. Issue 28. Pages e2613722123. Jul 14, 2026. Epub Jun 29, 2026.

Abstract

Wildfire smoke poses a growing global health risk, largely from fine particulate matter (PM_2.5) emissions. Prescribed fires, which are critical for maintaining resilient forests in many locations, can also reduce wildfire emissions in treated areas that later burn. However, prescribed fires also produce smoke, creating a tradeoff in their net impact on PM_2.5 emissions. We develop a mathematical framework showing that, under most current conditions globally, prescribed fire emissions are rarely offset by reduced wildfire emissions and therefore increase PM_2.5 emissions overall. An analysis of 73 prior study sites reveals that reported net emission reductions are often based on unrealistic assumptions, for example that all treatments are subsequently encountered by wildfire during their effective lifespan. Using empirically based estimates of expected encounter rates, prescribed fire increases net emissions at 99% of sites, with a median 10-year increase of 210% (IQR: 70 to 475%), and only 0.06 tons of wildfire emissions avoided per ton of prescribed fire emissions (IQR: 0.03 to 0.15). However, prescribed fires are intentionally conducted under favorable meteorological conditions, allowing smoke to disperse more safely than during wildfires. Thus, whether prescribed burning can reduce health risks while increasing emissions-and whether its emissions impact can be lowered beyond current practice-is a critical area for future study. Regardless, prescribed fires have multiple objectives and benefits; they remain essential for forest management and hazard reduction.

PMID:
42372128
Bibliographic data and abstract were imported from PubMed on 30 Jun 2026.

Read full publication at:
Please sign in to see all details.

Stats

1-terrible, 9-excellent. How would you rate this publication? Sign in in to submit your rating.

Post a comment

You need to be signed in to post comments. You can sign in here.

Comments

There are no comments yet.