Bark thickness determines fire resistance of selected tree species from fire-prone tropical savanna in north Australia

179 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Costs and benefits of relative bark thickness in relation to fire damage: a savanna/forest contrast (2013, methodology): “Peterson & Ryan (1986) found this relationship for conifers to be: sc ¼ 2:9B2T: eqn 4 While for trees in the tropical savannas of northern Australia, Lawes et al. (2011b) report: sc ¼ 0:0327B1:982T : eqn 5 Here, we use the general relationship sc ¼ B2T to model the benefit of thick bark.”
The lanky and the corky: fire‐escape strategies in savanna woody species (2013, background): “1; Medeiros & Miranda 2008; Hoffmann et al. 2009; Lawes et al. 2011a; Dantas et al. 2013; Dantas, Batalha & Pausas in press).”
The Utilization of Tree Bark (2016, background): “Schafer et al. (2015), Catry et al. (2010), Lawes et al. (2011), Wang and Wangen (2011), do Vale and Elias (2014), Dickinson and Johnson (2001), and Dickinson (2002) established that the relative thickness of the bark significantly influences the survival of trees in a fire.”
Fire and tree death: understanding and improving modeling of fire-induced tree mortality (2018, background): “Damage to the conductive tissues in the stemmay be themost important primary cause ofmortality in small trees and thin-barked species (Michaletz and Johnson 2008, Lawes et al 2011a, 2011b).”