D1.13 brief 2: Recommendations and novel adaptive management scenarios to create resilient landscapes to Extreme Wildfire Events

This document was produced under the terms and conditions of Grant Agreement No. 101037419 of the European Commission. It does not necessarily reflect the view of the European Union and in no way anticipates the Commission’s future policy in this area. D1.13 RECOMMENDATIONS AND NOVEL ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT SCENARIOS TO CREATE RESILIENT LANDSCAPES TO EXTREME WILDFIRE EVENTS (Part II) www.fire-res.eu [email protected] Project Acronym: FIRE-RES Project name: Innovative technologies and socio-ecological-economic solutions for fire resilient territories in Europe Call ID: H2020-LC-GD-1-1-2020 (Preventing and fighting extreme wildfires with the integration and demonstration of innovative means) Work Package: WP1 Task Number: 1.4.3. Basis for resilient landscapes Lead beneficiary: Forest Science and Technology Centre of Catalonia (CTFC) D1.13 Recommendations and novel adaptive management scenarios Publication Publication date: 21/10/2025 Authors: Lena Vilà Vilardell (CTFC), Pere Casals (CTFC), Lluís Coll (CTFC), Teresa Valor (CTFC), Míriam Piqué (CTFC) Abstract: Extreme Wildfire Events (EWEs) challenge conventional fire management approaches and call for integrated strategies that reduce vulnerability and foster resilient landscapes. This deliverable provides a set of recommendations to increase resilience, with a focus on stand-level interventions that can be applied across the wildfire cycle: before, during, and after fire. Three management scenarios are considered in detail: low-productivity forests, often not managed and prone to fire; high-productivity forests, where intensive management interacts with fire risk; and the wildland–urban interface, where protecting people and infrastructure is the priority. The recommendations emphasize the importance of spatially planning stand-level treatments to reduce vulnerability to EWEs and adapting management to changing fire regimes. They highlight the need to tailor treatments to vegetation structure and composition, with defined thresholds for fuel structure, composition, and load to prevent EWEs. The specific management actions provided are structured around the wildfire cycle. In the prevention phase, the focus is on reducing fuel loads and designing vegetation structures less vulnerable to EWEs, using mechanical treatments (thinning, understory clearing, and slash management), fire use (prescribed burns and traditional fire use), and grazing. In the suppression phase, the focus is on the opportunities that unplanned ignitions burning under controlled conditions offer to achieve management goals and harness fire’s ecological benefits. In the recovery phase, recommendations include supporting natural regeneration when possible, applying active restoration when necessary, and promoting vegetation and landscape structures adapted to future fire regimes. Overall, this deliverable provides practical recommendations for creating resilient landscapes across Europe. While the strategies can be applied widely, they should be adapted to local ecological and socio-economic conditions to improve efficiency. Key words: fire use, grazing, Integrated Fire Management, landscape planning, mechanical treatments, prescribed burning, vegetation restoration, wildfire management Quote as: Vilà-Vilardell, L., Casals, P., Coll, L., Valor, T., & Piqué, M. (2025). Recommendations and novel adaptive management scenarios. Deliverable 1.13 FIRERES Project. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17404052 DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17404052 Dissemination level [x] PUPublic: must be available in the website D1.13 Recommendations and novel adaptive management scenarios [ ] COConfidential: Only for members of the Consortium and the Commission Services [ ] CI – Classified: As referred in to Commission Decision 2001/844/EC Document history Edition Date Status Author Version 1 15/09/2025 Draft Lena Vilà Vilardell (CTFC), Pere Casals (CTFC), Lluís Coll (CTFC), Teresa Valor (CTFC), Míriam Piqué (CTFC) Version 2 29/09/2025 Revision Edgar Nebot (CFRS), Soledad Reyes (CORMA) Version 3 14/10/2025 Final version Lena Vilà Vilardell (CTFC), Pere Casals (CTFC), Lluís Coll (CTFC), Teresa Valor (CTFC), Míriam Piqué (CTFC) Copyright © All rights reserved. This document or any part thereof may not be made public or disclosed, copied or otherwise reproduced or used in any form or by any means, without prior permission in writing from the FIRE-RES Consortium. Neither the FIRE-RES Consortium nor any of its members, their officers, employees or agents shall be liable or responsible, in negligence or otherwise, for any loss, damage or expense whatever sustained by any person as a result of the use, in any manner or form, of any knowledge, information or data contained in this document, or due to any inaccuracy, omission or error therein contained. All Intellectual Property Rights, know-how and information provided by and/or arising from this document, such as designs, documentation, as well as preparatory material in that regard, is and shall remain the exclusive property of the FIRE-RES Consortium and any of its members or its licensors. Nothing contained in this document shall give, or shall be construed as giving, any right, title, ownership, interest, license or any other right in or to any IP, know-how and information. The information and views set out in this publication does not necessarily reflect the official opinion of the European Commission. Neither the European Union institutions and bodies nor any person acting on their behalf, may be held responsible for the use which may be made of the information contained therein. D1.13 Recommendations and novel adaptive management scenarios Table of contents 1. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................... 1 1.1. Resilient landscapes .............................................................................................................................. 2 1.1.1. The spatial dimension of fuel and fire management ............................................................. 3 1.1.2. Building resilience ...................................................................................................................... 4 1.1.3. Adapting management to changing fire regimes ................................................................... 5 1.2. Management scenarios ......................................................................................................................... 5 1.2.1. Low-productivity forest areas ................................................................................................... 6 1.2.2. High-productivity forest areas .................................................................................................. 7 1.2.3. Wildland-urban interface .......................................................................................................... 8 1.3. Barriers for increasing resilience to EWE at the different scenarios ..................................................... 9 2. RECOMMENDATIONS TO INCREASE RESILIENCE ................................................................... 11 2.1. Landscape planning ............................................................................................................................. 12 2.2. Fuel parameters and thresholds ......................................................................................................... 13 2.2.1. Fuel structure and composition ............................................................................................. 14 2.2.2. Fuel load .................................................................................................................................... 16 2.2.3. Management implications ...................................................................................................... 17 2.3. Recommendations for fuel management ........................................................................................... 18 2.3.1. Prevention phase ...................................................................................................................... 19 2.3.2. Suppression phase ................................................................................................................... 26 2.3.3. Recovery phase ......................................................................................................................... 27 3. REFERENCES ....................................................................................................................... 31 1 1. Introduction The growing threat of Extreme Wildfire Events (EWEs) demands innovative, comprehensive solutions that reduce landscape vulnerability. This deliverable provides recommendations to increase landscape resilience, with a particular focus on stand-level management actions that can be applied before, during, and after wildfire events. At the prevention phase, actions focus on creating landscape and forest structures that are less vulnerable to EWEs; at the suppression phase, actions involve taking advantage of opportunities offered by unplanned ignitions burning under controlled conditions to achieve pre-defined management goals, and at the recovery phase, actions are targeted to promote or maintain landscape structures and vegetation adapted to the new conditions. Among the many approaches to increase landscape resilience to EWEs, Integrated Fire Management (IFM) is increasingly recognized as an effective one. IFM is defined as a comprehensive framework that addresses the challenges, opportunities, and impacts of wildfires and prescribed fires by integrating social, economic, cultural, and ecological dimensions. The main goal of IFM is to minimize fire damage while maximizing associated benefits (Myers, 2006). Implementing an IFM approach involves to actively manage fires across the prevention, suppression, and recovery phases; leaving behind the traditional focus on suppression alone. Thus, IFM requires promoting changes at landscape, policy, and governance levels. At landscape level, fuel management strategies reduce the risk of high-intensity and extreme wildfires occurrence. However, to efficiently implement innovative strategies at both local and landscape level, it is important to influence the decision-making process, engage stakeholders, and develop new legal frameworks that enable the application of an IFM approach (Oliveras-Menor et al., 2025; Stoof & Kettridge, 2022). Implementing a successful IFM strategy involves understanding the prevalent fire regime of a given ecosystem. However, because fire regimes are changing and becoming more extreme, IFM strategies should be consciously monitored, analysed, and revised, and should be framed within an adaptive management approach (Myers, 2006). IFM strategies do not necessarily aim to completely prevent EWEs, but rather to minimize their impacts. While fuels can be managed, EWEs are largely driven by atmospheric conditions that lie beyond our control. Therefore, IFM focuses on reducing vulnerability and limiting damage. This deliverable aims to provide scienceand expert-based recommendations at landscape level through fuel management strategies to increase landscape resilience to the growing threat of EWEs. Among the various components and dimensions of IFM, this deliverable emphasizes the integration of several management actions, including mechanical treatments, fire use (through prescribed burning, management of unplanned ignitions, and traditional fire use), and grazing, building on the foundations established by the FireParadox project (Silva et al., 2010) and expanded through the FIRE-RES project. D1.13 Recommendations and novel adaptive management scenarios 2 This deliverable provides recommendations for management interventions under different management scenarios that can be adapted and transferred across Europe, both in ecosystems that are already fire-prone and in those increasingly exposed to wildfire risk under changing climate and land-use dynamics. Their application, though, must always be adapted to the local conditions, as increasing resilience in flat versus mountainous terrain, in broadleaved versus conifer-dominated forests, or in patchy versus homogeneous landscapes requires differentiated approaches. 1.1. Resilient landscapes A fire resilient landscape is “a socio-ecological system that accepts the presence of fire, whilst preventing significant losses through landscape management, community engagement, and effective recovery” (Thacker et al., 2023). The concept of resilient landscapes moves beyond the ecological considerations and encompasses the entire socio-ecological system, including physical, ecological, economic, and social dimensions, as described in Deliverable 1.1 of FIRE-RES Project (Castellnou et al., 2022). In this deliverable, the recommendations focus primarily on the physical and ecological dimensions, but because all dimensions are closely interconnected, changes made here will also influence socio-economic resilience. Landscape resilience depends on both the type of ecosystem and the dominant fire regime that shapes it. For example, a fire-resilient landscape in the Mediterranean region differs greatly from a fire-resilient landscape in boreal regions or from one in the wildland-urban interface. Therefore, improving landscape resilience cannot be achieved by applying standardized practices everywhere. Instead, it requires strategies tailored to local conditions, ecosystem type, and fire regime. In ecology, resilience is the ability of a system to recover its functions, structure, and services following a disturbance (Holling, 1973), while resistance is the ability of the system to persist during the disturbance (Tilman & Downing, 1994). From a forest management perspective, the definition of resistance and resilience depends on the spatial scale being considered (Derose & Long, 2014): • At stand level: o Resistance is characterised as the influence of forest structure and composition on fire behaviour. o Resilience is characterised as the influence of fire behaviour on the subsequent forest structure and composition. • At landscape level: o Resistance is the effect of the spatial configuration and composition of patches (e.g., fuel continuity, land cover diversity) on fire spread. o Resilience is the effect of the fire on the subsequent age class and species dominance distribution. D1.13 Recommendations and novel adaptive management scenarios 3 Building resilience is therefore a long-term strategy that aims to create a mosaic of land uses and maintain the desired vegetation structure and composition. 1.1.1. The spatial dimension of fuel and fire management While stand-level treatments are important to manage fuels, they must contribute to the broader mosaic of land uses to build resilient landscapes. In this sense, the location of the treatments is crucial in both increasing landscape resistance and facilitating firefighting operations. Decisions on where, when, and how to apply treatments should be guided by knowledge of the prevalent fire regime and typical fire propagation patterns at a given area. Strategic landscape planning is therefore essential. Even though landscape configuration and composition may have little influence on fire spread under extreme fire weather conditions (Cruz et al., 2022), strategically placing low-fuel areas can still slow fire growth, improve suppression opportunities, and reduce damage (Moreira et al., 2020; Valor et al., 2023b). Planning should define the typology and schedule of fuel management actions and should cover actions to be applied before, during, and after the fire, ensuring that all interventions complement each other. Fragmented landscapes tend to be more resistant to disturbances than homogeneous ones, where disturbances can propagate more easily (Turner et al., 1989), especially under mild to moderate fire weather conditions, but also under extreme conditions (see Deliverable 1.7, Acácio et al., 2023). However, under extreme fire weather, landscape structure becomes less important on fire spread patterns (Moreira et al., 2020) because the development and behaviour of an EWE is mostly driven by the atmospheric conditions created by the EWE itself rather than the fuel load and arrangement. Experience shows that EWEs can spread in areas with low biomass, as it is the atmospheric instability what propagates the fire (Castellnou, pers. comm.). However, since fuel is the first element that feeds a wildfire and can cause it to escalate into an EWE, it is essential to manage it beforehand to prevent erratic and unexpected behaviour. The goal is to keep fire fronts below the threshold that exceeds firefighting capacity. The design of the landscape mosaic should therefore match the maximum fire front below the threshold that triggers an EWE. Fire fronts wider than ~800 m (or greater than ~1 ha in surface) often escalate into EWEs, where fire behaviour is no longer governed by fuel availability, wind, and convective heat transfer but by the massive air movements generated by the fire itself. Once a fire front exceeds ~3 ha, its behaviour is mainly driven by compression-related energy from fire– atmosphere interactions (Castellnou, pers. comm.). For this reason, the scale of the landscape mosaic should be designed relative to the maximum fire front that firefighting teams can reasonably control. D1.13 Recommendations and novel adaptive management scenarios 4 1.1.2. Building resilience Resilient landscapes can slow fire spread and intensity, improve suppression opportunities, and reduce ecological, economic, and social impacts. Building resilience entails an active landscape management across the three phases of fire: prevention, suppression, and recovery. At the prevention phase: • Promote heterogeneity in fuel distribution, structure, and arrangement. • Avoid large homogeneous landscapes that allow fires to become extreme and unpredictable. • Management actions should be located where they can most strongly influence wildfire development. • Promote long-term strategies, such as carbon mitigation policies that slow temperature rise and reduce fire risk. At the suppression phase: • Provide structural features (at forest and landscape level) and infrastructure that facilitate firefighting. • Design such forest structures and heterogeneous landscapes in advance, since operational flexibility is limited once an EWE develops. • Allow let-burn strategies when conditions are favourable and pre-designed burn polygons are established. The successful experience in Vall d’ Aran (see Oliveres et al., 2025) demonstrates that such strategies are feasible when administrations, practitioners, and local communities agree on predefined potential burning areas. • Let-burn strategies may also be applied when suppression capacity is exceeded and prioritization is necessary. In such cases, decisions on which fires to suppress and which to allow to burn should be based primarily on suppression capacity and fire potential impact, but may also consider the ecosystem’s value and ability to recover. Therefore, it may be advisable to allow burning in forest ecosystems that are more fire-adapted –those that are fire-resistant and resilient– while prioritizing suppression efforts in areas where fires would cause greater ecological damage or where recovery capacity is lower. At the recovery phase: • Support ecosystems with the intrinsic capacity to regenerate after wildfire. • Use management actions to foster vegetation that is adapted to the local fire regime, such as assisted migration strategies. • Apply active restoration actions through planting or seeding to re-establish vegetation cover and prevent soil erosion when vegetation cannot naturally recover. Restoration efforts should always be guided by a scientifically and D1.13 Recommendations and novel adaptive management scenarios 5 technically sound plan that clearly defines the objectives that justify active restoration, specifies techniques to be applied, and outlines measures for longterm system maintenance. Such a plan must address the fundamental questions of why, where, and how restoration will take place. • Take advantage of the new conditions created by the fire and promote new, more resistant and resilient landscapes. 1.1.3. Adapting management to changing fire regimes In the context of climate change and increasing disturbance intensity, adaptation is fundamental. Just as vegetation must adapt to the prevailing fire regime to resist and recover from a wildfire, management practices and decision-making must adapt to local, changing conditions. When a particular management intervention is implemented, its impacts on the ecosystem should be monitored and evaluated over time. When vegetation development is aligned with the disturbance regime of the region, follow-up interventions can continue as planned. If not, alternative management practices or different timings should be considered. Adaptation also requires acknowledging that ecosystems vary in recovery pace, which largely depends on the structure and dynamics of their vegetation communities. For example, highly productive forests (e.g., Atlantic temperate) recover faster than less productive ones (e.g., Mediterranean). Finally, as global change shapes fire regimes, landscapes that are resilient today may not remain so in the future (Cochrane & Bowman, 2021). Therefore, management interventions must be continuously reassessed and adapted to ensure that resilience is sustained under new changing conditions. 1.2. Management scenarios Management scenarios to create and promote resilient landscapes may vary depending on the ecological and socio-economic context. In Europe, with its broad and diverse contexts, management approaches to increase landscapes resilience must be tailored to local conditions and realities, making broad generalizations difficult. In this deliverable, when we refer to management scenarios, we focus on three contexts: • Low-productivity forest areas: Typically associated with Mediterranean climates and forest types. These are generally fire-prone areas where active forest management often lacks. • High-productivity forests areas: Typically associated with more humid climates, including Atlantic regions, Central Europe, and boreal zones. While management is usually more intensive here and these areas tend to be more humid, wildfires can still occur, particularly in the Atlantic zone. D1.13 Recommendations and novel adaptive management scenarios 12 2.1. Landscape planning Landscape planning is a cornerstone of wildfire prevention and resilience building. While it is based on several factors that vary locally, a common element across regions is the identification and maintenance of Strategic Management Points (SMPs). SMPs are placed where fuel modification or infrastructure development significantly improves the safety and efficiency of suppression operations. SMPs are identified by doing an in-depth analysis of both the terrain and the main wildfire spread patterns (Fire Potential Polygons, see Deliverable 1.3, Arilla et al., 2023), which describe the expected movement of fire in a given area. Importantly, SMPs must be established and maintained before the wildfire takes place. The main objectives of identifying and maintaining SMPs are (Costa et al., 2011): • Reduce wildfire activity by limiting wildfire intensity and spread and preventing crown fires. • Confine ignitions and protect vulnerable areas. • Facilitate access by providing anchor points for technical operations. Although SMPs cover only a relatively small fraction of the landscape, enhancing overall landscape resilience requires management planning at the scale of the entire landscape. Management options depend on local conditions such as land-use type, property, legal frameworks, accessibility, labour costs, etc. To guide decisions, it may be useful to carry out a suitability analysis to find the most appropriate management approaches for a given region. Such an analysis considers multiple factors, including pasture quality, domestic or wild herbivores presence, accessibility, slope, forest biomass, proximity to biomass facilities, and length of prescribed fire season. Together, these factors help determine whether mechanical treatments, prescribed fire, grazing, or a combination of these approaches are the most effective and feasible option (Neidermeier et al., 2023). Simulation models may also be useful for planning treatments at landscape level because they allow managers to predict and evaluate potential outcomes beforehand. For example, potential fire behaviour can be assessed under different scenarios using simulation models where the effect of different combinations of treatments can be evaluated (Vilà-Vilardell et al., 2023). Landscape planning is structured across three interconnected levels: • Strategic planning (long-term, >20 years): High level planning that sets the overall vision, strategies, and objectives for a landscape area over the long term. • Tactical planning (mid-term, 5-20 years): It translates the strategic goals into practical actions, i.e., sets a roadmap for where, when, and how strategic goals are obtained in the mid-term (5-20 years). It is based on priorities, available resources, and site conditions. D1.13 Recommendations and novel adaptive management scenarios 13 • Operational planning (short-term, <5 years): Detailed plans with concrete instructions that guide specific management interventions in the short-term. 2.2. Fuel parameters and thresholds Fuel structure, composition, and load are the stand-level characteristics that determine wildfire behaviour (i.e., the intensity and severity of the wildfire). Together with topography and weather, they influence whether an ignition remains a surface fire or develops into a high-intensity or extreme wildfire. At the landscape scale, fuel connectivity and land-use type further regulate fire spread and severity (Figure 1, from Deliverable 1.11, Valor et al., 2023b). Figure 1. Schematic representation of the factors and metrics that influence stand and landscape resistance to wildfires, and the components of fire behaviour that are influenced by these factors. From Deliverable 1.11 (Valor et al., 2023b). D1.13 Recommendations and novel adaptive management scenarios 14 2.2.1. Fuel structure and composition Fuel structure and composition characterise the fuel type, including species identity, the vertical and horizontal arrangement of fuels, and fuel size, height, and compactness. Fuel structure and composition, along with topography and climate conditions, determine fire behaviour and the potential for crown fire initiation or EWE development. Key attributes include: • Fuel size: Fine fuels (< 6 mm) dry rapidly, ignite quickly, and drive fire spread. In contrast, coarse fuels (> 7.5 cm) burn more slowly but sustain combustion and may have greater impact on soil or trees. • Fuel arrangement: o Vertical continuity: It determines the likelihood of crown fire initiation. Ladder fuels and low canopy base heights promote transition from surface to crown fires. o Horizontal continuity: It determines fire spread, both for surface and crown fire. Dense, continuous canopies promote crown fire spread, while open canopies reduce lateral spread but dry understory fuels faster. • Developmental stage: Forest age (regeneration, young, or adult) influences forest structure and thus, fire behaviour. Mature stands often have higher crowns and thicker bark, making them less susceptible to crown fire initiation and tree mortality. • Vegetation composition: Species with high resin content ignite more readily and are more flammable. In forests, several structural thresholds are associated with the likelihood of crown fire initiation and spread (see Deliverable 1.11 for details, Valor et al., 2023b): • Canopy bulk density (CBD): It is a measure of how dense the canopy layer is. Above 0.08 kg m⁻³, active crown fire spread becomes likely (Botequim et al., 2019; Gómez-Vázquez et al., 2014). • Canopy base height (CBH): Stands with tall trees and high canopies are less prone to initiate a crown fire. A minimum 4 m distance between surface and canopy layer is recommended to reduce crown fire initiation (Piqué et al., 2011). • Basal area: Pinus radiata and P. pinaster stands with basal area above 14.7 m² ha⁻¹ (extreme conditions) or 32.5 m² ha⁻¹ (moderate conditions) can sustain active crown fires (Fernández-Alonso et al., 2013). • Density and canopy cover: Stands with < 500 trees ha⁻¹ and low horizontal continuity of the canopy layer are less likely to sustain active crown fires (Alvarez et al., 2012) but allow faster drying of surface fuels. In contrast, maintaining a moderately closed canopy cover (~70%) prevents a fast recovery of the understory vegetation and maintains higher humidity, reducing ignition potential. D1.13 Recommendations and novel adaptive management scenarios 15 To build such structures, characterise the stand vulnerability to high-intensity or extreme wildfires, and select the optimal treatment for a given area, these are the specific parameters at stand level that should be measured (Piqué et al., 2011): • Fuel type: Identification of the primary carrier of surface fire (grass, shrubs, litter, slash) • Surface fuel cover: Percent cover of the surface fuels. • Surface fuel height: Mean height of understory vegetation. It should not exceed 1.3 m. • Ladder fuel cover: Percent cover of ladder fuels. • Canopy cover: Percent cover of the canopy layer. • Distance between surface and ladder fuels: Distance from the upper surface fuels to lower ladder fuels. • Distance between ladder and canopy fuels: Distance from the upper ladder fuels to lower canopy layer. Based on these metrics, stands can be classified into three crown fire vulnerability types (Table 2, Figure 2, see Piqué et al., 2011 for details). Table 2. Crown fire vulnerability classification and related fire behaviour. Vulnerability Characteristics Fire behaviour High Continuous vertical fuel continuity, variable ladder fuel cover. Active crown fires are likely; surface fire generates enough heat to sustain canopy spread even under mild conditions. Moderate Variable ladder and canopy cover; vertical continuity inconsistent. Torching and secondary ignition points occur; some crowns burn passively but spread is not continuous. Low Vertical discontinuity between fuel layers; variable ladder fuel cover. Fire remains at surface level; crowns are generally unaffected under moderate conditions. High vulnerability Moderate vulnerability Low vulnerability Figure 2. Crown fire vulnerability classification as a function of forest structure. D1.13 Recommendations and novel adaptive management scenarios 16 This classification helps determine the optimal type of prevention measures. However, it is important to note that under extreme fire weather, the vertical distance between fuel layers is not the main driver of crown fires and fire spread; instead, fire-atmosphere energy dominates. Particularities of extreme wildfire events: During an EWE, dense or closed canopies tend to slow the advance of the fire more than open canopies. Unlike non-extreme fires that spread steadily, EWEs couple with the atmosphere, producing bursts or pulses of rapid fire spread driven by compressionrelated energy release. Closed canopies may dampen these pulses, slowing fire spread (Castellnou, pers. comm.). Although precise thresholds of resistance to EWEs are not fully established, the thresholds to prevent high-intensity wildfires are increasingly well documented. Table 3 shows the thresholds for the main factors at stand and landscape level in order of importance (most to least important) (see Deliverable 1.11, Valor et al., 2023b). Table 3. Summary of the main factors, metrics and thresholds influencing resistance to high intense wildfires and extreme wildfire events. From Deliverable 1.11 (Valor et al., 2023b) Scale Resistant factors Metrics High intensity wildfires threshold Fire behaviour component influenced Stand Fuel load Fine fuel load (t ha-1) 10 Fire intensity and severity Stand Horizontal continuity Canopy bulk density (kg m-3) 0.05-0.1 Canopy cover (%) 70-80 Basal area (m2 ha) 20 Understory cover (%) 30 Stand Vertical continuity Canopy base height (m) 7 Landscape Fuel connectivity Time since last fire (years) 9 Fire spread Landscape treated in strategic locations (%) 20 Effective mesh size1 (ha) Not available Fire spread Stand Fuel composition Dominant species Conifers and shrublands > broadleaves Fire severity 1Average size of the area that a randomly located fire will burn in a fuel type without encountering a barrier or other fuel type (see Fernandes et al., 2016). 2.2.2. Fuel load Fuel load refers to the amount of live and dead fuel per unit area that can potentially burn. It is classified by size class, layer (ground, surface, ladder, canopy), and condition D1.13 Recommendations and novel adaptive management scenarios 17 (live or dead). The size class of the fuel particle determines its readiness to burn and contribution to propagate the fire: • The main parameter that determines fire spread and intensity is the fine fuel load, as fine fuels are the easiest to catch fire and propagate it. • In forested areas, fuel loads interact with stand structure: even moderate loads can lead to EWEs if canopy connectivity is high. When fine fuel load exceeds 10 t ha-1, under extreme weather conditions, ignitions may escalate into EWEs (Burrows et al., 2000; Fernandes et al., 2016). 2.2.3. Management implications Considering the abovementioned parameters and thresholds, to limit the potential for EWEs, management treatments should: • Reduce ladder fuels and increase the distance between canopy and surface fuels to prevent crown fire initiation. • Manage stand density and canopy cover to balance moisture retention with reduced horizontal continuity. • Promote structural heterogeneity at stand and landscape level to create mosaics that slow fire spread and reduce fire-column stability. • Prioritize reducing fine fuel loads in all layers of the system and especially in areas of high fire risk. • Tailor interventions to the local management scenario: o Low-productivity areas: costly to treat mechanically; grazing and let-burn strategies may be combined. o High-productivity areas: periodic treatments (thinning + prescribed fire) are justified due to higher fuel accumulation rates. o Wildland–urban interface (WUI): fuel load reduction should be strict and continuous, particularly within the first 30–100 m of settlements. Finally, it is important to consider that the parameters discussed above describe the resistance of the system to EWEs. That is, these are factors that reduce the likelihood of EWE occurrence or that slow its development, creating opportunities for suppression. Yet, because these parameters also influence fire severity –the above and belowground organic matter consumed from fire (Keeley, 2009)–, they provide indirect insights into resilience. While resilience cannot be fully characterized through these parameters alone, to obtain the full picture, it is also necessary to consider the traits that allow plants to survive or recover after a wildfire. D1.13 Recommendations and novel adaptive management scenarios 18 2.3. Recommendations for fuel management The main management goals to increase landscape resilience to EWEs are the following: • Prevent ignitions: Maintain canopy cover (~70%) to keep understory humid. • Limit fire intensity: Reduce total fuel loads, particularly fine fuels. • Break vertical continuity: Remove ladder fuels and raise canopy base height. • Break horizontal continuity: Thin dense stands and create landscape mosaics (Figure 3). • Determine mosaic patch size: Mosaic patch size and arrangement affect fire column stability and fire spread, but how exactly they influence fire is not well understood; further research is needed to determine the optimal patch size to prevent EWEs (Castellnou, pers. comm.). Figure 3. Landscape mosaic with patches of forest, pastures, and houses (Catalan PrePyrenees, Spain). These structures should be created before the fire event; however, opportunities to establish or maintain such structures also exist during and after the fire. In the following sections, detailed management recommendations are given, organized according to their implementation phase relative to wildfire: prevention, suppression, and recovery (Table 4). The specific management actions required to achieve these structures depend on factors such as dominant vegetation, terrain, accessibility, tools available, and other management objectives targeted. D1.13 Recommendations and novel adaptive management scenarios 19 Table 4. Recommended management actions according to their implementation phase relative to wildfires. Fire prevention phase Fire suppression phase Post-fire recovery phase Mechanical treatments Wildfire management Natural recovery Fire use Active restoration Grazing 2.3.1. Prevention phase The primary objective of wildfire prevention is not to eliminate fire from the ecosystem, but rather to create forest and landscape structures that are less vulnerable to highintensity and extreme wildfires. By reducing fire spread and severity, these structures also prevent fire behaviour from exceeding the suppression capacity of firefighting teams. For example, in Catalonia, suppression capacity is surpassed when flame lengths are higher than 3 m or fire spread exceeds 2 km h-1 (Costa et al., 2011). When planning treatments to avoid EWEs, it is important to consider that EWEs differ from other wildfires in several ways. First, they do not require continuous fuel cover to spread, as they can start independent fires by long-distance spotting or the collapse of the fire column under extreme conditions –driven by the compression energy of the fireatmosphere system. Second, under extreme fire weather conditions, vertical continuity of the fuels plays a minor role, as the transition from surface to canopy is driven by fireatmosphere coupling rather than by ladder fuels (Castellnou, pers. comm.). Although EWEs are less sensitive to fuel load than other wildfires, managing forest stands remains crucial to reduce the likelihood of extreme events. In forests, crown fires are more likely to develop into EWE than surface fires; therefore, treatments that prevent crown fires also contribute to prevent EWEs. Key management actions to reduce forest vulnerability to high-intensity wildfires are (Agee & Skinner, 2005): • Reduce surface fuel load: It reduces fire intensity and flame length. • Reduce ladder fuels and increase distance between surface and canopy layer: It prevents fire from jumping to the canopy layer. • Reduce canopy cover: It reduces the likelihood of active crown fires. However, it increases light and wind penetration so surface fuels dry faster. • Keep large mature trees: Their canopies are higher and they have thicker bark. In the following sections, detailed recommendations for different treatment types including mechanical treatments, fire use, and grazing are provided, tailored to local conditions and prevention goals. D1.13 Recommendations and novel adaptive management scenarios 20 2.3.1.1. Mechanical treatments Recommendations for mechanical treatments are presented separately by type of treatment. These approaches can be applied individually or in combination, depending on management objectives. In areas of high fire risk, integrating all three treatments (or two in shrubland systems) is strongly recommended. Thinning The main purpose of thinning is to remove overstory trees to improve growing conditions for the remaining ones, allowing them to reach more mature stages, while also reducing vertical and horizontal vegetation continuity. • Reduce stand density: Apply light or moderate thinning that maintains a rather closed canopy cover (~70%) while still reducing competition among trees. Such canopy structures slow understory growth while keeping relative humidity below canopy high. Importantly, close canopies dampen the pulses that drive rapid fire spread during an EWE (Castellnou, pers. comm.). In plantations, establishing a lower-density strip as a buffer may be desirable to reduce fire intensity and prevent the spread of flames into the plantation (CONAF, 2022). • Increase canopy base height: Stands with higher crowns and a greater distance between surface and canopy layer (~4 m) are less likely to initiate crown fires (Piqué et al., 2011). • Retain the largest, most vigorous trees: They have higher crown base height and thicker bark, which reduces crown fire initiation and increases the likelihood of surviving. It is important to note that more light and wind through the canopy can dry surface fuels and increase spread rates under certain conditions –especially during extreme wind events– so thinning must be paired with surface and ladder fuel removal. In addition, thinning increases light availability at the forest floor, promoting vegetation regeneration. While this supports sustainable, natural forest dynamics, it can also accelerate fuel accumulation, potentially counteracting the benefits of reduced fuel load. Understory clearing The main purpose of understory clearing is to reduce potential fire intensity and, in forested areas, increase distance between canopy and surface layers to prevent crown fire initiation. In forests, it refers to clearing both surface and ladder fuels, while in shrublands, it only refers to surface fuels. • Reduce understory cover: Remove ladder and surface fuels selectively, to preserve ecosystem functions and biodiversity. Patchy treatments are preferred. The final understory cover can go from 15-20% to 100% cover, depending on the stand development and distance between understory and canopy base height (Piqué et al., 2011). • Increase distance between canopy and surface layer: Target a minimum distance of 4 m to minimize torching (Piqué et al., 2011). D1.13 Recommendations and novel adaptive management scenarios 21 • Retain or favour species that increase forest resilience (e.g., fire-adapted, lower flammability, ability to resprout) and promote biodiversity. Note that in shrublands, the same recommendations apply except for the reduction of the vertical continuity. Slash management The main purpose of slash management is to reduce the fine dead fuels following a mechanical treatment (thinning or clearing). The slash generated after treatments increases dramatically the risk of high and extreme wildfire events, both in forests and shrublands. When managed properly, it can improve soil microclimate or serve as a refuge for fauna and regeneration (Bunnell & Houde, 2010). • Lop and scatter: Fuel particles thicker than 5 cm should be cut in smaller pieces to a maximum of 1 m to improve soil contact and decomposition (Figure 4; Beltrán et al., 2018). • Build piles: Slash piles should not be higher than 50 cm. However, in some cases where fire risk is particularly high, it may be more convenient to set a maximum height of 30 cm, as is the case for Pinus halepensis (Beltrán et al., 2011). Slash piles should not be placed nearby streams or areas that are easily waterlogged but on logging tracks to protect soil and avoid compaction (Figure 4; Thompson et al., 2009). Avoid leaving debris or cut logs at the base of remaining trees that would be girdled by prolonged combustion in a surface fire. • Mastication: Mastication might be appropriate when smaller particles are wanted to speed up their decomposition and incorporation into the soil (Figure 4). Masticated fuels create a densely compact fuelbed that often reduces intensity and spread, but it can sustain long-lasting smouldering combustion with severe impacts on soil health (Kreye et al., 2014).Figure 4 Figure 4. From left to right, lop and scatter, slash piles, and masticated fuels (Catalonia, Spain). D1.13 Recommendations and novel adaptive management scenarios 28 cases, vegetation recovers naturally while in others, intervention is essential to secure recovery. 2.3.3.1. Assessing the need for restoration A crucial step after a wildfire is to evaluate the need for restoration and to prioritize areas most at risk of soil loss or ecological degradation. Key factors include: • Soil erodibility: The higher erodibility the higher erosion risk. • Slope: Erosion risk increases up to 40% slope (Kapolka & Dollhopf, 2001), above which becomes extreme. • Aspect: The influence of slope orientation varies with climate. For example, in Mediterranean areas, south-facing slopes are more prone to soil erosion due to limited plant establishment (Paneghel et al., 2025). • Fire severity: Areas where fire severity is low present little erosion risk; under moderate severity, risk increases steadily, and under high severity, soil erosion risk is very high. • Vegetation resprouting ability: Plant communities with less than 40% of resprouting species before fires are vulnerable to soil erosion (Alloza et al., 2014). It is important to note that topography generally outweighs vegetation traits in determining post-fire erosion risk (see Deliverable 2.7, de Frutos et al., 2025). Additionally, in certain landscapes, proximity to human settlements or infrastructure should also guide prioritization due to direct social and economic consequences. 2.3.3.2. Designing a restoration plan Once priority areas for restoration are identified, a restoration action plan defining the specific post-fire management strategies should be designed. These interventions are the first line of defence and are classified into hillslope measures and channel measures (see Deliverable 2.7, de Frutos et al., 2025). These measures aim to: • Protect soil and minimize erosion • Reduce surface runoff • Ensure successful vegetation recovery Since restoration is at times urgent, it is crucial to provide managers with accessible cartographic tools that identify vulnerable areas and prioritize those requiring intervention (de Frutos et al., 2025). One such tool is POSTFIRE, an expert-based system to assist in the management of burned forest areas (https://postfire.es, Alloza et al., 2021). D1.13 Recommendations and novel adaptive management scenarios 29 2.3.3.3. Considering fire-related plant traits Successful recovery depends on how well plant communities are adapted to local fire regimes. Because plants are adapted to specific fire regimes, an increase in the occurrence of EWEs aligned with an increase in the severity of other climatic stresses may threaten the capacity of vegetation to regenerate. To increase landscape resilience, managers must evaluate which regeneration strategies dominate the community (Table 7) Table 7. Post-fire regeneration strategies and related management recommendations. See Deliverable 1.12 Part I (Valor et al., 2023a) for details. When the fire regime does not align with the plant community traits, shifts in species dominance may occur, altering ecosystem resilience. Table 8 presents examples of dominant overstory species on the main forest types in Europe. Table 8. Post-fire strategies of selected dominant overstory species in a range of European forest types. From Deliverable 1.12, Part I (Valor et al., 2023a). Resprouters Seeders Post-fire colonizer No firerelated traits Soil or canopy seed bank No seed bank Pinus canariensis Pinus pinaster Pinus pinea Pinus pinea Abies alba Quercus suber Pinus halepensis Pinus nigra Pinus nigra Picea abies Quercus ilex Calluna vulgaris Pinus sylvestris Pinus sylvestris Quercus robur Pinus mugo Pinus mugo Quercus pubescens Pinus cembra Pinus cembra Fraxinus angustifolia Larix decidua Larix decidua Strategy Post-fire regeneration mechanism Suitable fire regime Management recommendations Resprouters Resprout from below/aboveground structures Wide range of frequencies and severities Promote structures with low fuel loads. Seeders Germinate from seeds High-intensity, infrequent fires Promote mature stands, low fuel loads, and age-class diversity. Post-fire colonizers Recolonize from unburned patches Low-intensity, frequent fires Promote large, mature trees with thick bark, low fuel loads, and vertical discontinuity. No firerelated traits None None Promote large, mature trees with thick bark, low fuel loads, and vertical discontinuity. D1.13 Recommendations and novel adaptive management scenarios 30 Fagus sylvatica Castanea sativa Populus tremula Betula pendula Quercus coccifera Calluna vulgaris D1.13 Recommendations and novel adaptive management scenarios 31 3. References Acácio, V., Sequeira, C., Dias, S., Duarte, I. M., Nunes, L., Colaço, C., Skulska, R., & Rego, F. C. (2023). Spatial and temporal conditions for Extreme Wildfire Events at the European scale. Deliverable 1.7. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10396140 Agee, J. K., & Skinner, C. N. (2005). Basic principles of forest fuel reduction treatments. Forest Ecology and Management, 211(1–2), 83–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2005.01.034 Alcasena, F. J., Ager, A. A., Salis, M., Day, M. A., & Vega-Garcia, C. (2018). Optimizing prescribed fire allocation for managing fire risk in central Catalonia. Science of the Total Environment, 621, 872–885. Alloza J, Garcia S, Gimeno T, Baeza J, Vallejo V, Rojo L, Martínez A. 2014. Guía técnica para la gestión de montes quemados. Protocolos de actuación para la restauración de zonas quemadas con riesgo de desertificación. Madrid: Ministerio de Agricultura, Alimentación y Medio Ambiente. Alloza JA, Baeza MJ, Disante K, Santana VM, Vallejo VR. 2021. POSTFIRE: sistema experto para la gestión de zonas forestales quemadas. 30 años de investigación en restauración forestal. Fundación CEAM. Valencia. 105 pp. ISBN-13 978-84-921259-8-2. Alvarez, A., Gracia, M., Vayreda, J., & Retana, J. (2012). Patterns of fuel types and crown fire potential in Pinus halepensis forests in the Western Mediterranean Basin. Forest Ecology and Management, 270, 282–290. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2011.01.039 Arilla, E., Bachfischer, M., Castellarnau, X., Cespedes, J., Castellnou, M., Castellví, J., Dalmau, E., Estivill, L., Ferragut, A., Larrañaga, A., Miralles, M., Nebot, E., Pagès, J., Pallàs, P., Rosell, M., & Ruiz, B. (2023). Piloting the adaptation of methodology of forest fire potential polygons to improve decision-making on EWE events. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7991283 Beltrán, M., Piqué, M., Cervera, T., Palero, N., & Camprodon, J. (2018). Manual de buenas prácticas de gestión para la conservación de los bosques de pino laricio Compatibilización de la producción forestal y la conservación del hábitat. Beltrán, M., Piqué, M., Vericat, P., & Cervera, T. (2011). Models de gestió per als boscos de pi blanc (Pinus halepensis L.): producció de fusta i prevenció d’incendis forestals. Sèrie: Orientacions de Gestió Forestal Sostenible per a Catalunya (ORGEST). Centre de La Propietat Forestal. Generalitat de Catalunya. Botequim, B., Fernandes, P. M., Borges, J. G., González-Ferreiro, E., & Guerra-Hernández, J. (2019). Improving silvicultural practices for Mediterranean forests through fire behaviour modelling using LiDAR-derived canopy fuel characteristics. International Journal of Wildland Fire, 28(11), 823–839. https://doi.org/10.1071/WF19001 Bunnell, F. L., & Houde, I. (2010). Down wood and biodiversity — implications to forest practices. Environmental Reviews, 18: 397-421. https://doi.org/10.1139/A10-019 D1.13 Recommendations and novel adaptive management scenarios 32 Burrows, N., Ward, B., & Robinson, A. (2000). Behaviour and some impacts of a large wildfire in the Gnangara maritime pine (Pinus pinaster) plantation, Western Australia. CALMScience, 3(2), 251–260. Casals, P., Baiges, T., Bota, G., Chocarro, C., de Bello, F., Fanlo, R., Sebastià, M. T., & Taull, M. (2009). Silvopastoral Systems in the Northeastern Iberian Peninsula: A Multifunctional Perspective. In Agroforestry in Europe (pp. 161–181). Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-8272-6_8 Casals, P., Valor, T., Besalú, A., & Molina-Terrén, D. (2016). Understory fuel load and structure eight to nine years after prescribed burning in Mediterranean pine forests. Forest Ecology and Management, 362, 156–168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2015.11.050 Casals, P., Valor, T., Rios, A. I., & Shipley, B. (2018). Leaf and bark functional traits predict resprouting strategies of understory woody species after prescribed fires. Forest Ecology and Management, 429(July), 158–174. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2018.07.002 Castellnou, M., Nebot, E., Estivill, L., Miralles, M., Rosell, M., Valor, T., Casals, P., Duane, A., Piqué, M., Górriz-Mifsud, E., Coll, L., Serra, M., Plana, E., Colaço, C., Sequeira, C., Skulska, I., & Moran, P. (2022). Transfer of lessons learned on Extreme Wildfire Events to key stakeholders. Deliverable 1.1. Certini, G. (2005). Effects of fire on properties of forest soils: A review. Oecologia, 143(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1007/S00442-004-1788-8/TABLES/2 Cochrane, M. A., & Bowman, D. M. J. S. (2021). Manage fire regimes, not fires. Nature Geoscience, 14(7), 455–457. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41561-021-00791-4 Corporación Nacional Forestal (CONAF). (2022). Manual de buenas prácticas en medidas de prevención y mitigación contra incendios forestales con énfasis en el ciclo productivo forestal. Silvicultura preventiva. Costa, P., Castellnou, M., Larrañaga, A., Miralles, M., & Kraus, D. (2011). Prevention of Large Wildfires using the Fire Types Concept. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/263923019 Cruz, M., Alexander, M., & Fernandes, P. (2022). Evidence for lack of a fuel effect on forest and shrubland fire rates of spread under elevated fire danger conditions: implications for modelling and management. International Journal of Wildland Fire, March, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1071/wf21171 de Frutos, S., Casados, S., Samblàs, E., Gelabert, P., Vilà-Vilardell, L., Balguerías, E., Arencibia, L. F., Grillo, F., Piqué, M., Borges, J., & Coll, L. (2025). Designing post-fire restoration strategies. Derose, R. J., & Long, J. N. (2014). Resistance and resilience: a conceptual framework for silviculture. Forest Science, 60(6), 1205–1212. https://doi.org/10.5849/forsci.13-507 D1.13 Recommendations and novel adaptive management scenarios 33 DGPEIS, 2024. Guia tècnica per a la elaboració de projectes de planificació urbanística en l’àmbit de la prevenció d’incendis. Direcció General de Prevenció, Extinció d'Incendis i Salvaments, Barcelona. 59 p. Duane, A., Aquilue, N., Canelles, Q., Moran-Ordonez, A., De Caceres, M., & Brotons, L. (2019). Adapting prescribed burns to future climate change in Mediterranean landscapes. Science of the Total Environment, 677, 68–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.04.348 Fernandes, P., & Loureiro, C. (2010). Handbook to plan and use prescribed burnings in Europe. Fernandes, P. M. (2015). Empirical support for the use of prescribed burning as a fuel treatment. Current Forestry Reports, 1(2), 118–127. https://doi.org/10.1007/S40725-0150010-Z/FIGURES/3 Fernandes, P. M., Barros, A. M. G., Pinto, A., & Santos, J. A. (2016). Characteristics and controls of extremely large wildfires in the western Mediterranean Basin. Journal of Geophysical Research: Biogeosciences, 121(8), 2141–2157. https://doi.org/10.1002/2016JG003389 Fernández-Alonso, J. M., Alberdi, I., Álvarez-González, J. G., Vega, J. A., Cañellas, I., & RuizGonzález, A. D. (2013). Canopy fuel characteristics in relation to crown fire potential in pine stands: Analysis, modelling and classification. European Journal of Forest Research, 132(2), 363–377. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10342-012-0680-z Gómez-Vázquez, I., Fernandes, P. M., Arias-Rodil, M., Barrio-Anta, M., & Castedo-Dorado, F. (2014). Using density management diagrams to assess crown fire potential in Pinus pinaster Ait. stands. Annals of Forest Science, 71(4), 473–484. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13595-013-0350-4 Guo, Y., Wang, J., Ge, Y., & Zhou, C. (2024). Global expansion of wildland-urban interface intensifies human exposure to wildfire risk in the 21st century. Science Advances , 10(45), 9587. https://doi.org/10.1126/SCIADV.ADO9587/SUPPL_FILE/SCIADV.ADO9587_SM.PDF Holling, C. S. (1973). Resilience and stability of ecological systems. In W. R. Burnside, S. Pulver, K. J. Fiorella, M. L. Avolio, & S. M. Alexander (Eds.), Foundations of SocioEnvironmental Research. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009177856.038 Jenerette, G. D., Anderson, K. E., Cadenasso, M. L., Fenn, M., Franklin, J., Goulden, M. L., Larios, L., Pincetl, S., Regan, H. M., Rey, S. J., Santiago, L. S., & Syphard, A. D. (2022). An expanded framework for wildland–urban interfaces and their management. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 20(9), 516–523. https://doi.org/10.1002/FEE.2533 Kapolka, N. M., & Dollhopf, D. J. (2001). Effect of Slope Gradient and Plant Growth on Soil Loss on Reconstructed Steep Slopes. International Journal of Surface Mining, Reclamation and Environment, 15(2), 86–99. https://doi.org/10.1076/IJSM.15.2.86.3416 D1.13 Recommendations and novel adaptive management scenarios 34 Keeley, J. E. (2009). Fire intensity, fire severity and burn severity: a brief review and suggested usage. International Journal of Wildland Fire, 18(1), 116–126. https://doi.org/10.1071/WF07049 Kreye, J. K., Brewer, N. W., Morgan, P., Varner, J. M., Smith, M. S., Hoffman, C. M., & Ottmar, R. D. (2014). Fire behavior in masticated fuels: A review. Forest Ecology and Management, 314, 193–207. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2013.11.035 Mäkipää, R., Abramoff, R., Adamczyk, B., Baldy, V., Biryol, C., Bosela, M., Casals, P., Curiel Yuste, J., Dondini, M., Filipek, S., Garcia-Pausas, J., Gros, R., Gömöryová, E., Hashimoto, S., Hassegawa, M., Immonen, P., Laiho, R., Li, H., Li, Q., … Lehtonen, A. (2023). How does management affect soil C sequestration and greenhouse gas fluxes in boreal and temperate forests? – A review. Forest Ecology and Management, 529, 120637. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.FORECO.2022.120637 McWethy, D.B., Schoennagel, T., Higuera, P.E. et al. (2019). Rethinking resilience to wildfire. Nature Sustainability, 2, 797–804. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-019-0353-8 Moreira, F., Ascoli, D., Safford, H., Adams, M. A., Moreno, J. M., Pereira, J. M. C., Catry, F. X., Armesto, J., Bond, W., González, M. E., Curt, T., Koutsias, N., McCaw, L., Price, O., Pausas, J. G., Rigolot, E., Stephens, S., Tavsanoglu, C., Vallejo, V. R., … Fernandes, P. M. (2020). Wildfire management in Mediterranean-type regions: Paradigm change needed. Environmental Research Letters, 15(1), 11001. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ab541e Myers, R. (2006). Living with Fire-Sustaining Ecosystems & Livelihoods Through Integrated Fire Management Global Fire Initiative. http://nature.org/fire Nebot, E., Rosell, M., Valor T., Estivill, L., Casals, P., Galarza, J., Stoof, C., Alemany, A., Arilla, E., Bachfischer, M., Castellarnau, X., Cespedes, J., Castellnou, M., Castellví, J., Dalmau, E., Ferragut, A., Larrañaga, A., Lleonart G., Miralles, M., Pagès, J., Palacios, A., Pallàs, J., & Piqué M. (2024). Integrated fire management model: demonstration, training and piloting activities, including new-fire prone areas. Deliverable D1.9. 49 pages. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.11950636 Neidermeier, A. N., Zagaria, C., Pampanoni, V., West, T. A. P., & Verburg, P. H. (2023). Mapping opportunities for the use of land management strategies to address fire risk in Europe. Journal of Environmental Management, 346, 118941. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JENVMAN.2023.118941 Oliveras-Menor, I., Prat-Guitart, N., Spadoni, G. L., Hsu, A., Fernandes, P. M., Puig-Gironès, R., Ascoli, D., Bilbao, B. A., Bacciu, V., Brotons, L., Carmenta, R., de-Miguel, S., Gonçalves, L. G., Humphrey, G., Ibarnegaray, V., Jones, M. W., Machado, M. S., Millán, A., de Morais Falleiro, R., … Armenteras Pascual, D. (2025). Integrated fire management as an adaptation and mitigation strategy to altered fire regimes. Communications Earth & Environment, 6(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43247-025-02165-9 Oliveres, J., Castellnou, M., Castellarnau, X., Rosas-Casals, M., Brotons, L., & Duane, A. (2025). The path to strategic fire management planning in the Aran, Pyrenees. Fire Ecology, 21(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1186/S42408-024-00348-X D1.13 Recommendations and novel adaptive management scenarios 35 Paneghel, M., Solé, J., Torné, G., Valor, T., Ameztegui, A., Alday, J. G., & Coll, L. (2025). Key Factors Influencing Post-Fire Vegetation Recovery in Pinus halepensis Forests: Divergent Effects for Canopy and Shrub Species. Journal of Vegetation Science, 36(4). https://doi.org/10.1111/JVS.70062 Piqué, M., Valor, T., Larrañaga, A., & Cervera, T. (2011). Integración de la prevención de incendios en la gestión forestal: tipologías forestales de Cataluña según su vulnerabilidad a generar fuegos de copas. Piqué, M., Vericat, P., & Beltrán, M. (2017). Resource communication. ORGEST: Regional guidelines and silvicultural models for sustainable forest management. Forest Systems, 26(2), eRC01S. https://doi.org/10.5424/fs/2017262-10627 Rego, F., Montiel, C., & Agudo, J. (2010). Towards Integrated Fire Management:The need for a European Framework Directive on Fire. Silva, J. S., Rego, F., Fernandes, P., & Rigolot, E. (2010). Solving the Fire Paradox-Regulating the Wildfire Problem by the Wise Use of Fire. Stoof, C. R., & Kettridge, N. (2022). Living With Fire and the Need for Diversity. Earth’s Future, 10(4), e2021EF002528. https://doi.org/10.1029/2021EF002528 Thacker, F. E. N., Ribau, M. C., Bartholomeus, H., & Stoof, C. R. (2023). What is a fire resilient landscape? Towards an integrated definition. Ambio, 52(10), 1592–1602. https://doi.org/10.1007/S13280-023-01891-8 Thompson, R. M., Phillips, N. R., & Townsend, C. R. (2009). Biological consequences of clear-cut logging around streams—Moderating effects of management. Forest Ecology and Management, 257(3), 931–940. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.FORECO.2008.10.025 Tilman, D., & Downing, J. A. (1994). Biodiversity and stability in grasslands. Nature, 367(6461), 363–365. https://doi.org/10.1038/367363a0 Turner, M. G., Gardner, R. H., Dale, V. H., & O’Neill, R. V. (1989). Predicting the spread of disturbance across heterogeneous landscapes. Oikos, 121–129. Valor, T., Casals, P., Piqué, M., & Coll, L. (2023a). Innovative post-fire strategies and adaptation to the current context of increasing environmental uncertainties. Deliverable 1.12 Part I. Valor, T., Coll, L., Pique, M., Dupuy, J., & Casals, P. (2023b). Ecological factors driving resistant and resilient landscapes to hight intensity and extreme wildfire events. Deliverable 1.11. Valor, T., González-Olabarria, J. R., Piqué, M., & Casals, P. (2017). The effects of burning season and severity on the mortality over time of Pinus nigra spp. salzmannii (Dunal) Franco and P. sylvestris L. Forest Ecology and Management, 406, 172–183. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2017.08.027 Vilà-Vilardell, L., De Cáceres, M., Piqué, M., & Casals, P. (2023). Prescribed fire after thinning increased resistance of sub-Mediterranean pine forests to drought events and D1.13 Recommendations and novel adaptive management scenarios 36 wildfires. Forest Ecology and Management, 527, 120602. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.FORECO.2022.120602