Background

Unprecedented wildfire frequency, fueled by invasive annual grasses, threatens sagebrush ecosystems. To suppress wildfire and conserve sagebrush, land management agencies have installed fuel breaks across the sagebrush biome. However, despite the potential reduction in wildfire, fuel breaks may have ecological costs. Determining an acceptable balance between risks and benefits of fuel breaks is needed to avoid accelerating sagebrush loss, annual grass invasion, and habitat degradation. To evaluate the potential for ecological trade-offs to occur, we characterized the contexts in which known fuel breaks currently exist. We synthesized spatial data on all known fuel breaks and a suite of variables that may contribute to fuel break risks and benefits, including burn probabilities, predicted fuel break effectiveness, linear infrastructure, invasive annual grass cover, soil moisture conditions that confer resistance to invasion and resilience to disturbance, and priority wildlife habitats across the sagebrush biome.

Results

We found that within the sagebrush biome, fuel breaks are generally located in areas with high burn probability and are thus positioned well to intercept potential wildfires. However, fuel breaks are also frequently positioned in areas with lower predicted fuel break effectiveness relative to the sagebrush biome overall. Fuel breaks also are spatially associated with high invasive grass cover, indicating the need to better understand the causal relationship between fuel breaks and annual invasive grasses. We also show that the fuel break network is dense within priority wildlife habitats. Dense fuel breaks within wildlife habitats may trade off wildfire protection for decreased integrity of such habitats.

Conclusions

Our analyses describe the potential for fuel breaks to invoke ecological trade-offs and show that the balance of risks and benefits differs across sagebrush ecosystems. Strategic research and actions are needed to evaluate which factors tip the balance towards maximizing wildfire suppression while minimizing risk to sensitive ecological resources.