the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Global and Regional Impacts of Forest Expansion on Future Wildfires
Abstract. Expansion of global forest cover via afforestation, reforestation, and forest restoration is a widely proposed nature-based solution for climate change mitigation, yet its effect on wildfire activity is poorly understood. As anthropogenic climate change intensifies and wildfire regimes change globally, evaluating the interactions between forest expansion, climate and population change is critical. We assess how large-scale forest expansion influences future fire activity and the land carbon sink using the Community Land Model version 5 (CLM5) with a mechanistic fire module. We simulate a maximum forest scenario (~ 750 Mha by 2100) under 2 °C and 4 °C warming pathways and compare it to three different land use trajectories with varying levels of forest cover and population change. We find that tropical forest expansion decreases fire activity by halting deforestation fires and replacing flammable grasslands with less flammable tree cover. In contrast, temperate forest expansion, such as in the Mediterranean, central Asia and continental US, can more than double fire carbon emissions under high warming, due to drier conditions and increased fuel loads. Population changes also influence fire regimes, with rising population growth in sub-Saharan Africa suppressing fire and reducing burned area, while decreasing populations in Europe and parts of East Asia are associated with increased fire activity. Finally, fires reduce the global land carbon sink by up to ~ 60 PgC by 2100, equivalent to ~ 5.6 times present-day annual CO2 emissions, emphasising the need to incorporate fire into climate mitigation planning. Our results suggest that forest expansion can both reduce and intensify fire risk depending on location and that fire-climate-land-human feedbacks must be accounted for in nature-based CO2 mitigation strategies.
Competing interests: JAK is on an advisory panel for Ecologi, an organisation which invests in ecosystem restoration projects.
Publisher's note: Copernicus Publications remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims made in the text, published maps, institutional affiliations, or any other geographical representation in this paper. While Copernicus Publications makes every effort to include appropriate place names, the final responsibility lies with the authors. Views expressed in the text are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher.- Preprint
(4363 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(1777 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: final response (author comments only)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-5267', Anonymous Referee #1, 16 Dec 2025
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2025/egusphere-2025-5267/egusphere-2025-5267-RC1-supplement.pdfCitation: https://doi.org/
10.5194/egusphere-2025-5267-RC1 -
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-5267', Anonymous Referee #2, 25 Feb 2026
The study “Global and Regional Impacts of Forest Expansion on Future Wildfires” presents a comprehensive modelling study. I appreciate the systematic investigation of drivers, including climate, land use, and population effects, as well as the model validation against GFED. Assessing the potential and trade-offs of afforestation, reforestation, and forest expansion with regard to fire is highly relevant. However, in its current form, the manuscript lacks sufficient ecological interpretation of the results and a more critical discussion of the assumptions and implications.
My main concern is that throughout the manuscript, fire is treated as an undesirable outcome per se, while increases in biomass are implicitly treated as beneficial. This framing is ecologically too simplistic. Fire is a natural and often necessary process in many ecosystems, and in some systems it is essential for maintaining biodiversity, ecosystem structure, and function. Likewise, the fire proneness of biodiverse, functioning forest ecosystems differs critically from that of fast-growing tree cover in plantation-style or low-diversity systems. The manuscript does not discuss this distinction sufficiently, and it remains unclear how the model can or cannot represent it.
Related to this, I would wish for a more detailed description of vegetation and fire processes and feedback mechanisms. The fire module description is relatively brief, and I was left with the impression that a strong fuel-driven response may be built into the model formulation, shaping the conclusions. I was also unsure about the temporal design of the simulations. The manuscript uses forcing data and scenario inputs across different time periods, selected time slices or decadal means. It is not always clear if and how transient dynamics are handled. For instance, whether burning opens space for regrowth and how post-fire vegetation dynamics or succession are represented (or constrained) in the model setup.
Finally, some ecological consequences of the Max Forest scenario appear potentially problematic. In particular, the manuscript describes conversion of C4 grass- systems such as the Brazilian Cerrado and southern African savannas into tropical forest, with associated fire reductions. While this may emerge from the prescribed scenario and model assumptions, these transitions could threaten fire-adapted biomes and set an expectation that a successful nature-based solution would be foresting up savannas. I strongly encourage the authors to frame and discuss the results with a more critical view.
Minor comments:
• line 231 to 232: please check, is it 2000-2014?
• Figure 2: consider plotting this figure on a log scale
• line 327 to 328: please add figure for 4c max forest to the appendix
• Figure 6: icons hard to differentiate
• line 456 to 457: double punctuation
• line 523 to 526: this needs to be discussed more comprehensively considering its ecological consequences and realism, see comment above
• line 544 to 547: I agree, but this discussion is very one-sided. If forest expansion is done in a plantation, low-biodiversity way, the risk of maladaptation is quite high. However, there are plenty of initiatives (in particular in the tropics) where forest restoration is turning fragmented and degraded forests into biodiverse ecosystems, which in turn show better functioning and resilience to disturbances like droughts and, in consequence, fire.
• line 565 to 569: please rephrase for clarity
• 569 to 573: Bhattarai et al. (2025) seems very speculative. Is there another source or observation that supports this?Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-5267-RC2
Data sets
CLM5 land use data for study on fire impacts of forest expansion James A. King https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17424044
CLM5 output data for study on fire impacts of forest expansion James A. King https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17424426
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 311 | 137 | 31 | 479 | 58 | 36 | 23 |
- HTML: 311
- PDF: 137
- XML: 31
- Total: 479
- Supplement: 58
- BibTeX: 36
- EndNote: 23
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1