Skip to main navigation Skip to search Skip to main content

‘Megafire’—You May Not Like It, But You Cannot Avoid It

  • Grant D. Linley
  • , Chris J. Jolly
  • , Tim S. Doherty
  • , William L. Geary
  • , Dolors Armenteras
  • , Claire M. Belcher
  • , Rebecca Bliege Bird
  • , Andrea Duane
  • , Michael Shawn Fletcher
  • , Melisa A. Giorgis
  • , Angie Haslem
  • , Gavin M. Jones
  • , Luke T. Kelly
  • , Calvin K.F. Lee
  • , Rachael H. Nolan
  • , Catherine L. Parr
  • , Juli G. Pausas
  • , Jodi N. Price
  • , Adrián Regos
  • , Euan G. Ritchie
  • Julien Ruffault, Grant J. Williamson, Qianhan Wu, Dale G. Nimmo
  • Charles Sturt University
  • Macquarie University
  • Charles Darwin University
  • Biodiversity and Conservation Science
  • University of Melbourne
  • Universidad Nacional de Colombia
  • University of Exeter
  • Pennsylvania State University
  • Forest Technology Centre of Catalonia
  • University of California at Davis
  • Universidad Nacional de Córdoba
  • La Trobe University
  • United States Department of Agriculture
  • University of New Mexico
  • The University of Hong Kong
  • University of Liverpool
  • University of Pretoria
  • University of the Witwatersrand
  • Spanish National Research Council (CIDE-CSIC)
  • University of Porto
  • CSIC
  • Deakin University
  • INRAE
  • University of Tasmania
  • Bushfire Risk Management Research Hub

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

10 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Aim: The term ‘megafire’ is increasingly used to describe large fires worldwide. We proposed a size-based definition of megafire—fires exceeding 10,000 ha arising from single or multiple related ignition events. A recent perspective in Global Ecology and Biogeography argues against a size-based definition of megafire and suggest that the term is too emotive for scientific use. We highlight that many scientific terms originate from common terms. These terms are often defined once they enter the scientific lexicon, enhancing both scientific understanding and public communication. We argue that standardised definitions facilitate better prediction, preparation, and management of fire events. Location: Worldwide. Time Period: 2022–2023. Methods: We conducted an updated structured review of the term ‘megafire’ and its use and definition in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, collating definitions and descriptions and identifying the criteria frequently invoked to define the term. Results: We demonstrate an increase in the use of ‘megafire’ in the scientific literature since our original definition in 2022, with many studies adopting the > 10,000 ha size-based criterion. Main Conclusions: We contend that abandoning the term is neither practical, possible, nor beneficial. Instead, consistent usage underpinned by clear definitions is essential. Adopting a clear, size-based definition of megafire strengthens clarity and comparability across research and management practices globally. Precision in terminology is crucial for advancing research, improving communication, and informing effective fire management and policy.

Original languageEnglish
Article numbere70032
JournalGlobal Ecology and Biogeography
Volume34
Issue number4
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Apr 2025

Bibliographical note

Publisher Copyright:
© 2025 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Keywords

  • extreme wildfire event
  • fire terminology
  • mega fire
  • scientific communication
  • size-based definition
  • wildfire

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of '‘Megafire’—You May Not Like It, But You Cannot Avoid It'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this