Forest Service Rocky Mountain Research Station General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-337 September 2015

United States Department of Agriculture

Strengthening Syntheses on Fire: 

Increasing Their Usefulness for Managers

Jane Kapler Smith
Smith, Jane Kapler. 2015. Strengthening syntheses on fire: Increasing their usefulness for 

managers. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-337. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 59 p.

Abstract

A synthesis for fire managers summarizes and interprets a body of information, presents its meaning in an objective, unbiased way, and describes its implications for decisionmakers. Following 

are suggestions for ways to strengthen syntheses on fire and on other natural resource issues:

•	 Include managers, scientists, and science delivery specialists in planning, developing, 

and delivering syntheses. 

•	 If a synthesis has unique regional components, include someone from each region in the 

planning team and consider these needs in writing and packaging.

•	 Use managers as authors, co-authors, or reviewers to ensure management implications 

are fully developed and clearly explained.

•	 Use existing communication networks within the management community for marketing 

and delivery.

•	 Include syntheses in education and professional development.

•	 Improve use of technology to provide syntheses, research and monitoring results, and 

other information so managers can easily find the information and apply it to resource 

management decisions.

Keywords: fire, synthesis, communications, science delivery, technology transfer.

Author

Jane Kapler Smith, Ecologist, Fire Modeling Institute, Fire, Fuel and Smoke Science Program, 

Missoula Fire Sciences Laboratory, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Missoula, Montana.

Cover: All photos except lower left are taken from the covers of syntheses on fire provided by the Joint Fire Science Program 

and available at https://www.firescience.gov/JFSP_publications.cfm. Top left: Bison in a Yellowstone National Park meadow with 

the 1988 North Fork Fire in the background (Jeff Henry, National Park Service). Top center: Large, old tree with deep duff mound 

(Sharon Hood, USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station). Top right: Ahorn Fire, July 2007 (Rick Trembath). Middle 

left: Harvester operation (Jeremy Fried, USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station). Middle center: Longleaf pine 

(Joe O’Brien, USDA Forest Service, Southern Research Station). Middle right: Dialog, Shultz Fire 2010 (Sarah McCaffrey, USDA 

Forest Service, Northern Research Station). Bottom left: Author and others looking into once-burned landscape (Jim McCallum). 

Bottom center: Streambed after fire (Charlie Luce, USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station).
Summary

Fire managers rely on syntheses for concise, objective 

information that they can apply to questions about management. However, syntheses do not always meet this goal. In 

this report, I describe ways to create more useful syntheses 

for fire managers. I focus especially on identifying management implications, describing them clearly, and making them 

easy for readers to find. While I worked mainly with syntheses 

on wildland fire, my suggestions may apply to syntheses for 

managers of other natural resources as well.

To write a useful synthesis for fire managers, the authors 

need help from a team of professionals. An effective team 

usually includes managers who want the synthesis done; they 

can identify the important questions, find relevant field reports, 

and help describe how information applies to management. An 

effective team also includes scientists; they will find information 

in the scientific literature, ensure that information is presented 

in an unbiased way, and describe the certainty and limitations 

of the information. Finally, the team must include members 

who will ensure that the synthesis is organized and written so 

managers can use it easily; these members may be scientists, 

managers, or specialists in science communication (science 

delivery specialists). 

Before beginning a synthesis, the team needs to see if it is 

feasible. What do managers need to know? Is enough information available to answer their questions? Then the team must 

decide what kind of synthesis would work best. Qualitative 

syntheses cover a broad variety of information. They usually 

provide conceptual background and incorporate extensive information from the literature, and they often include examples from 

management. Quantitative syntheses (systematic reviews and 

meta-analyses) are based on rigorous selection of information 

that enables the authors to re-analyze the data and present 

conclusions with a known level of certainty. A combination of 

qualitative and quantitative approaches may be ideal if enough 

quantitative information is available.

The fire managers, scientists, and science delivery specialists 

whom I interviewed for this project suggested dozens of ways 

to make syntheses more useful. Here are six points that were 

emphasized by many interviewees and seemed to me most 

important: 

•	 Include managers, scientists, and science delivery specialists in planning, developing, and delivering syntheses. 

•	 If a synthesis has unique regional components, include 

someone from each region in the planning team; then 

consider regional needs in writing and packaging.

•	 Use managers as authors, co-authors, or reviewers to 

ensure management implications are fully developed and 

clearly explained.

•	 Use existing communication networks within the management community for marketing and delivery.

•	 Include syntheses in education and professional 

 development.

•	 Use information technology to provide syntheses and 

supplement with results from recent research and monitoring, so managers can easily find the information.

As we gather more and more information on wildland fire, 

syntheses will become increasingly important resources for busy 

fire managers. When we write useful syntheses and get them 

to those who need them, we help ensure that management 

decisions will be based on our full, rich legacy of knowledge 

from both research and management.

Acknowledgments

I am very grateful to the Joint Fire Science Program (JFSP) 

for supporting this work under Project 11-S-2-4. JFSP has been 

the nation’s leader in developing syntheses for fire managers. 

JFSP sponsored the development of “Wildland Fire in Ecosystems,” a series of publications on fire effects to be used by fire 

managers nation-wide. JFSP provides these publications and 

more than 20 additional syntheses on a web page dedicated 

to syntheses. In addition, JFSP has encouraged innovation 

in synthesis by sponsoring systematic reviews of specific fire 

management questions. 

I am also grateful to the Fire Modeling Institute and the Fire, 

Fuel, and Smoke Science Program of the Rocky Mountain 

Research Station for supporting my work on the Fire Effects 

Information System and other synthesis projects for many 

years. Thank you to Kris Zouhar for helping me locate literature 

from many disciplines to improve this report. I am especially 

grateful to the Fire Modeling Institute for a sabbatical in which 

to reflect on comments from reviewers, analyze new literature, 

and complete the report. 

Very warm thanks to everyone who offered suggestions, 

provided documents or photos, or made time for an interview. 

These include Alan Long, Alan Watson, Alexander Evans, 

Bob Gillaspy, Brett Williams, Caroline Noble, Charlie Luce, 

Chris Mallek, Christel Kern, Chuck McCallum, Dan Mindar, 

Dave Campbell, Dean Simon, Diana L. Olson, Elizabeth 

Pickett, Eugénie MontBlanc, Geoff Babb, Helen Mohr, Ilana 

Abrahamson, Jamie Barbour, Jeff Henry, Jeff Rose, Jennifer 

Northway, Jeremy Fried, Jerry Williams, Jessica Miesel, Jim 

McCallum, Jim Thinnes, Joe Marschall, John Barborinas, 

John Cissel, Kris Zouhar, Kristine Lee, Lane Eskew, Loa 

Collins, Mary Taber, Michael G. Ryan, Mike Rauscher, Nan 

Christianson, Nancy Chadwick, Nate Fayram, Paul Langowski, 

Penelope Morgan, Pete Fulé, Rachel White, Randi Jandt, 

Rhonda Mazza, Richard F. Miller, Richy Harrod, Rick Trembath, 

Robert Ziel, Robin Innes, Sarah McCaffrey, Sherry Leis, Tami 

Parkinson-Whitford, Tim Swedberg, Vita Wright, Wayne Buck, 

William T. Sommers, Zach Prusak, and Zoe Hoyle. Thanks also 

to past students in technical writing and biostatistics classes, 

and to all writers who have suffered my review comments 

throughout the years. Without your help, this report would have 

been much poorer and less interesting. If I missed your name, 

I am very sorry.

i

Contents

Summary ................................................................... i

Acknowledgments ............................................................ i

1. Introduction: Deciding on Synthesis ........................................... 1

1.1. Objectives and Structure of This Report ................................... 4

1.2. What Is a Synthesis for Managers? ...................................... 5

1.3. When Is a Synthesis for Managers a Good Idea? ........................... 6

1.4. What Kind of Synthesis Is “Best”? ........................................ 8

Qualitative Review ................................................ 8

Systematic Review ............................................... 9

Meta-Analysis .................................................. 10

Other Synthesis Products—What kind? For Whom? .................... 10

1.5. Challenges .........................................................11

2. What Makes a Synthesis Useful for Managers? ................................. 12

2.1. Complete, Unbiased Information Base ................................... 12

Informing Readers About the Search Strategy ......................... 14

2.2. Objective Assessment of Information .................................... 15

Informing Readers about Evaluation Criteria .......................... 16

2.3. Clear Description of the Main Points ..................................... 17

Use of Information Source Tables ................................... 17

Use of Inference ................................................ 18

Explaining the Basis for Generalizations .............................. 19

Describing Information Gaps ....................................... 21

2.4. Clear Discussion of Management Implications ............................. 23

2.5. Clear Writing ....................................................... 27

Follow Principles for Good Writing .................................. 27

Include Summaries .............................................. 29

Use Reviewers and Editors ........................................ 30

2.6. Clear Organization, Easy Navigation .................................... 30

Solving Organizational Problems ................................... 31

Helping Readers Find Information ................................... 32

Packaging Multiple Products ....................................... 33

2.7. Effective Marketing and Delivery ........................................ 36

3. After Distribution—Finding, Using, and Updating Syntheses ....................... 38

3.1. How Can Managers Find Syntheses on Fire? ............................. 38

3.2. Do Readers Need Guidance on How to Use Syntheses? ..................... 40

3.3. How Can Syntheses Stay Relevant as the Information Base Grows? ........... 41

When Has a Synthesis Outlived Its Usefulness? ....................... 41

How Can New Information Be Associated with Existing Syntheses? ........ 42

4. Conclusions—The Future of Syntheses for Fire Managers ........................ 45

Literature Cited ............................................................ 46

Appendix A—Methods ....................................................... 52

Appendix B—Guiding Questions for Planning a Synthesis ........................... 57

iii

USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-337. 2015 1

1.0 Introduction: Deciding on Synthesis

Syntheses analyze the past to prepare for the future (adapted from Webster and 

Watson 2002). Syntheses summarize a body of information and describe patterns, inconsistencies, and information gaps. Wildland managers use them to inform decisions 

and plan management actions. Students and newcomers to a field of knowledge use 

them as “primers” with which to master basic vocabulary, learn fundamental concepts, 

and see how the concepts can be applied. Scientists use them to survey fields outside 

their specialties, locate key literature, and assess information needs. Legislators and 

policymakers use them to develop new laws and regulations. Members of the general 

public use them to gain background information and understanding. 

In this report I focus especially on syntheses developed 

for managers of wildland fire 

and natural resources influenced by fire—syntheses that 

aim to give managers not only 

a summary of current knowledge, but also an understanding of how this knowledge, 

gleaned from a wide variety 

of studies and reports, forms 

the basis for insights that can 

be applied to management. 

While the examples used in 

this report are mainly from 

the fire literature and most 

interviewees are involved in 

fire management, the concepts presented here can be 

applied to any synthesis for 

natural resource managers.

Syntheses have often been 

requested by fire managers1

, and increasing numbers 

have been published by 

scientists and science delivery organizations in recent 

years (Figure 1). However, they do not always reach their intended audience or meet 

managers’ expectations (Chen and others 2013). This is not to say that syntheses are 

failures. Managers do find them relevant and helpful. Most of the fire professionals who 

responded to a survey evaluating Joint Fire Science Program (JFSP) publications (Smith 

and others 2013) indicated that JFSP syntheses “sometimes or always” enhance their 

understanding. However, fewer than half of respondents agreed that JFSP syntheses state 

management implications clearly, and many respondents have found them “sometimes 

biased” and difficult for managers to find; thus, there is room for improvement. In the 

fall of 2011, JFSP managers asked me to develop guidelines for improving syntheses for 

1 Three of the JFSP Regional Knowledge Exchange Consortia identify syntheses as a top priority or desired product: the Northern Rockies Fire Science Network (http://nrfirescience.org/needsassessment), the 

Northwest Fire Science Consortium (http://www.nwfirescience.org/plan-of-work), and Great Basin Fire 

Science Delivery (http://www.gbfiresci.org/about/).

Key points about syntheses for 

fire managers:

•	 A synthesis for fire managers is most likely 

to be useful when managers, scientists, 

and science delivery specialists are all involved in planning and producing it.

•	 A credible, defensible synthesis examines a well-defined body of information, 

describes pattern or lack of pattern in the 

information, and clearly identifies management implications.

•	 A synthesis is feasible when the information available is sufficient to meet the 

needs of the managers who will use it. Both 

amount and type of information should be 

considered.

•	 Managers must contribute to identifying 

and explaining management implications.

•	 The most useful kind of synthesis (qualitative review, systematic review, and/or metaanalysis) depends on its objectives and the 

information available.

•	 A short, concise synthesis is not necessarily quick and cheap to produce.
2 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-337. 2015

fire management. To do so, I have explored the literature on synthesis, science delivery, 

and informatics; examined syntheses on wildland fire; interviewed numerous fire and 

resource professionals; and relied on my own experience as an author, instructor of technical writing, and manager of the Fire Effects Information System (FEIS) for the past 20 

years. Appendix A provides a detailed description of the methods used for this report. 

It is common for fire managers to request a synthesis on a given topic and for scientists or science delivery specialists to write it, more or less in isolation from managers. 

While this approach may seem objective and an efficient use of everyone’s time, it 

may also produce a synthesis that does not meet the needs of those who requested it. 

According to interviewees, the most important thing to do, to ensure that a synthesis is 

useful for managers, is to include managers in the process of developing it—especially 

in planning the synthesis and addressing management implications. The second most 

important thing is to ensure that the synthesis is packaged, advertised, and delivered 

so managers can easily find and use it. Interviewees noted that scientific credibility is 

essential, but they did not focus on this issue; their emphasis was on making sure that 

syntheses are useable for management and that they get used. Interviewees indicated 

that success is most likely when

•	 The synthesis is planned collaboratively by a team that includes managers, 

 scientists, and science delivery specialists; 

Figure 1—Growth in the number of syntheses about fire (A) is even more rapid than 

growth in the number of documents about fire (B). Search criteria and dates are described in Appendix A.

(B)

(A)
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-337. 2015 3

•	 Planning includes discussion of the kinds of information to use and the potential 

benefits of using case studies, examples, and anecdotal reports from managers;

•	 Management implications are developed fully and presented clearly with input 

and/or authorship from managers;

•	 The synthesis is carefully reviewed by scientists, managers, and science delivery 

specialists; 

•	 The synthesis is organized, formatted, and packaged so managers can easily 

locate management implications and identify their scientific basis; and

•	 The synthesis is advertised and distributed to the field through the entire community of fire professionals. 

Development of a synthesis can be conceptualized in five stages. Synthesis planners 

should consider a series of key questions for each stage (Figure 2 and Appendix B). 

Figure 2—Integrate scientists (mortarboard), managers (hardhat), and science delivery specialists (baseball 

cap) in planning and developing a synthesis. All three roles are needed throughout the process, although scientists may be less important than others in product delivery. Appendix B breaks down each of the questions 

in this figure into a list of more detailed questions and guidelines.
4 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-337. 2015

1.1 Objectives and Structure of This Report

The objectives of this report are

1. To provide criteria for determining if a synthesis for fire and resource managers 

is feasible; and

2. To describe an effective process for planning and developing a useful synthesis 

on a fire management topic.

I hope this “synthesis on syntheses” is helpful to those who plan and fund syntheses, 

those who write and package and distribute them, and—most of all—those who need 

them to make wise decisions and take wise actions in managing fire and other resources 

affected by fire. While the details of any given section may be of greater interest to one 

or another of these audiences, I encourage readers to become familiar with all parts of 

the report, since isolation of specialists in different roles contributes substantially to 

frustration with synthesis efforts and products.

I heard often during interviews for this project that a synthesis must state management implications clearly and make sure they are highlighted in both format and 

delivery. I have applied that principle in this report. Key points are identified for each 

major section. Callouts bring the reader’s attention to points that have been stated particularly well by an interviewee or author. Figures are used to highlight key processes 

described in the text and to vividly capture supplemental concepts and examples. Footnotes are used where documentation is needed but would obscure the flow of ideas. The 

Literature Cited section of the electronic version contains links to many of the source 

documents for this report, including all documents that are published in Treesearch, the 

Forest Service’s online document library (http://www.treesearch.fs.fed.us).

In this report I refer to three groups of professionals in the wildland fire community 

who have a strong interest in improving the usefulness of syntheses: managers, scientists, and science delivery specialists. I use “managers” inclusively to represent decision 

makers, planners, and field practitioners who work directly in fire, and also specialists 

who deal with fire in other natural resource fields. Managers describe the need for 

synthesis, provide insights on the kinds of information to include, and contribute to the 

information base through monitoring reports and case studies; their input is essential 

for full development of sections on management implications. I use “scientists” to refer 

to professionals who conduct research—that is, those who produce new information 

and publish it in refereed journals2

, dissertations, theses, and other peer reviewed documents. They are major contributors to the information base and are often the authors 

of syntheses. I use “science delivery specialists” as defined by Ferguson and others 

(2014) to refer to professionals who have a broad understanding of both scientific and 

management perspectives and can act as translators or mediators between scientists and 

managers. They have also been called “technology transfer specialists,” “knowledge 

brokers,” and “boundary spanners.” Many science delivery specialists have been educated 

as scientists, but they take on the unique role of connecting the users of science with 

scientists and science-based information. They may work for research organizations, 

distributing new information and condensing research findings into newsletters, web 

pages, and fact sheets. They may be the authors of syntheses. They may also work in 

2 I use “refereed” as it is commonly used in science, that is, to indicate a document that has been examined 

by anonymous peer reviewers and approved for publication in an academic journal. This is also called “blind 

review.” Many documents in the “grey literature” also receive peer review, though not from anonymous 

reviewers. For example, all research papers and general technical reports published by the U.S. Forest 

Service are reviewed by at least two scientists, an editor, a program manager, and often a statistician before 

they are accepted for publication.
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-337. 2015 5

“boundary organizations” (Guston 2001) such as the JFSP Knowledge Exchange Consortia, which bring managers and scientists together to select research topics, develop 

methods, articulate applications, disseminate research, and assess the results of applying 

science on the ground (Kocher and others 2012). 

Syntheses of information on fire management are of interest to many people outside 

the community of fire professionals, including students, legislators, policymakers, and 

the general public. While a single synthesis cannot be a perfect fit for everyone, it should 

present principal findings so they can be understood by a variety of audiences, and it 

may form the basis for supplemental documents that serve specific audiences. 

1.2 What Is a Synthesis for Managers?

Syntheses for managers should be long-lasting, widely used, foundational documents 

that provide sound information that can serve as a basis for management decisions. I did 

not find a clear definition of synthesis for managers in the literature. Based on thoughts 

from Krueger and Kelley (2000), Thomas and Burchfield (2000), JFSP (Anonymous 

2013), dictionary definitions, and comments from interviewees, I offer the following: 

A synthesis for managers in fire and related natural resources

•	 Examines, summarizes, and documents a well-defined body of information on 

fire and related topics;

•	 Describes pattern or lack of pattern in the information, thus creating new 

knowledge;

•	 Explains what is known, what is known but uncertain, and what is not known; and

•	 Describes implications for and applications to fire management.

Interviewees for this project listed many characteristics of syntheses, and they have 

much in common with dictionary definitions (Table 1). All require a search for information, integration to produce new knowledge, and identification of implications for 

management—that is, identification of ways to use the knowledge for wise management 

choices (Figure 3). 

A synthesis is much more than a summary of information or an annotated bibliography 

because it emphasizes patterns, consistencies and inconsistencies in evidence, and 

creation of new understanding. The heart of any synthesis is the author’s “disciplined 

scientific perspective” on what the compiled information means (Derish and Annesley2011). 

Table 1—Comments from interviewees and dictionary definitions describe similar features of 

syntheses: obtaining and integrating information, developing new understanding, 

and identifying applications.

Features of natural resources syntheses 

described by interviewees Dictionary definitions of synthesis

•	 Based on thorough search for information 

•	 Provides a framework for understanding the 

topic or issue

•	 Provides a balanced, unbiased report of what 

is found

•	 Identifies sources of information

•	 Identifies what is not known as well as what is 

known

•	 Explains the level of certainty about information and knowledge

•	 Explains the meaning of what is found, including its application to management

•	 The combining of often very different ideas into an ordered whole 

(Merriam-Webster 2012) 

•	 The action of proceeding in thought 

from causes to effects, or from laws 

or principles to their consequences 

(Murray 1971)

•	 The dialectic combination of thesis 

and antithesis into a higher stage of 

truth (Merriam-Webster 2007)

“It’s not just collecting all the 

papers and see what happens. 

You need a guiding question, 

a point of view.”

—Mike Ryan, Research 

Ecologist (retired), Rocky 

Mountain Research Station
6 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-337. 2015

This is very different from an annotated bibliography. An article on literature reviews 

written for Psychological Bulletin provides this analogy: “Authors... are at risk for 

producing mind-numbing lists of citations and findings that resemble a phone book—

impressive cast, lots of numbers, but not much plot” (Bern 1995). Instead of creating a 

list, a synthesis weaves a logically sound, well documented narrative from the information base. A synthesis for fire managers describes the management implications of the 

information available, just as a synthesis for healthcare providers describes appropriate 

medical practice (Grant and Booth 2009). 

1.3 When Is a Synthesis for Managers a Good Idea?

What criteria can be used to decide if a synthesis is feasible and will be useful for 

managers? The answer depends on the need, the audience, and the available information. 

It should emerge from discussion among members of a team (managers, scientists, and 

science delivery specialists) who will help plan the synthesis and guide its development. 

Ideally, the team should come together initially having given some thought to the issue, 

networked among potential users, and conducted preliminary searches for information.

The planning team should: 

1. List the objectives and scope of the synthesis. Objectives may range from 

increasing understanding to evaluating a specific management technique. 

2. Identify the audience(s) and weigh their current understanding of the topic. 

This report assumes the primary audience will be professional managers in 

fire and related natural resource fields, but the needs of potential secondary 

audiences should also be considered. A variety of audiences may require a 

variety of products (Perelman and others 2001). 

Figure 3—The “wisdom hierarchy,” adapted from Rowley (2007), shows a progression of 

understanding from discrete pieces of information (data) to the ability to make wise decisions 

and take action on them (wisdom). 

“A synthesis product is not 

useful unless it functions 

within a network of people, 

all of the stakeholders.”

—Mike Rauscher, Managing 

Editor, Forest Encyclopedia 

Network
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-337. 2015 7

3. Describe the topic or central question of the synthesis, which may range from 

relatively simple to complex and may be highly controversial. 

4. Discuss the type and amount of information available. There may be no history 

of management interventions or a rich legacy of case studies, no published 

literature or thousands of articles, data from only a handful of sites or from a 

wide geographic range. 

5. Discuss whether the amount of information available is sufficient to support 

the kind of synthesis that will best meet managers’ needs (Table 2).

If the planning team decides to go ahead and develop a synthesis, they can move 

on to discuss guiding questions about each stage in its development (Figure 2 and Appendix B). To help keep the project on track, they should review the guiding questions 

periodically, at least at the start of each stage. If the managers who request a synthesis 

are not thinking of the same product as those who develop it, and if the partners do not 

understand each other’s needs and limitations, the project will frustrate the developers 

and disappoint the managers. 

Table 2—A guide to deciding whether or not to produce a synthesis for managers in fire and related resource management. The 

left column follows a gradient from little information to abundant, empirically based information. The synthesis techniques 

mentioned (qualitative review, systematic review, and meta-analysis) are described in the text. 

Amount and kind of 

information available Main objectives Recommendations

Limited anecdotal and fieldbased information, few or no 

publications

Any Do not attempt to synthesize or provide statistically defensible 

 argument.

Provide for sharing of information among managers and researchers, especially results from monitoring.

Provide ways to locate the relevant literature. 

Encourage research.

Mostly anecdotal information 

and field-based case studies, 

some published literature—

likely inconsistent or only 

marginally relevant

Any Consider qualitative review, but note its limited generalizability. 

Do not attempt to provide statistically defensible argument.

Provide for sharing of information among managers and researchers, especially results from monitoring.

Encourage research.

Mix of case studies and 

quantitative research that 

uses a variety of methods

Any Consider qualitative review.

Do not attempt to provide statistically defensible argument.

Mostly quantitative research 

that uses a variety of 

 methods

Describe how to think 

about topic, describe 

patterns and management implications 

Qualitative review

Address effectiveness 

of specific management 

technique

Systematic review

Mostly quantitative research, 

preponderance of which uses 

same methods

Describe how to think 

about topic, describe 

patterns and management implications

Qualitative review with meta-analysis

Address effectiveness 

of specific management 

technique

Systematic review with meta-analysis
8 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-337. 2015

1.4 What Kind of Synthesis Is “Best”?

I use three categories to describe the main kinds of synthesis likely to be produced 

for fire managers: qualitative review, systematic review, and meta-analysis. These categories are based on an extensive classification and analysis of health science reviews 

by Grant and Booth (2009), although my terminology is slightly different. Each kind 

of synthesis has strengths and weaknesses and is best suited for particular purposes. 

Some of the weaknesses may be overcome by combining features from more than one 

kind of synthesis.

Qualitative Review

Qualitative reviews are based on an extensive search for information and a critical 

assessment of its content and quality. They present fundamental concepts and define 

important terms. They provide conceptual background to help readers learn how to 

think critically about a topic. Qualitative reviews may report the quantitative outcomes 

of primary research (averages, ranges, correlations, etc.) but seldom include further 

statistical analysis, often because the information base comes from research that uses a 

variety of measurement methods. This feature is both a strength and a weakness. It allows the author to consider a broad range of information sources but limits the author’s 

ability to state conclusions with a known level of confidence.

In the past, most syntheses published in academic journals were qualitative reviews, 

as were most of the stand-alone syntheses published for managers by government organizations. It is important to understand the differences between academic and manageroriented syntheses, because scientists and managers may be thinking of two different 

things when they come together to plan a synthesis.

Academic literature reviews provide comprehensive analysis of a topic and are published as individual articles or as parts of theses, dissertations, proposals, and research 

papers. When based strictly on peer-reviewed science and published in a refereed journal, 

a literature review has high scientific credibility, so it could be a very useful form of 

synthesis on a topic where the science basis is likely to be questioned. However, it has 

some disadvantages as a tool for managers: 

•	 Managers may not find or read it.

•	 It may not include valuable information from outside the refereed literature. 

•	 Because journals require concise writing and discourage the presentation of 

information available elsewhere, it may provide limited background. 

•	 The writing style is likely to be dense and technically specialized. 

•	 Potential management implications may be presented briefly and conservatively. 

•	 Since most journals are less likely to publish a review than an article on primary 

research, the potential for publication is limited.

When I asked managers for examples of syntheses, they most often mentioned qualitative reviews published as stand-alone government documents. The content and format 

of these reviews are relatively unrestricted, so they can include extensive conceptual 

background, detailed graphics, numerous examples, and supplemental material such as 

glossaries and tables of information sources. While background information may not 

seem essential in a synthesis for managers, it can help them understand how to think 

about the subject and how to integrate their own experiences and new information—skills 

that remain relevant even as the content of the synthesis becomes out-of-date. Extensive 

“Syntheses should show 

readers how to think about a 

topic, so they gain ability to 

make inferences, extrapolate, 

and assess new information.”

—Penelope Morgan, Professor,

Department of Forest, 

Rangeland, and Fire 

Sciences, University of Idaho 

“Don’t put syntheses [only] 

in journals. If you do, you 

will limit your audience to a 

rare few.”

—Bob Gillaspie, State 

Rangeland Management 

Specialist, Oregon State 

Office, Natural Resource 

Conservation Service
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-337. 2015 9

background information is provided in all of the national syntheses in the “Wildland 

fire and ecosystems” series3

.

Stand-alone qualitative reviews have these shortcomings: 

•	 They do not have the authority that characterizes literature reviews in refereed 

journals.

•	 They do not quantify the level of certainty associated with conclusions.

•	 They are not as likely to be located by scientists through online reference databases as reviews published in refereed journals.

•	 They are often long, which can put readers off and make it difficult for them to 

find exactly the information they seek.

Systematic Review

A systematic review is based on a rigorous, repeatable search for information on a 

specific application of science, followed by objective appraisal of the quality of the 

information and quantitative analysis of the evidence. Systematic reviews originated 

as guides for practitioners in the health sciences (Egger and others 2001a), but they are 

now widely used to address environmental issues, following the guidelines provided by 

Pullin and Stewart (2006) and the Centre for Evidence-Based Conservation (CEBC), 

a nonprofit international organization at Bangor University, Wales (http://www.cebc.

bangor.ac.uk/). Systematic reviews are usually published in refereed journals and may 

also be available in the database of the international Collaboration for Environmental 

Evidence (http://www.environmentalevidence.org/index.html). Fire-related systematic 

reviews include Fulé and others’ (2012) assessment of the effectiveness of thinning and 

burning to alter subsequent fire behavior and Peppin and others’ (2010) analysis of the 

effectiveness of post-fire seeding practices in western forests. 

One challenge in writing a systematic review is deciding which studies to include 

in analysis and which to exclude. The synthesis planning team must agree on criteria 

for inclusion, since there may be tradeoffs between scientific rigor and coverage of the 

issue. Pullin and Stewart (2006) describe a hypothetical example where authors might 

choose to include a small-scale study that uses a classic randomized, controlled design 

but exclude a study that uses less rigorous methods—even though it is more relevant 

to the management issue, covers a larger geographic area, and applies over a longer 

time frame. If the authors apply strict criteria for including research, they might miss 

seminal research that used outdated methods and new research that contradicts conventional wisdom. One way to address this problem is for a systematic review to use 

both a quantitative approach, such as meta-analysis, and a qualitative approach, which 

provides context, helps describe the full range of evidence, and may help the authors 

resolve conflicting reports. 

A major benefit of systematic reviews is that, by definition, they are directly applicable to management. Their use of a clear, repeatable search strategy and well-defined 

analytical methods gives them high credibility in the scientific community and can make 

them particularly helpful for addressing controversial management practices. However, 

they also have limitations: 

•	 They work only for topics that can be formulated as a precisely focused question on a specific science application. 

3 Chapter 2 in the volume on flora (Miller 2000); Chapter 1 in the volume on fauna (Lyon and others 2000); 

Chapter 3 in the volume on air (Sandberg and others 2002); Chapter 1 and the introductions to Parts A and 

B in the volume on soils and water (Neary and others 2008); Chapters 2 to 4 in the volume on invasive 

plants (Zouhar and others 2008c); and Chapter 2 in the volume on archaeology and cultural resources 

(Ryan and Koerner 2012).
10 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-337. 2015

•	 They may provide little background information, vocabulary, or conceptual 

framework, so they may have limited usefulness in helping readers develop the 

ability to assess information for themselves, including information published 

after the review is completed.

•	 Strict adherence to a predetermined search strategy may prevent authors from 

consulting additional sources that could provide a deeper understanding (Boell 

and Cecez-Kecmanovic 2010).

•	 If they are published only in refereed journals, managers may not find them.

Meta-Analysis

Meta-analysis refers to a kind of synthesis and also to the technique used in these 

syntheses to compare the results of multiple studies that all test the same hypothesis by 

measuring the same variables (Harrison 2011). The scientist pools data from numerous 

studies, weighs their influence depending on sample size, and estimates the overall effect 

of the experimental treatment, its magnitude, direction, and variability. A major strength 

of meta-analysis is the ability to quantify confidence in the conclusions. Meta-analysis 

is commonly used within systematic reviews. Because this technique is objective and 

quantitative, it has high scientific credibility and can be particularly useful for controversial management issues. 

Meta-analysis can be used to address a management question only if numerous studies are available that use the same approach. Given enough studies, the main limitation 

of meta-analysis is its potential to exclude many sources of information. The criteria 

for including information are strict. Not only must every study included use random 

sampling and valid methods, but it must also measure exactly the same variables and 

provide either the raw data or enough information to calculate data variability. The 

danger is that, if substantial insights from our scientist-elders are excluded based on 

methodological differences, the synthesis may lose conceptual background and historical 

knowledge. It could even lead future fire managers to “reinvent the wheel” by applying 

techniques already shown to be ineffective.

Fortunately, new techniques for meta-analysis are constantly under development by 

such groups as the National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis (http://www.

nceas.ucsb.edu/). At what point are enough studies available to represent what is actually known about an issue? This subjective decision should be made by the synthesis 

planning team. If a shortage of appropriate studies severely limits the usefulness of 

a meta-analysis for managers, then meta-analysis should be abandoned or combined 

with other synthesis techniques. In medical research, Egger and others (2001b) suggest 

examining possible sources of heterogeneity instead of pooling the data in search of a 

single, statistically tested answer. In ecology, Lajeunesse (2010) suggests that a synthesis is actually stronger if it includes studies with varying methodologies. The more 

inclusive approach enables the authors to look for consistencies and inconsistencies, a 

process he calls “triangulating” results, which should reduce the likelihood of reaching 

conclusions that are artifacts of a particular methodology. 

Other Synthesis Products—What Kind? For Whom? 

Many managers regard management guidebooks or handbooks as synthesis products. In fact, some managers whom I interviewed identified guidebooks as the kind of 

synthesis they use most often. Since a synthesis for resource managers must describe 

implications for and applications to field management, a guidebook is a logical endpoint 

of the synthesis process. While guidebooks have many appealing features, such as a 

streamlined design, concise writing, and abundant graphics, they may not include these 

features of synthesis: 

•	 Conceptual background,
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-337. 2015 11

•	 Documentation of information sources,

•	 Description of overall patterns and lack of patterns, and 

•	 Identification of knowledge gaps.

The addition of this information could make a guidebook too cumbersome for practical use. A good alternative might be to offer two products: a synthesis containing the 

overview and documentation, and a more practical, field-based guidebook. A pair of 

publications on western juniper (Juniperus occidentalis) demonstrates this approach: 

“Biology, ecology, and management of western juniper” (Miller and others 2005) is 

a synthesis that describes the distribution, life history, ecological relationships, and 

restoration potential for this species, while the 11-page “Western juniper field guide” 

(Miller and others 2007) addresses specific management questions. 

Through most of this report, I discuss syntheses as single documents. However, a 

synthesis may be most useful—and most used—if it is the foundation for a suite of 

products, each using a specific format to deliver needed information to a specific audience. Production of a supplemental guidebook from a foundational synthesis is only one 

example. Every synthesis should be supplemented by a one-page summary and possibly 

by other documents (e.g., newsletter articles, briefing papers, fact sheets) and products 

in other media (e.g., webinars, podcasts, Facebook posts, and tweets). Supplemental 

products are appealing because they can be short and address specific informational 

needs, but they must be carefully connected to the foundational synthesis. If not, they 

are dead-end resources for readers: Readers may find a useful statement in them, but 

they cannot find out “Who says so and why?” and thus obtain more information or defend the statement. This problem is discussed in more detail under “Packaging Multiple 

Products” (p. 33). 

1.5 Challenges

Syntheses help managers make the most of the science we already have. They may 

be especially helpful with regard to controversial issues and issues where the science 

has produced conflicting results. Sometimes funding for new research on controversial 

issues is limited because of political considerations (Ruggiero 2013); this is all the more 

reason to synthesize the existing information and make it readily available to managers. 

Recent syntheses have addressed several complex issues in fire management, such as the 

effectiveness of fuel treatments (Evans and others 2011; Fulé and others 2012; Hudak 

and others 2011; Jain and others 2012), fire effects on riparian and aquatic resources 

(Dwire and others 2011; Luce and others 2012), and the effectiveness of post-fire rehabilitation practices (Peppin and others 2010; Robichaud and others 2010). Creation 

of these products is challenging. Even if science-based information is available, it may 

not fit the untidy world of management, where treatments are combined and long-term 

predictions are needed (Chen and others 2013). 

Many interviewees mentioned the need for conciseness in syntheses and expressed 

the hope that they could be brief and produced quickly. However, brevity and speed 

are very hard to achieve if the authors are to develop sound conclusions and provide 

the background that makes them defensible (Grant and Booth 2009). Oversimplifying 

will misrepresent the science. The best way to develop a brief synthesis is to complete 

a detailed, thorough one and then write a short summary linked to the larger document 

(see “Packaging Multiple Products,” p. 33). If time and budget limitations make it 

necessary to curtail the information search, planners should develop a systematic way 

to do so—covering only recent literature, for instance, or narrowing the topic—and 

weigh the advantages of this strategy against the potential to introduce bias and reach 

incomplete or incorrect conclusions. 

“Synthesis is very hard. It 

took longer and more work 

than I expected.... But I got 

perspective from this work 

to help my science be more 

productive and pertinent.”

—Charlie Luce, Research 

Hydrologist, Rocky Mountain 

Research Station
12 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-337. 2015

2.0 What Makes a Synthesis Useful for Managers? _____________________

This section integrates information from interviewees with information from the literature to offer guidelines for developing useful syntheses and getting them into managers’ 

hands. Prior to 2000, little guidance was available on developing syntheses for managers 

in fire and related natural resource fields. Most syntheses were qualitative reviews modeled on the academic literature review. Discussion 

of synthesis techniques 

has increased in recent 

years with the development of meta-analysis and 

systematic reviews. The 

guidelines in this report 

apply to all three kinds of 

synthesis. More detailed 

instructions for systematic 

reviews are available from 

the CEBC (2010), and those interested in meta-analysis should consult the extensive 

literature on that subject; they may also be interested in new, collaborative techniques for 

data synthesis, such as those developed at the National Center for Ecological Analysis 

and Synthesis (http://www.nceas.ucsb.edu/).

2.1 Complete, Unbiased Information Base

The managers, scientists, and science delivery specialists whom I interviewed agreed 

that a high-quality synthesis must be based on a thorough, unbiased search for information. 

This concept is so ingrained in the world of scientists that few sources actually discuss 

it, but excellent guidelines are provided by the CEBC (2010, pp. 24–25, 31–36). I use 

“complete” to describe the information rather than “scientific” because the synthesis 

planning team may decide that information from case studies, monitoring, or management experience is just as important for a synthesis as information from research studies. 

The information base for a synthesis depends on what is available and what the synthesis is for. If the topic is highly controversial, synthesis planners may decide it should 

include only refereed literature or only materials with quantitative, statistically tested 

results. In contrast, if information is sparse and variable, they 

may welcome reliable reports 

from all sources, knowing that 

a more restricted search could 

lead to a shallow or even biased interpretation (Figure 4). 

Use of the academic literature 

review as a model for synthesis 

has probably limited the use 

of case studies and examples 

from managers in the past, but 

this practice may not produce 

the most useful synthesis. Both 

scientists and managers have 

valuable knowledge; either can 

take the lead in developing new 

What makes a synthesis useful for 

managers? 

•	 Complete, unbiased information base

•	 Objective assessment of information

•	 Clear description of main points

•	 Clear discussion of management implications

•	 Clear writing

•	 Clear organization and easy ways to navigate

•	 Effective marketing and delivery

Develop a complete, unbiased 

information base:

•	 Find out what kinds of information are 

available (research, experience, monitoring, etc.) and how much there is.

•	 Determine what kinds of information will 

best meet managers’ needs, including 

the need for scientific defensibility.

•	 To avoid bias, develop an information 

search strategy, apply it consistently, and 

document it for readers.

•	 If the synthesis covers many geographic 

regions, consider the possible need for 

different search strategies for different 

regions.
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-337. 2015 13

understanding, and there may be synergy in the “coproduction” of knowledge through 

collaboration over time (Kocher and others 2012; Russell-Smith and others 2003). For 

example, in their analysis of fuels management in riparian areas of the western United 

States, Stone and others (2010) found that the state of the practice preceded the state 

of the science; thus they chose to base their synthesis largely on input from managers. 

Marshall and others (2008) combined anecdotal information with information from the 

literature in their synthesis of information on fuel treatments in loblolly pine (Pinus 

taeda) forests. Evans’s (2008) synthesis on biomass removal is based on 45 case studies 

from throughout the United States. Case studies have been used in the field of operations 

management as an empirical basis for developing new hypotheses (Eisenhardt 1989; 

Eisenhardt and Graebner 2007).

The information search may be especially challenging for syntheses that are national 

in scope but also cover regional variability. Some geographic areas, particularly the 

western states, seem to be “richer” in fire research than others (Kocher and others 2012). 

Regions also vary in land ownership patterns and the heritage of aboriginal and other 

traditional knowledge. Interviewees from several regions commented on the paucity 

of fire research in their areas and mentioned that, as a result, managers rely heavily on 

the long-term experience of local experts. Thus the planners of a national synthesis are 

likely to find that some of the questions in Figure 2, such as “What is the synthesis for?” 

and “Who has the information?” are answered differently from one region to another. 

To address this problem, they may decide that a suite of smaller syntheses would be 

more useful than a single, large product, or they may decide to organize the synthesis 

by region and use different search techniques for different regions. The decision should 

be guided by asking what product(s) will be most useful to managers. Search strategies 

that are used to obtain information should be documented so readers can understand 

the information base used for each region.

Since most syntheses are based primarily on published information, the following 

recommendations may be helpful for obtaining a comprehensive literature search: 

1. Use a variety of electronic search engines. Currently, no single source provides 

comprehensive coverage of fire and fire management issues. Coverage varies 

especially in regard to documents published decades ago.

2. Use library catalogs and specialized databases to search for books and proceedings, which are not covered as well as journal articles in leading science 

databases (Boell and Cecez-Kecmanovic 2010). 

Figure 4—Decisions about the information to include in a synthesis depend on the objectives and the information available. Highly 

inclusive criteria may admit information that is unreliable or has limited generalizability, while highly exclusive criteria may leave 

valuable information by the wayside.

“The questions that come 

to me are things that have 

been in managers’ minds for 

awhile. They come to me and 

say, ‘I think I’m seeing this—

what does the science say?’” 

—Christel Kern, Research 

Forester, Northern Research 

Station

“Avoid being Westcentric. Look for regional 

balance in treatment. If 

regions differ, can we have 

recommendations at the 

regional level?”

—Caroline Noble, Fire 

Ecologist, Southeast Region, 

National Park Service
14 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-337. 2015

3. For resources on wildland fire, consult the Fire Research and Management 

Exchange (FRAMES) Resource Catalog (which also covers the E.V. Komarek 

Fire Ecology Database), the Citation Retrieval System for FEIS (http://feis-crs.

org/), and the Fire Research Institute.4

4. “Chase” articles backward in time (Jahangirian and others 2011); that is, look 

up the primary research and other materials cited in references. This is a good 

way to locate seminal works, which may help you understand and describe 

patterns in the information you find. This technique is also called “reference 

tracking” and “snowballing” (Boell and Cecez-Kecmanovic 2010).

5. See how the ideas presented in key articles are later developed or refuted by 

“chasing forward” in the literature—using the citation analysis functions in 

electronic reference databases to find references that cite the original article 

(Jahangirian and others 2011). 

6. Cite the primary source for each fact and idea that you report, and always read 

the materials you cite (Figure 5). If a secondary source misrepresented the study, 

you do not want to perpetuate the error. At the very least, it is embarrassing. 

It is also a disservice to managers and reflects poorly on your scholarship. 

Informing Readers About the Search Strategy

A complete, defensible synthesis includes an explanation of the search strategy. This 

is analogous to the “Methods” section of a research paper because it allows readers to 

assess the information search for themselves—how broad or narrow the search was, 

what information was included and excluded, and where there may be potential biases. 

4 These fire-specific reference databases are described in Table 9, p. 43.

Figure 5—Do not cite a source unless you have read it. Check it to see if it makes sense and then quote it accurately. This anecdote illustrates how errors persist if no one checks the original source and data.
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-337. 2015 15

Few qualitative reviews on fire explain their information search well enough for readers to make such a judgment, but some examples can be found. For instance, Kennedy 

and Fontaine (2009) explain clearly that their synthesis on fire-wildlife relationships is 

based only on peer-reviewed literature, and they give details on each source; Werth and 

others’ (2011) synthesis on extreme fire behavior explains the rationale for including 

non-peer-reviewed literature; and Robichaud and others (2010) explain the rationale 

for limiting their report on post-fire hillslope stabilization to recent literature. Detailed 

descriptions are more often included if the search was somewhat unconventional, such 

as in three syntheses on fuel management that are based, at least in part, on information 

from managers (Evans 2008; Jain and others 2012; Stone and others 2010).

Documentation of search techniques is required for publication of systematic reviews by the Collaboration for Environmental Evidence and demonstrated by reviews 

on post-fire seeding effectiveness (Peppin and others 2010) and the effects of thinning 

and burning on wildlife (Kalies and others 2010). Qualitative reviews may not require 

this much detail, but the authors should at least answer these questions: 

•	 What techniques were used for the literature search? What databases and other 

sources were consulted? If the goal was a comprehensive search, how did the 

authors know when they were finished?

•	 Did the search include published sources other than refereed literature, such as 

theses and dissertations, books, and conference proceedings? If so, how were 

these located?

•	 Did the search look for case studies, reports from managers, or anecdotal information? If so, how was this information obtained?

•	 Did the search cover only recent information, or did it reach back into older 

research? If so, how was that done? 

Without this explanation, readers cannot assess the thoroughness and objectivity 

of the information base, and credibility may be questioned. Furthermore, if future 

researchers attempt to extend or update the synthesis, they cannot base their work on 

an understanding of the original information search. The search strategy used for this 

report is documented in Table A.1, p. 52.

2.2 Objective Assessment of Information

In searching for patterns, synthesis authors weigh evidence from a variety of sources 

and consider how it contributes to understanding of the whole. The terms used to describe 

confidence in information sources are not completely consistent (Table 3), so synthesis 

authors should define the terms and explain their criteria for evaluating information. While statistical results are often used to express levels of certainty, they usually 

address only one kind of uncertainty—the likelihood of finding an effect in the sample 

when there was actually no effect in the population. The likelihood of not finding an 

effect when there really was one may be just as important to managers, but it is much 

less likely to be measured (Underwood and Chapman 2003). 

The generalizability of information (research, monitoring results, 

case studies, etc.) is also important 

for applying results appropriately to 

management: How broadly can the 

findings be applied? Are they relevant to the entire range of a species 

or only parts of it? Do they apply at 

both the stand and landscape scales? 

“It is difficult to argue 

that a review has usefully 

contributed to a field... if the 

review itself does not have 

a firm basis in a defined 

methodology for identifying, 

including and extracting 

information from the sources 

reviewed.”

—Freya Harrison (2011). 

Methods in Ecology and 

Evolution. 2: 1-10.

“One episode of biased 

reporting just turns off 

receptivity to science.”

—Elizabeth Pickett, 

Coordinator, Hawaii Wildfire 

Management Organization

Assess information objectively:

•	 Develop objective criteria through 

discussion among managers, scientists, and science delivery specialists.

•	 Apply them consistently, and document them for readers.
16 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-337. 2015

Case study and anecdotal information are best presented as examples or “snapshots” of 

a situation (as used in Evans 2008), since their generalizability to a larger area or more 

diverse conditions is unknown.

The criteria used to evaluate information vary depending on the type of synthesis and 

its goals. For meta-analyses, the criteria are objective and clear. For systematic reviews, 

the criteria are usually more complex but still objective. CEBC guidelines (2010, pp. 

39-43) suggest developing a procedure for ranking the “quality of evidence” of each 

information source, then testing the procedure with more than one person evaluating 

each source, and finally reviewing the procedure with stakeholders. This process may be 

laborious and time-consuming, but it can improve the credibility of the final product and 

may also lead to important findings. For example, Peppin and others’ (2010) review of 

the effectiveness of post-fire seeding to reduce soil erosion indicated that higher-quality 

studies generally did not show post-fire seeding to reduce erosion effectively, while the 

majority of lower-quality studies did show the practice to be effective. 

Qualitative syntheses usually use hedging (see “Explaining the Basis for Generalizations,” p. 20), rather than strict objective criteria, to inform readers about the quality of 

information. Nevertheless, application of consistent, objective criteria should be considered. A few papers in the ecological literature suggest methods for ranking information 

quality. Krueger and Kelley (2000) suggest a classification based on the nature of the 

information source—documented case history, experimental research, professional resource knowledge, and scientific synthesis. An analysis of the information available on 

fire effects in bird communities (Leidolf and Bissonette 2009) uses direct observation as 

the criterion for information with high reliability. All reports based on direct observation 

(experimental studies, observational studies, and “naturalist observations”) are classified “original research,” as opposed to conceptual reviews, methodological reviews, 

meta-analyses, and bibliographies. An analysis of knowledge gaps in the information 

on fire and invasive plants in the eastern United States (Gucker and others 2012) also 

ranks information based on direct observation as “highest quality” for use in synthesis, 

whether the reports came from experiments, observations, or field experience. 

Informing Readers about Evaluation Criteria

Criteria for evaluating information should be described in the synthesis methods. 

This is standard practice for meta-analyses and systemic reviews. In qualitative reviews, 

evaluation criteria are often integrated into the body of the synthesis with hedges and 

explanations, but any application of consistent, objective criteria should be described 

in the methods section.

Table 3—Questions and terms that address confidence in the applicability of research results 

to management.

Questions about information and 

generalizations Applicable terms 

Do the observations address the question being 

investigated? 

Do the sampling scheme and data analysis 

support the explanation?

Internal validity (CEBC 2010), reliability 

(Popay and others 2006)

What is the likelihood that a hypothesis is false? 

What is the likelihood that a similar experiment 

would produce a substantially different result?

Certainty, probability, confidence interval 

(Dytham 2011)

How widely can the findings be applied? 

How strong is the basis for generalization? 

Generalizability, external validity (CEBC 

2010; Popay and others 2006), scope of 

inference (Puettmann and others 2009) 

How likely is the explanation or conclusion to be 

correct?

Confidence (Solomon and others 2007), 

reliability (Fazey and others 2004)
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-337. 2015 17

2.3 Clear Description of the Main Points

A useful synthesis gives managers both a summary of current knowledge and an 

understanding of how this knowledge, gleaned from a variety of studies and reports, 

forms the basis for new insights that they can apply to management. The heart of synthesis is to provide greater insight than what is available from individual information 

sources—to “tell a trustworthy story” about what has been found (Popay and others 

2006). Interviewees described this task in several ways:

•	 Identify the main ideas: “Put an umbrella over the information.” “Boil it down.” 

“Give us the bottom line.” 

•	 Describe the scope of what is known: “Explain what we know and what we 

don’t know.” “Describe the state of the knowledge.”

•	 Weigh evidence: “Tell us what things are more similar than different.” “Tell us 

what most of the evidence suggests.”

Synthesis authors identify 

patterns and develop generalizations by thoughtful reflection on 

the meaning and limitations of 

the information available. While 

they offer insights and generalizations, they also need to keep their 

conclusions free from bias and 

explain how the limits of current 

knowledge constrain the story 

they tell. This section describes a 

few techniques for accomplishing 

this feat.

Use of Information Source Tables

Synthesis authors often use tables of information sources to compare results across 

studies, look for patterns, and seek possible explanations for inconsistencies. These 

tables can help authors reach balanced, unbiased conclusions. Authors should be cautious about using information source tables for “vote counting”—that is, for drawing 

conclusions from the number of studies showing positive vs. negative or no significant 

effects (CEBC 2010; Gates 2002). Vote counting fails to weigh the quality and generalizability of the various sources, which is likely to bias the interpretation. 

Information source tables used to develop syntheses are usually complex, containing 

many study attributes and extracted data. For example, a systematic review of the effects 

of thinning and burning on wildlife in conifer forests of the southwestern United States 

(Kalies and others 2010) recorded 16 descriptors of each information source (citation, 

species, taxonomic class, foraging guild, vegetation type, treatment, study design, time 

since treatment, variables measured, density estimation method, peer-reviewed or not, 

replicated or not, area of treatment, area of controls, experimental mean, control mean), 

and details were added as the sources were further analyzed. While extensive information 

source tables are important documentation, they could unnecessarily clutter the text of a 

synthesis, so authors often include pared-down versions in the final publication. These 

enable readers to examine patterns for themselves and access primary literature when 

additional understanding is needed. The following questions can be used to develop 

information source tables for publication (adapted from Irland 1995):

1. Does the table include all relevant information sources, thus giving a balanced 

view and avoiding bias?

Describe the main points clearly:

•	 Describe pattern and lack of pattern in 

the information.

•	 Describe what is known, what is known 

but uncertain, and what is not known.

•	 Document statements so readers can 

answer the question, “Who says so 

and why?”

•	 Explain the bases for any inferences 

you have made.

“[E]xpert judgment is 

precisely what the reader 

should expect from the 

reviewer—otherwise a simple 

computer would do the job as 

well! Subjective evaluation is 

part and parcel of the special 

insight which the expert can 

bring to the discussion.... “

—H. J. Eysenck (1995). 

Journal of Evaluation in 

Clinical Practice. 1(1): 34.
18 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-337. 2015

2. does the table show the important information without oversimplifying? 

3. Do the caption and notes clearly identify the purpose of the table and the 

nature of its content?

4. Is the table set up so readers can easily follow the logic and find the most 

important patterns? 

5. Does the selection and order of rows and columns emphasize relationships?

6. If the table seems too long or too complex to include in the text, should it go 

into an appendix?

A synthesis of fire regime information on Alaskan tundra (Innes 2013) demonstrates 

the use of information source tables. The synthesis includes four such tables, each covering a different variable or a different time period. The table on paleoecological research 

(Table 4) includes qualitative information on study locations and methods, which may 

be useful for readers to understand the studies’ applicability to specific management 

questions; and quantitative information on fire return intervals, which suggest a relatively 

consistent pattern across the time periods and plant communities represented. An information source table in Ryan and others’ (2012) synthesis on fire and cultural resources 

directs readers to literature that can be used for specific purposes (information, further 

literature search, and modeling/monitoring). An eight-page information source table is 

included as an appendix to Kennedy and Fontaine’s (2009) synthesis on fire effects on 

wildlife. Its express purpose is to provide access to original research, so it is limited 

to study attributes (citation, time since fire, season, type of fire studied, class and size 

of animals studied, and six others) and does not include results. Managers can use the 

table to obtain the sources most relevant to local management; they may choose to rely 

most heavily on “nearby” studies in making decisions. 

Use of Inference

Another technique for developing a “trustworthy story” is inference, that is, the process 

of drawing a logical conclusion about something unknown based on something that is

known (Merriam-Webster 2007). Extrapolation, the process of estimating the value of 

Table 4—Information source table for a qualitative review of fire regimes in Alaskan tundra. Illustrates inclusion of qualitative 

information to show the geographic scope and methods of each study and quantitative information (mean fire return 

intervals) to show patterns in results. Adapted from Innes (2013), Table 4.

Location Plant community

Mean fire return interval 

or range (years) Methods Reference

Kenai Lowlands

Shrub-herb tundra during 

late Pleistocene and early 

Holocene (13,000 years BP)

138

Pollen, plant 

macrofossils, 

and sedimentary 

charcoal from 3 

lakes

Anderson and 

others (2006)

South-central Brooks Range

Bog birch (Betula glandulosa) and/or dwarf birch (B. 

nana) shrub tundra during 

the late Pleistocene and early Holocene (13,300–10,300 

years BP)

137–150 Fossil pollen and 

stomata and sedimentary charcoal 

from 4 lakes

Higuera and 

 others (2011)

Forest-tundra during the 

mid-Holocene (8,500–5,500 

years BP)

131–238
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-337. 2015 19

a variable outside the range observed, is a form of inference. Inference is a powerful 

thought process that extends the usefulness of observed information. When statistical 

inference is used, authors use probabilities to indicate their confidence in the repeatability 

of results. For example, a synthesis on fuel management in dry mixed-conifer forests of 

the northwestern United States (Jain and others 2012) notes, in several instances, how 

sample size and geographic distribution limit the strength of generalizations based on 

the evidence. When extrapolation is used, synthesis authors should explain its logical 

basis to the readers. Several good examples are available: A national synthesis on fire 

and nonnative invasive species (Zouhar and others 2008a) points out that “cautious 

inferences” can be made about a plant species’ response to fire based on morphological traits such as presence of dormant buds and ability to sprout. “However, fires and 

mechanical disturbances alter a site in different ways, so biological responses cannot 

be assumed to be equivalent.” McIver and others (2012) point out that, even though 

the Fire and Fire Surrogate study (based on 15 years of experimental treatments at 12 

study sites) demonstrated that mechanical treatment may reduce forest canopy cover to 

the same extent that fire does, “one cannot infer that the responses of most ecosystem 

components will be similar.” 

Explaining the Basis for Generalizations

Synthesis readers may ask, “How do you know?” “How sure are you about this pattern?” The first question is addressed mainly by in-text citations. It is important to put 

the citation close to the information itself so readers can follow up if they need details 

(Figure 6). A bibliography at the end of a synthesis (or related summary or fact sheet) is 

no substitute for in-text citations because readers cannot connect an assertion in the text 

with a specific source. If the synthesis planning team decides that author-date citations 

embedded in the text are likely to be an obstacle to readers, they might decide to use a 

citation numbering system instead. This practice, shown in Figure 6, is followed in the 

1,100 syntheses published in FEIS (http://www.feis-crs.org/feis/). 

Figure 6—A synthesis should tell the reader when inference is used and identify sources of 

specific information. In this example from Stone (2009), it would be more difficult for the reader 

to find documentation if the citations were all listed at the end of the sentence, as follows: “The 

ability of white mulberry to sprout from the stump or roots suggests that top-killed white mulberry 

plants may regenerate vegetatively following fire.... [21, 136, 150, 161].” 
20 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-337. 2015

The question “How sure are you?” is more difficult to answer except in meta-analysis, 

where statistical analysis is used. Conclusions in qualitative reviews and the narrative 

portions of systematic reviews are based on many information sources, each with its 

own uncertainties—already considered by authors when they decided what sources 

to include in the synthesis. Do generalizations based on these sources compound the 

uncertainties, or does the information base taken as a whole provide stronger evidence 

than the individual sources? Synthesis authors need to make this judgment and communicate their level of confidence in the generalizations they present. This is commonly 

done with “hedging”—placing a verbal boundary around a statement (Figure 7). 

Hedges lengthen a synthesis and make it more complex, so they are best used to 

communicate specific limitations of the information given—for example, to show 

the geographic scope of a study or identify a lack of published research (Figure 8). 

Hedges let the manager make decisions with awareness of uncertainty (Reckhow 

1994) and can prevent reports based on anecdotal information from taking on the 

appearance of experimental evidence simply by being cited (Marlow 2000). 

There is nothing wrong with uncertainty—it is in the nature of most knowledge, 

and it is the context in which most land management decisions are made (Brewer 

and Gross 2003; Fazey and others 2004; Reckhow 1994; Thompson 1986). Hedges 

should not prevent managers from using the knowledge presented; they should simply 

inform the managers about the basis for that knowledge.

Synthesis authors use short, vague hedges to tell readers that a generalization is not 

likely to apply in every case. While these hedges are important for accurate communication, they are imprecise and hence not very useful for readers: Does “is likely to 

happen” mean the same thing as “probably will happen” or “could potentially occur”? 

Figure 7—Hedges in technical writing are analogous to 

hedges in landscaping: they 

place a verbal boundary around 

a statement, indicating a study’s 

limitations or the authors’ level 

of confidence in an assertion. 

Hedges should be used to help 

the reader avoid “straying” outside the limits of the information 

base in applying the information 

to management. 

“Researchers’ world is to 

hedge, but managers’ world 

is to apply, usually in the 

face of uncertainty. Help us 

figure out how to bring the 

science to a piece of ground. 

Sometimes field people need 

to understand extrapolation; 

they think ‘if research wasn’t 

done on their piece of earth, 

it doesn’t apply.’”

—Jim Thinnes, Regional 

Silviculturist (retired), 

USDA Forest Service
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-337. 2015 21

Figure 8—Hedges can 

tell the reader about a 

study’s scope of inference (top—indicates 

geographic limits) or 

an author’s level of 

confidence (bottom—

indicates an inference 

but no basis in observations). Examples are 

from Zouhar (2010).

How much more probable is “very likely” than “likely”? The Intergovernmental Panel 

on Climate Change Technical Summary (Solomon and others 2007) uses a more precise 

way to express confidence in conclusions. The authors use one set of terms to express 

their level of confidence in a conclusion based on expert judgment of its scientific basis (Table 5A) and another set to express the likelihood of an event based on statistical 

analysis (Table 5B). This technique enables the authors to “... express high confidence 

that an event is extremely unlikely (e.g., rolling a dice twice and getting a six both 

times), as well as high confidence that an event is about as likely as not (e.g., a tossed 

coin coming up heads).” Because the authors express their confidence in conclusions 

with consistent terminology, readers of the report can compare various conclusions and 

apply the findings with appropriate caution. I have not found this technique used in any 

syntheses on wildland fire, but it could be considered in the future. 

Describing Information Gaps 

A synthesis must explain what is not known as well as what is known (with varying 

levels of confidence). Information gaps are often expressed in hedges and concluding 

sections of syntheses. Systematic analysis of information gaps is unusual, but it could 

help ensure that future research and monitoring efforts target the greatest needs and 

“deliberately provide data for synthesis” (Chen and others 2013). The literature on 

wildland fire provides two quantitative analyses of information gaps, both examining information on relationships between fire and invasive plants (Gucker and others 

2012; Zouhar and others 2008b). The authors identified the topics most relevant to fire 

management, noted the number of information sources available for a synthesis in FEIS 

on each topic, and ranked the information quality depending on the source (in Zouhar 

and others 2008b) or whether it was based on direct observation or not (in Gucker and 

others 2012). The results describe the amount and quality of information available for 

each synthesis (“Species Review”) on each topic (Figure 9). This kind of analysis can 

be used by scientists and research sponsors to prioritize future studies and by managers 

to prioritize monitoring on topics where information is most needed. 
22 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-337. 2015

Table 5—Verbal descriptions of confidence in conclusions (A) and probabilities 

of outcomes (B) used in the Technical Summary (Solomon and others 2007) and Summary for Policymakers by the Intergovernmental 

Panel on Climate Change (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 

Change 2007).

A. Levels of confidence in conclusions, based on expert judgment of 

science basis by authors. 

Confidence terminology Degree of confidence in being correct

 Very high confidence At least 9 out of 10 chance

 High confidence About 8 out of 10 chance

 Medium confidence About 5 out of 10 chance

 Low confidence About 2 out of 10 chance

 Very low confidence Less than 1 out of 10 chance

B. Verbal labels for likelihood of outcomes, based on quantitative estimates of probability.

Likelihood terminology Likelihood of the occurrence/outcome

 Virtually certain > 99% probability

 Extremely likely > 95% probability

 Very likely > 90% probability

 Likely > 66% probability

 More likely than not > 50% probability

 About as likely as not 33 to 66% probability

 Unlikely < 33% probability

 Very unlikely < 10% probability

 Extremely unlikely < 5% probability

 Exceptionally unlikely < 1% probability

Figure 9—Quality of information available for each fire topic in 61 FEIS species reviews 

covering fire and invasive plants in the eastern United States (Gucker and others 2012). Bars 

are divided to show the highest quality of information available in each review: observationbased, experience-based, unverified, or no information at all. For example, information on 

fire regimes (leftmost bar) was available for less than half of species reviews. 
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-337. 2015 23

Two kinds of information gaps are mentioned frequently in syntheses on fire effects: 

lack of long-term information and the limited geographic scope of research. Long-term 

studies of fuel treatments, for instance, are “scarce” (Jain and others 2012), which limits 

the usefulness of research for management and the reliability of fuel modeling over 

long periods. Hood (2010) refers to 41 studies on old- or large-tree mortality after fire; 

all but 3 of these studies reported results from less than 10 post-fire years. Peppin and 

others’ (2010) systematic review of the effectiveness of post-fire seeding notes a lack of 

information from more than 2 years after fire. Of 43 syntheses covering fire effects on 

nonnative invasive plants written for FEIS between 2001 and 2006, only 30% contain 

information from more than 1 year after fire (Zouhar and others 2008b). This means 

that 70% of the reviews could provide no insight on whether populations of invasives 

are likely to increase or decrease with time. Wildland management plans are used for 

decades and public wildlands are to be managed for generations to come. The paucity 

of long-term studies is a serious problem for managers that cannot be addressed reliably 

by extrapolation from short-term measurements. 

The applicability of a fire study to a particular management problem depends partly 

on the spatial scale of measurements and partly on the similarity between the ecosystem 

studied and the ecosystem being managed. Despite the breadth of information on firewildlife relationships collected in the Fire and Fire Surrogate program, Kennedy and 

Fontaine (2009) note that plot-level data from these studies cannot easily be applied at 

landscape scales. The need for information from a greater range of ecosystems has been 

identified in syntheses on climate change (Ryan and Vose 2012) and invasive species 

(Gucker and others 2012). Gucker and others’ analysis of 61 FEIS species reviews noted 

that most observation-based reports came from a small fraction of the area in which 

the species occurred. In the synthesis on white mulberry (Morus alba) (Stone 2009), 

for instance, the only observation-based information about fire came from one state 

(New Mexico), even though the species occurs in 48 states. To apply the information 

appropriately, managers in areas outside New Mexico need to know about the limited 

geographic scope of the information base.

2.4 Clear Discussion of Management Implications

Managers’ greatest source of dissatisfaction about syntheses comes from their need 

to apply information to specific, local management issues. Interviewees commented:

•	 Tell us the information means this 

and not that. Use it this way but not 

that way.

•	 Tell us how this relates to us.

•	 Clearly identify the “so what.”

•	 Often the only thing in there for 

managers is little tiny management 

implications at the end.

Managers also described the discussion 

of management implications as “weak,” 

“hesitant,” and “too generalized to be useful.” Differences between the professional 

“worlds” of managers and scientists can 

create a tension between the desire for 

readily applicable results and the desire 

for scientific defensibility. It is crucial for 

the synthesis planning team to consider 

how to address this tension—how to 

Present management 

implications clearly:

•	 Write clear management implications that address the objectives of the synthesis.

•	 Connect management implications with their foundations in 

the information base.

•	 Consider having managers 

write or co-author management 

implications.

•	 Include examples or case studies that make implications concrete and vivid.

•	 Package the synthesis so management implications are highlighted and easy to find.
24 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-337. 2015

highlight potential applications without obscuring the extent, quality, and limitations 

of the information base. These decisions will affect every aspect of the synthesis, so the 

participation of managers, who represent the primary audience, is essential. 

Many syntheses on fire are developed through dialogue between managers and scientists. Examples include Bartuszevige and Kennedy (2009), Evans (2008), Evans and 

others (2011), and Foltz and others (2009). It would be difficult to quantify the extent 

of these dialogues and I did not attempt to do so, but I suspect that the more isolated the 

authors are from managers, the less likely it is that the final product will meet managers’ 

needs. Dialogue requires a commitment from all partners but also benefits everyone, 

as described by Charlie Luce, lead author of the synthesis on climate change, forests, 

fire, water, and fish (Luce and others 2012). Luce explained that development of this 

synthesis began with extensive discussion of management questions, including a full-day 

planning meeting with line officers. Line officers might not easily recognize the importance of explaining their decision processes and dialogue with the public to scientists, 

Luce noted, but these insights were critical for scientists to make the synthesis relevant 

to real-world decisions. The dialogue also helped scientists begin “boiling everything 

down” for presentation to managers. Luce pointed out that the section on management 

actions and decisions in the synthesis was the most challenging section but also helped 

him grow and influenced his research career. “It helped my science be more productive 

and pertinent.” He also emphasized the importance of collaboration among authors, such 

as asking colleagues, “Can you please write this better than I can?”

Nearly a third of interviewees suggested having managers write or co-author sections 

on management implications. While scientists may find it difficult to describe practical 

applications of knowledge in the complex management arena, managers may be able to 

do so directly and concisely. Several qualitative reviews feature managers as authors. 

For example, Rebecca Timmons, Forest Archaeologist on the Kootenai National Forest, 

Montana, is lead author of the “Implications of Fire Management” chapter in a synthesis 

on fire effects on cultural resources (Timmons and others 2012). Becky Estes, Province 

Ecologist on the El Dorado National Forest, Placerville, California, co-authored a synthesis on effects of prescribed fire season (Knapp and others 2009). Fred Pierson, Range 

Hydrologist with the Agricultural Research Service, co-authored a pair of synthesis 

documents on western juniper (Miller and others 2005, 2007). 

At the very least, managers should review the synthesis thoroughly (“not just to 

rubber-stamp it”) and offer ways to improve its relevance to management. Questions 

for manager-reviewers might include:

•	 Does the synthesis address the most important management questions?

•	 Does it capture the most important management implications? 

•	 Are the implications presented clearly?

•	 Are practical examples included, so readers can understand how to apply the 

findings? (Examples of failure may be just as important as examples of success.) 

•	 Does the synthesis describe fundamental concepts, so readers can grow in ability 

to interpret information for themselves? 

Case studies from managers can form the basis for a synthesis, as Evans’s (2008) 

synthesis on biomass removal illustrates. Case studies can also be used to demonstrate 

management applications. For example, a case study is used to demonstrate each management principle described in Hunter and others’ (2007) guide to fuels treatment for 

ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa) forests. The case studies give a sense of concrete 

reality and practicality to abstract concepts such as “integrating ecological principles,” 

“encouraging innovative approaches,” and “collaboration to improve results.”

“There is no point in 

conducting reviews if ... the 

implications of the reviews 

for conservation management 

are unclear.”

Ioan Fazey and others (2004). 

Environmental Conservation. 

31(3): 194.

“Management implications 

are the most important part. 

If researchers hesitate to 

write these, why not partner 

with a practitioner who 

has experience in applying 

similar research in the 

field?”

—Mary Taber, Fire 

Ecologist (retired), National 

Interagency Fire Center, 

Department of the Interior, 

Bureau of Indian Affairs
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-337. 2015 25

Scientific and technical writers often fail to recognize that even objective, scientific 

writing must be persuasive, in that the author must persuade the reader to continue reading. It is important to show, at the very beginning, how a synthesis will be useful—what 

kinds of questions it addresses and what kinds of problems it may help solve. Many 

syntheses isolate management implications at the end of each chapter or at the end of 

the document. Three of the six publications in the “Wildland Fire and Ecosystems” series do so (Brown and Smith 2000; Ryan and others 2012; Smith 2000). However, this 

may be exactly the reverse of what will appeal to readers. The synthesis planning team 

should consider presenting management implications early in the document, integrating 

them throughout, or possibly organizing the whole document according to management 

issues— using, for example, questions from stakeholders or topics required for NEPA 

documents as the organizational basis. The synthesis on public perceptions of fire 

management (McCaffrey and Olsen 2012a) addresses “eight essential questions” that 

evolved out of discussions among managers, policy makers, and scientists (McCaffrey, 

personal communication 2014). The systematic review of the effectiveness of post-fire 

seeding answers three management questions: Does seeding reduce soil erosion? Does 

it reduce invasion by nonnative species? Does it affect the recovery of native plant 

communities? Miller and others (2007) produced a field guide to describe appropriate 

management applications of their synthesis on western juniper ecology (Miller and others 

2005). The guide addresses 29 questions that must be answered for a rapid, qualitative 

assessment of a field site. 

While a synthesis for managers must discuss implications for practical decisions, it 

may not be able to offer unambiguous guidelines. Management issues and the social 

context for decision-making vary from place to place and time to time, so different 

decisions could be based on the same evidence (CEBC 2010). Because of the complex, 

dynamic nature of ecosystems and management issues, managers need to bring their 

own experience together with all other evidence—from syntheses, the primary literature, 

monitoring programs, and other sources—so they can make wise decisions and take 

appropriate actions (Figure 3). The description of fundamental concepts provided by a 

synthesis can give managers a basis for thinking through this maze of information. The 

conceptual framework may be based on biological principles, as described in the “Fire 

Autecology” chapter in “Effects of Fire on Flora” (Miller 2000); or it may be based on 

management considerations, such as the five “general principles” offered by Luce and 

others (2012) to guide aquatic-terrestrial planning for fire:

1. Holistic approaches are required

2. Spatial arrangement has relevance

3. The system is dynamic

4. Sustainable solutions are needed

5. Timing may be critical

The fundamental concepts described by syntheses can suggest perspectives and 

processes for approaching problems with no precedents, a limited information base, 

diverse stakeholders, and dynamic, interacting causes—the kind of problems that often 

characterize the world of fire and resource management.

Many of the points described in this section and the next two—on clear writing 

and organization—are illustrated in syntheses already published on fire management 

issues (Table 6). These examples were chosen to demonstrate a variety of approaches 

for meeting the challenges that authors face in writing, organizing, and packaging a 

synthesis. Of course, there are many other effective ways to meet these challenges. 

Synthesis planners and authors would benefit from searching for ideas in a wide variety 

of syntheses and other documents.

“Tell me early on why I 

should care.”

—Jennifer Northway, 

Coordinator, Alaska Fire 

Science Consortium

“Organize the whole 

synthesis according to the 

applications, so they are 

clear and easy to find but 

substantiation for them is 

also easily available.”

—Bob Gillaspie, State 

Rangeland Management 

Specialist, Oregon State 

Office, USDA Natural 

Resource Conservation 

Service

“Keep in mind that managers 

are paid to pull ideas 

together—to synthesize and 

apply.”

—Jeff Rose, Associate 

District Manager, Department 

of the Interior, Bureau of 

Land Management
26 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-337. 2015

Table 6—Examples of effective writing, organizational, and packaging features in syntheses for fire management. 

Synthesis Illustrates these features of effective synthesis:

1. Birds and burns of the Interior West (Saab and others 

2007) (http://www.treesearch.fs.fed.us/pubs/27925)

•	 Abstract presents findings concisely

•	 Conceptual background is set off and highlighted in 

colored boxes

•	 Examples are highlighted in colored boxes

2. Climate change, forests, fire, water, and fish: building 

resilient landscapes, streams, and managers (Luce 

and others 2012) (http://www.treesearch.fs.fed.us/

pubs/41932)

•	 Informative title (tells us it is interdisciplinary and lists the 

topics covered)

•	 Definitions in callouts (p. 7)

•	 Pictorial definitions (p. 44) 

3. A comprehensive guide to fuel management practices 

for dry mixed conifer forests in the northwestern 

United States (Jain and others 2012) (http://www.

treesearch.fs.fed.us/pubs/42150)

•	 Key messages from all sections presented early on, all in 

one place (pp. 5–7)

•	 Structure consistent among sections

•	 Definitions and supplemental information in callouts

4. Do thinning and/or burning treatments in western USA 

ponderosa or Jeffrey pine-dominated forests help 

restore natural fire behavior? (Fulé and others 2012) 

(http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/

S0378112711007729)

•	 Title is a management question

•	 Conclusions section provides clear summary

•	 Review is systematic, with clear criteria for including and 

assessing information

5. Ecological effects of prescribed fire season: a literature 

review and synthesis for managers (Knapp and others 

2009) (http://www.treesearch.fs.fed.us/pubs/33628)

•	 Cover graphic gives information on both topic and 

 organization

•	 Findings shown as bulleted lists early in document (p. 4) 

and in each regional section

•	 Graphics illustrate relationships between different kinds of 

information (p. 10, 30, 44)

6. Effects of climatic variability and change on forest 

ecosystems: a comprehensive science synthesis 

for the U.S. forest sector (Vose and others 2012) 

(http://www.treesearch.fs.fed.us/pubs/42610)

•	 Executive summary thorough, direct, well organized. 

•	 Implications discussed by geographic region within 

 executive summary

7. The effects of forest fuel-reduction treatments in the 

United States (Stephens and others 2012) (http://

www.treesearch.fs.fed.us/pubs/40902)

•	 Title clear

•	 Abstract informative, easy to read

•	 Clear graphic illustrates results of meta-analysis (p. 554)

8. Mitigating old tree mortality in long-unburned, 

fire- dependent forests: a synthesis (Hood 2010) 

(http://www.treesearch.fs.fed.us/pubs/35004)

•	 Vivid photos and graphics with clear labels and captions

•	 Management options discussed by scale (landscape, site, 

individual tree)

9. Post-fire treatment effectiveness for hillslope 

 stabilization (Robichaud and others 2010) 

(http://www.treesearch.fs.fed.us/pubs/35691)

•	 Clear explanation of relationship to previous work

•	 Concise case studies, written by managers and shown as 

side bars, illustrate individual points

•	 Detailed results placed in appendices 

10. Post-wildfire seeding in forests of the West: an 

 evidence-based review (Peppin and others 2010) 

(http://www.treesearch.fs.fed.us/pubs/36515)

•	 Abstract easy to read, states findings clearly

•	 Discussion organized according to management questions

•	 Review is systematic, with clear criteria for including and 

assessing information

11. Research perspectives on the public and fire management: a synthesis of current social science on eight 

essential questions (McCaffrey and Olsen 2012a)

•	 Organized as list of questions about topic

•	 Clear summary at end of each section 

12. Synthesis of knowledge from woody biomass removal 

case studies (Evans 2008) (https://www.firescience.

gov/projects/07-3-2-02/project/07-3-2-02_Biomass_

Case_Studies_Report.pdf)

•	 Each section begins with bulleted list of findings

•	 All findings linked to numerous case studies

•	 Case studies represent ecosystems throughout continental 

United States

13. Synthesis of knowledge of extreme fire behavior: 

 volume I for managers (Werth and others 2011) 

(http://www.treesearch.fs.fed.us/pubs/39553)

•	 Graphs clean, uncluttered (Chapter 4)

•	 Callouts (p. 25) highlight key concepts

14. A synthesis of the science on forests and carbon for 

U.S. forests (Ryan and others 2010) (http://www.

treesearch.fs.fed.us/pubs/35006)

•	 Clear, appealing graphics with stand-alone captions. 

Readers can learn much about content by reading the 

pictures.
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-337. 2015 27

2.5 Clear Writing

Clear writing is so important that 

it is required by law in federal documents.5

 Skilled authors respect the 

reader’s time and attention by making 

the document as easy to follow as possible or, as Blum and others (2006) 

express it, by providing “unfailing 

courtesy to the reader.” However, 

clear writing is difficult in a synthesis 

because it brings information together 

from many disciplines and dozens to 

hundreds of sources. In this arena, as in 

other aspects of synthesis production, 

collaboration can help. The authors 

can be scientists, science delivery 

specialists, managers, or technical 

writers—or any combination—as long 

as they produce a clear document, 

easily readable by managers. 

Follow Principles for Good Writing

“Good writing doesn’t come automatically for everyone, if ever. It has to be practiced 

over and over,” according to Lane Eskew, Director of Publishing Services at the Forest 

Service’s Rocky Mountain Research Station (Eskew, personal communication 2014). 

In my own writing and in editing syntheses for managers, I have found five principles 

especially important: 

1. Begin by describing the most important findings and why they matter. This 

applies to organization of the whole document and also to the sentences that 

begin paragraphs and sections (“topic sentences”). I provide a few examples, 

good and bad, from my own writing (Table 7). The “effective” examples all 

contain a single kernel of information that is further explained throughout the 

section, while the “ineffective” examples either give no substantive information 

at all or emphasize something unimportant to readers, rather than an important 

idea to be developed in the rest of the section. 

2. Minimize technical language, agency-specific language, acronyms, and other 

jargon. These features exclude readers (Thompson 1986) when the point of 

a synthesis is to include everyone who can use the information—the primary 

audience (fire managers) and also policy makers, professionals from other 

disciplines, students, and members of the public.

3. Emphasize the meaning of research findings, not the person or group who did 

the research and not the details of methods and statistics.

5 The Plain Writing Act of 2010 requires that federal agencies use “clear government communication that 

the public can understand and use” (http://www.plainlanguage.gov/plLaw/). The Agricultural Research 

Service provides these directions for implementing the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969: “Environmental documents should be concise, written in plain language, and address the issues pertinent to 

the decision being made” (http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/retrieveECFR?gp=1&SID=0eddda6100d2d2d5480

cf28b8b568077&ty=HTML&h=L&r=PART&n=7y6.1.2.1.8). Forest Service research papers are included 

in the USDA guidelines for compliance (U.S. Department of Agriculture 2011).

Write clearly:

•	 Write for the main audience—managers in fire and related natural 

resources.

•	 Consider other potential readers to 

avoid creating an “inside story” accessible only to professionals.

•	 Include summaries and lists of key 

points.

•	 Get reviews from managers, scientists, science delivery specialists, 

and any other audience whose understanding is crucial to success. 

Then use their comments to finetune the document. 
28 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-337. 2015 Table 7—Examples of effective and ineffective synthesis statements. Statement function Effective example Explanation Ineffective example Explanation Introduce paragraph (“topic sentence”) Physical properties of a fire, if known, are logical descriptors of fire severity (Smith and Fischer 1997). Two landscape-related aspects of fire, size and homogeneity, influ- ence colonization and populations of small mammals on recent burns (Lyon and others 2000). Makes a clear assertion and suggests that details and documentation follow. Indicates that two items will be discussed and tells the reader what they are. Several studies report declines in bird abundance or species diver- sity in the first year or two after stand-replacing fire, but few re- ports are available for the months immediately following fire (Lyon and others 2000). Many strategies for evaluating and addressing potential postfire invasions by nonnative species are described in this volume... (Smith and others 2008). Focuses on research woes rather than results. Is the paragraph about the many or the few? What do the few studies actually say? Suggests that information is forth- coming but does not actually give any. It would be better to give a key idea about the many strategies or to say that they show no consistent pattern. Introduce section Fires may directly reduce popula- tions of invertebrates that reside in or deposit eggs in the surface vegetation or the forest floor (Smith and Fischer 1997). Makes a clear assertion and suggests that details and documentation follow. Permanent alder communities in northern Idaho... have been described by Daubenmire and Daubenmire... (Smith and Fischer 1997). The amount of fuel in seral lodge- pole pine stands varies... (Smith and Fischer 1997). Emphasizes the reference rather than what was learned. It would be better to report the findings and document them with the citation ref- erence. Suggests that information is forth- coming but does not actually give any. Introduce research results If basal scorch occurs, or if 30 percent or more of the crown is scorched, growth is likely to de- crease (Smith and Fischer 1997). Emphasizes fire effects in the field rather than measurement methods or statistical results. Duff depth reduction was posi- tively correlated with preburn duff depth and negatively correlated with preburn duff moisture (Smith and Fischer 1997). Emphasizes the statistical result, not biological results. The mixture of “ups” (positive correlation) with “downs” (reduction and negative cor- relation) makes it hard to follow.
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-337. 2015 29

4. Find exactly the right word or term for an idea and use it consistently; do not 

try to make the writing “more interesting” by using synonyms. Consistency 

tells the reader exactly which idea is being discussed, and it is essential for 

readers who will use electronic searching to track a concept’s development.

5. Use a direct quote if an author said something better than you can. Summarize 

the thought in your own words (and cite the author) if you need to place it in 

context or show how it applies to your topic. If several authors have made 

the same point, capture the idea in your own words (that is, synthesize their 

thoughts) and cite all of the authors.

The subject of technical writing is much too large for this report, and excellent resources are available to help authors improve their skills. These four sources have been 

especially useful for me: 

•	 “Notes on Writing Papers and Theses” (Lerzman 1995), a short article written 

for science students, provides clear guidance on use of concise, direct language: 

“Do not use more words where fewer will do.” 

•	 “Writing a Review Article for Psychological Bulletin” (Bern 1995) obviously 

does not focus on synthesis for resource managers, but it describes the nature 

of synthesis very well. It is written with a sense of humor and good examples. 

•	 Writing Science in Plain English (Greene 2013) is a small, concise book that 

provides 12 guidelines for scientific writing, explains the reasoning behind each 

guideline, demonstrates effectiveness with real examples, and gives exercises in 

which the reader can revise an example and then compare it with the author’s 

version.

•	 The Mayfield Electronic Handbook of Technical and Scientific Writing (Perelman 

and others 2001) is a comprehensive, well organized guide available at http://

www.mhhe.com/mayfieldpub/tsw/home.htm. It is written concisely, provides 

excellent navigation aids, and covers dozens of kinds of technical documents. 

Include Summaries

Readers use summaries to decide if they want to look for more details or move on. 

Therefore, summaries must be clear, concise, and focused on managers’ information 

needs. By the time the authors have finished a draft and are ready to write summaries, 

they may be worn out and feel that this is just repetitive work. However, this is not the 

time to dash something off carelessly, because summaries are essential persuasive and 

navigational tools. 

If a synthesis will be published in a journal, the only summary will probably be a 

one-paragraph abstract at the beginning of the article. Abstracts for research articles 

usually cover all aspects the project (Perelman and others 2001), which often jams them 

full of ideas and makes them difficult to read. This approach will not answer the needs 

of managers, who need quick access to important findings. An abstract for a synthesis 

should present the most important findings concisely and clearly. A good example is 

the abstract for a systematic review on fuel reduction treatments published in BioScience (Stephens and others 2012). It is just 147 words long, yet it states the conclusions 

and management implications clearly without oversimplifying this complex subject 

(Figure 10). 

If the synthesis will be published as a stand-alone document, the authors may have 

flexibility in the number and format of summaries. They can use short paragraphs, bulleted 

lists, or a combination; they may even include important graphics or tables. Syntheses 
30 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-337. 2015

often provide an executive summary at the start of the document. If this summary is 

fairly long, it should include headers to help readers find the topics they are looking 

for and page numbers or electronic links to help them find the details on any topic. An 

alternative may be to provide a short summary or a list of key points with every section. 

Table 6 (p. 26) contains several examples of fire syntheses with well-written summaries 

and lists of key findings.

Use Reviewers and Editors

Good reviewers and editors can help improve content, clarify the writing, and make 

the synthesis fit the audience. Since many of us writers become a little defensive when 

we receive criticism, Bern’s (1995) comment about reviews is worth considering: “If 

your colleagues find something unclear, do not argue with them. They are right: By 

definition, the writing is unclear. Their suggestions for correcting the unclarities may 

be wrongheaded, but as unclarity detectors, readers are never wrong.”

If a synthesis is written for managers, then managers should review it carefully. They 

can identify language that readers will stumble on and places that readers will find 

hard to navigate. They can point out content areas that need more (or less) explanation. 

Managers can also identify ideas in the synthesis that seem inconsistent with conventional wisdom and thus might require extra explanation, examples, and more thorough 

documentation, since readers usually compare new information with what they already 

believe (Lupia 2013).

2.6 Clear Organization, Easy Navigation

Few fire professionals read syntheses from cover to cover; most scan them or look 

for specific topics (Smith and others 2013). Thus it is critical that authors organize 

syntheses and select navigation tools that will help readers find the information they 

need quickly and easily. The document’s organization is not about all of the hard work 

that the planning committee and authors did to get it done. It is not about subject-matter 

Figure 10—Concise, informative abstract from a systematic review on the effectiveness of fuel reduction treatments (Stephens 

and others 2012).
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-337. 2015 31

Organize clearly and package for easy navigation:

•	 Base organization and navigation on the ways in which managers seek 

information. Consult managers and science delivery specialists.

•	 If possible, organize according to management questions or issues.

•	 If the synthesis covers many geographic regions, seek ways to answer 

unique regional needs.

•	 Look at successful documents to find ideas for effective navigational 

tools and packaging techniques.

•	 Consider producing summaries, fact sheets, and other documents 

from the synthesis to reach diverse audiences and meet diverse 

needs. Use cross-references or electronic links to ensure that readers 

can always find the basis for assertions—“Who says so and why?”—in 

the synthesis.

viewed as isolated concepts, but rather about concepts viewed in the context of management. In this section I suggest ways to solve organizational problems, help readers find 

information, and package multiple synthesis products. Table 6 (p. 26) lists syntheses 

that demonstrate many of the features discussed here.

Solving Organizational Problems

Clear writing and clear organization are two sides of the same coin; neither serves 

readers well without the other. A logical, predictable structure helps readers follow the 

“trustworthy story” (Popay and others 2006) being told by the synthesis. If readers are 

lost among topics and details, they are not likely to read the story or find it trustworthy. 

The goal is to present information in discrete, relatively small pieces and offer it in an 

order that makes sense—usually by building understanding from start to finish or by 

making assertions at the start and explaining them in subsequent sections. If management 

questions can be used as the basis for organization, they probably should be.

Syntheses are usually interdisciplinary and highly integrated, so an author could place 

many “bits” of information in one of several different places. A guiding principle should 

be to put the information where it will be most useful to managers and cross-reference 

it, if necessary, from other locations. (Printed documents can use page references, and 

electronic ones can use links.) 

Nearly half of interviewees commented that managers need easy ways to find region- and ecosystem-specific information in syntheses. Syntheses on ecological issues 

tend to be organized by region and ecosystem (for example, Evans and others 2011; 

Zouhar and others 2008c), but perhaps this is not sufficient. Some interviewees suggested writing region-specific syntheses rather than national ones. Others suggested 

producing national syntheses as a series of small, region-focused documents, possibly 

searchable from a map. However, one interviewee noted that, if geographic boundaries 

are “too strict,” the reader will not benefit from information on neighboring areas or 

related topics. The many challenges inherent in developing a synthesis with national 

coverage should be discussed by the synthesis planning team and resolved early in the 

process of development. 

Knapp and others’ (2009) (http://www.fs.fed.us/psw/publications/documents/

psw_gtr224/psw_gtr224.pdf) analysis of the ecological effects of prescribed fire season 

demonstrates several techniques for organizing and packaging a synthesis with national coverage. Even the cover graphic is well designed. A map shows the contiguous 

“To read anything, I have to 

be convinced right away that 

it will save me time over the 

use of other resources. “

—Randi Jandt, Fire 

Ecologist, Alaska Fire 

Science Consortium
32 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-337. 2015

48 states divided into three sections, a clever way to show the reader how the document 

is organized. The document’s “Overview” explains the exclusion of Alaska and Hawaii, 

describes general concepts, and ends with a callout containing five key points that apply 

to management in all regions. Each section that follows applies these concepts to a single 

geographical region and begins with a graphic that integrates information on climate, 

prescribed fire season, and historical fire season; all of these graphics are based on the 

same template. Each section ends with a bulleted list of 5 to 7 key points. It is easy to 

move from one section to another because they all follow the same outline. The document’s organization would also make it easy to repackage into smaller, region-based 

publications or online products.

Many readers access syntheses online, so each section should be relatively selfcontained and “screen friendly.” 

•	 Write each section so it can stand alone as much as possible. 

•	 Give readers a general idea of where you are going before you plunge into the 

details (Perelman and others 2001). Introductions and topic sentences (Table 7) 

serve this purpose, as does the practice of listing the topics to be covered at the 

beginning of a section (called “road mapping,” “forecasting,” or “signposting”). 

An example of a road mapping sentence is in the first paragraph of this section: 

“This section suggests ways to solve organizational problems, help readers find 

information, and package multiple synthesis products.” The subsections that 

follow address these tasks in the order listed. 

•	 Use parallelism. It is a friend to understanding. If several sections cover the 

same topics (as in regional syntheses), use the same structure in each. 

•	 Provide information in small, “bite-sized” pieces. Keep paragraphs short enough 

to fit completely on a small computer screen. Limit sections to 5 or 6 paragraphs, 

each with an explanatory header.

•	 Use cross-referencing (linking in electronic documents) to help readers find 

background or details located in another section.

If authors or reviewers think a section is unclear or disorganized, it probably is. An 

“after-the-draft” outline can help authors fit the pieces together better. When I think I 

have finished a section or a manuscript, I often outline what I have written—paragraph 

by paragraph, sometimes sentence by sentence—to see if the ideas are in a logical order 

and each paragraph covers its topic fully. This helps me revise to improve organization 

and flow.

Helping Readers Find Information

Navigating a synthesis can be like navigating a wilderness watershed: lots of interesting places, connected in subtle ways, easy to get lost. Navigational aids help readers 

know where they are and get from place to place easily to find the information they 

need. Effective layout, art work, and other packaging details help readers navigate and 

make the information more vivid and thus easier to grasp. These features also allow 

readers to browse through the synthesis for general impressions and ideas, even if they 

don’t have time (right then) to read the details. 

Publishers, editors, advertisers, and marketing specialists know much more about 

packaging information than I know or could learn in this project, as do science delivery specialists, such as the coordinators of the JFSP Knowledge Exchange Consortia. 

I suggest that authors examine many types of publications from various disciplines for 

appealing, effective ideas. Any tools selected for improving navigation and readability 

should be used consistently throughout the document so the reader knows what to expect 

from a given color, format, or other detail. These tools should enhance readability and 

navigation without cluttering the document and obscuring important points. Here are 

“Make [the synthesis] an 

inviting document, a place 

they’ll want to visit.”

—Jamie Barbour, Program 

Manager, Focused Science 

Delivery and Goods, 

Services, and Values 

Program, Pacific Northwest 

Research Station
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-337. 2015 33

11 suggestions based on interviewee comments and supplemented by information from 

the literature. Refer to Table 6 (p. 26) for examples.

1. Use bullets and numbered lists. They stand out from the text, so they are easy 

to find. If they are about management, emphasize them with color or feature 

them in a text box.

2. Use examples that illustrate the point clearly. If they would interrupt the text 

too much, put them in boxes. 

3. On web pages, keep an outline in view that shows the reader’s location. In 

printed documents, put the chapter and/or section header at the top of every page.

4. Use visually appealing features for emphasis: color, headers, font changes, 

white space. 

5. Put supplemental information (concepts, definitions) that would clutter the 

text into boxes, footnotes, or appendices.

6. Make graphics “richly informative” (Henebry 2011). If text labels would help 

readers see the point of a photo, use them. If color would make graphs and 

diagrams easier to follow, use it. Use “colorblind safe” color schemes for any 

graphics where color differentiation is essential for interpretation6

.

7. Use photos to show readers what “the literature” looks like in a real place. 

8. Use tables not just for data but also to organize concepts and information sources. 

9. Write captions for tables and graphics so they explain the meaning rather than 

only identifying content, axes, and variables. Readers may examine these 

features to see if they want to read the section for more detail. 

10. Use callouts to make concepts seem more real, draw the eye, and let readers 

know what is going on in a section.

11. Consider various ways to provide documentation. Papers in the fire management 

literature usually use author-date style to identify citations, but readers may 

find it difficult or annoying to “read around” them. In electronic documents, 

links could be used instead. In printed documents, a numbered-citation style, 

footnotes, or endnotes could be used.

Packaging Multiple Products

Syntheses for managers are usually envisioned as single documents, but most of them 

eventually form the basis for a family of related products because of diverse information needs. I have treated “managers” in this report as if decision makers, advisers, and 

field practitioners were one homogeneous group, but obviously they are not (Davis and 

others 2013). Furthermore, a synthesis for managers usually has important secondary 

audiences such as policy makers, students, and the general public. A variety of products 

based on the full synthesis can be used to 

•	 Help advertise a new synthesis: “spread the word”;

•	 “Translate” findings so they will make sense to a nontechnical audience (Chen 

and others 2013);

•	 Meet the needs of readers with a variety of learning styles (Davis and others 

2013);

•	 Divide information into smaller modules to make it more “digestible”; and

•	 Highlight the information most pertinent for a particular purpose or region.

6 Readers who cannot easily distinguish the colors in your tables and maps will be unable to interpret your 

findings and apply them to management. Why not be as inclusive as possible by using a “colorblind safe” 

color scheme? For guidance on map and graphic colors, see the National Science Foundation-sponsored 

website http://colorbrewer2.org.

“Pay attention in e-design to 

making sure the reader can 

get back to the original spot. 

We tend to wander within 

links and don’t always keep 

track of what we started out 

to seek.”

—John Barborinas, Wildland 

Fire Management Planner, 

National Interagency Fire 

Center, Bureau of Indian 

Affairs
34 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-337. 2015

The need for multiple products is not usually addressed in synthesis planning, but if it 

were, the entire suite of information might be packaged and delivered more effectively 

and efficiently.

Research organizations and science delivery specialists produce many products to 

advertise new information (for example, newsletters, briefing papers, fact sheets, and 

email messages). While these products are effective for directing readers to individual 

research papers, their effectiveness for lengthy, complex syntheses may be limited unless 

they direct readers to specific locations in the full synthesis. Suppose a newsletter article 

lists seven findings from a 200-page synthesis. The reader who looks at the fourth one 

and wants to know “Who says so?” must search the full synthesis for the explanation. 

Why not use the newsletter article to tell readers not only what the major findings are 

but also exactly where to find them in the full synthesis? This can easily be done with 

page numbers and/or electronic links.

A family of cross-referenced documents can be crafted from a foundational synthesis 

so each document stands on its own but can also lead readers to the other documents and, 

ideally, to the primary sources as well. The two examples below show how publications 

could be packaged to take readers from a short message or summary to more and more 

complete explanations and documentation:

1. A set of layered, cross-referenced documents (Figure 11). Readers could learn 

about a synthesis through a short message such as an email or tweet that lists 

a few key findings (top layer in the figure – purple). These findings would be 

described in a short, attractive summary document that is easy to find from the 

initial message. For example, a message about fire and forest carbon would 

lead readers to the Fire Science Brief (Frame 2010) that summarizes research 

on that topic (second layer in the figure – yellow). But the summary document 

“[Isolated] fact sheets are 

not good enough; provide the 

path to more detail. JFSP is 

good at publishing something 

and then creating a family of 

products around it.”

—Richy Harrod, Deputy Fire 

Staff Officer, OkanoganWenatchee National Forest

Figure 11—How a family of cross-referenced documents could be used to disseminate 

synthesis results.
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-337. 2015 35

would not simply list sources in a bibliography. To avoid being a dead-end for 

readers, the summary would cross-reference each major point with discussion 

and applications in more detailed, foundational documents. In this example, 

each key finding in a summary of information on fire and forest carbon would 

refer to discussion in a synthesis for general readers, such as Ryan and others 

(2010) (blue layer). The main points in the synthesis for general readers would 

refer to more rigorous explanations and further documentation in a synthesis 

published in a refereed journal, such as McKinley and others (2011) (green 

layer). The journal article is, of course, based on primary sources. 

2. An expandable electronic document (Figure 12). This example refers to two 

documents on the social science of wildland fire – a full synthesis (McCaffrey 

and Olsen 2012a) and a 3-page flyer, which was released a few months before 

the publication was released to help readers “pick up a few morsels that may be 

of immediate use,” and make them “generally aware of the research synthesis” 

(McCaffrey and Olsen 2012b). The webpage would open with a list of the 8 

questions answered by the synthesis (top layer – green). When the user clicks 

on a question, the site would open excerpts from the synthesis regarding that 

specific question, as listed in the 3-page summary flyer (second layer, with 

question in red). When the user selects one of these questions, the site would 

open the section in the full synthesis that contains details and documentation 

(third layer, with question in gray header). 

Figure 12—How an expandable 

structure in an online document could 

be used to package a family of synthesis documents.
36 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-337. 2015

Market and deliver effectively:

•	 Work with groups that are already 

delivering science successfully, especially those with strong participation 

from managers.

•	 Produce a 1-page summary cross-referenced to the full synthesis. Distribute 

it electronically and in person.

•	 Plan to market over many months or a 

year, so managers’ “busy seasons” do 

not keep them from learning about the 

synthesis.

2.7 Effective Marketing and Delivery

Managers will not use a synthesis until they know about it and can find it. Marketing 

and delivery require planning, networking, persistence, attention to detail, and fiscal 

support. Participants in a conference on national park management suggested 11 ways to 

improve the communication and use of science (Figure 13); nearly half of them require 

understanding the “world” of the audience, including their values, culture, responsibilities, 

and interest in learning. The synthesis planning team should work with science delivery specialists and use existing communication networks to deliver finished products. 

Principal fire management networks currently include the JFSP Knowledge Exchange 

Consortia, the Nature Conservancy’s Fire Learning Network, the Coalition of Prescribed Fire Councils, the Fire Modeling Institute, the FRAMES Fire Research and 

Management Exchange System, the International Association of Wildland Fire, and 

the Association for Fire Ecology. 

Information on any these can be 

obtained with a simple Internet 

search. 

Fire managers currently prefer 

email to receive information on 

fire ecology and management, but 

other media should be explored 

as younger professionals enter the 

field of fire management (Smith 

and others 2013). Interviewees 

for this project offered the following suggestions, which I have 

supplemented with thoughts from 

the literature: 

1. Always produce a one-page summary and circulate it widely. Emphasize 

management applications, preferably in bulleted lists. Make sure the summary refers readers to the discussion of each major point in the full synthesis. 

2. If the synthesis is a JFSP product, publicize it in a Fire Science Digest report, 

as suggested by Smith and others (2013). If not, consider writing a short article on it for a fire trade journal such as Wildfire or Fire Management Today.

3. Get a manager to write a “book review” and circulate it through fire communications networks.

4. Advertise the synthesis ahead of time. Months elapse between having a document ready for publication and getting it out. Use the time in between to let 

people know it is coming. During the time I was conducting interviews for this 

project, McCaffrey and Olsen’s (2012a) “Research Perspectives on the Public 

and Fire Management” was in press, and a three-page summary (McCaffrey 

and Olsen 2012b) was circulating among fire managers. Several interviewees 

had seen the summary and were watching for the final publication, anxious 

to get their copies.

5. Send advertising, the summary, and the full synthesis to everyone who asked 

for the synthesis, helped develop it, or reviewed it, and ask them to help get 

the information to managers. 

6. Give the synthesis and its underlying science a “human face” (Sheikheldin 

and others 2010): 

•	 Use webinars and teleconferencing. Try podcasts and short video clips. 

When using nonprint media, find ways to highlight the location of the 

summary and the full synthesis so the audience can easily find them. 

“[S]cience communication 

needs to be explicitly 

considered early in the 

project planning cycle, and 

... funding needs to also be 

dedicated to the movement of 

knowledge.”

—Gussai Sheikheldin and 

others (2010). Environmental 

Management. 45: 920.
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-337. 2015 37

•	 Participate in field trips to discuss important regional findings. Hand 

out copies of the summary. 

•	 Go to meetings for managers. Hand out copies of the summary.

7. Consider developing demonstrations or experiential learning activities to increase understanding of fundamental concepts and show how they are related 

to real-world issues.

8. Consider using catchy terms or a sense of humor to appeal to potential readers, 

but not to the extent that it makes the content seem trivial or unprofessional. 

Jerry Cox (1993), from the Texas A&M Agricultural Research and Extension 

Center, commented, “If our [Rangelands] papers were fun, ranchers, land 

managers, and even scientists might actually read an article....”

9. Since the Internet will ultimately be the “home” for all synthesis products, 

consider placement carefully. Put them in—and link them from—locations 

that managers already use. Make sure that these locations are available to 

nonfederal partners and that the Internet addresses are stable, “places that will 

last.” Science is disconnected from post-fire management, according to Chen 

and others (2013), partly because it is unavailable or inaccessible. 

10. Work with those who plan and present professional education and development opportunities, including university and National Wildfire Coordinating 

Group courses. Integrate syntheses into the presentations and materials for 

the appropriate classes (see “Do Readers Need Guidance on How to Use 

Syntheses?” on p. 40). 

Figure 13—Suggestions from National Park Service participants at the 2005 George Wright Conference 

for communicating science more effectively (Wright 2006). Participants were discussing general use of 

science, but the suggestions also apply to delivery and use of syntheses.

“Put stuff where it’s available 

to more than government 

people. Retired people, 

private land owners, and 

managers of nonprofits need 

these tools too. “

—John Barborinas, Wildland 

Fire Management Planner, 

National Interagency Fire 

Center, Department of the 

Interior, Bureau of Indian 

Affairs
38 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-337. 2015

Timing and persistence are important for marketing and distribution. Managers may 

lose track of information that arrives during their busiest time of year, and yet every 

time of year is busy for someone. Joe Marshall, Coordinator of the Oak Woodlands and 

Forests Fire Consortium, whimsically recommended using webinars, “but schedule them 

for a rainy day!” It may be wise to be flexible in scheduling and to spread out advertising for several months so the information will reach as wide an audience as possible.

3.0 After Distribution—Finding, Using, and Updating Syntheses __________

After a synthesis has been published, the scientists involved generally move on to 

other projects while science delivery specialists and managers work to deliver it and get 

it used. The aim is to integrate the synthesis with other management tools so it becomes 

a long-lasting, widely used foundation for decision-making. This section explores what 

happens after a synthesis has been published and distributed, when it is no longer news. 

How can managers easily find the syntheses relevant to a management issue? Do they 

need guidance on how to read and apply syntheses? As the information base on the topic 

continues to grow, how does the relevance of a synthesis change—and what might be 

done to keep it relevant? 

When syntheses are no longer news, continue to help 

managers find and use them:

•	 Provide an Internet “home” for fire syntheses, analogous to a library’s 

reference section, where managers can easily find them and identify 

the most recent information.

•	 Incorporate syntheses with other online information on specific fire 

management issues.

•	 Incorporate syntheses into education and professional development for 

fire managers.

•	 Include instruction in reading both research papers and syntheses in 

education and professional development.

•	 Seek ways to supplement existing syntheses with recent research and 

monitoring reports.

3.1 How Can Managers Find Syntheses on Fire?

This question came up many times in interviews. If syntheses are to serve as authoritative, foundational documents that fire managers can rely on, they should be easy to 

find. However, as of 2014 there is no single location dedicated to providing syntheses on 

fire. In fact, the Internet location of a synthesis depends more on who funded and wrote 

it than where managers might look for it. Treesearch (http://www.treesearch.fs.fed.us/) 

and GeoTreesearch (http://www.fs.fed.us/research/products/geotreesearch/), for example, 

catalog only publications produced by the Forest Service and do not provide a way to 

filter for syntheses. The National Forest Service Library (http://usfsdc.vtls.com:4080/

vital/access/manager/Index) allows the user to search by topic and also filter for syntheses, but the collection is currently limited to publications published since 2005 and, like 

Treesearch, contains only those with Forest Service Research authorship. Similarly, the 

JFSP website provides a list of syntheses (20 of them as of May 2014—see https://www.

firescience.gov/JFSP_publications.cfm#tab5) but includes only publications funded by 

JFSP and published as stand-alone documents; syntheses published in refereed journals, 

including systematic reviews, are not included. 
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-337. 2015 39

Managers should be able to find fire-related syntheses both within a collection of fire 

reference documents and also within collections of documents on specialized topics. A 

“home” on the Internet for all fire syntheses would be analogous to the reference section 

in a library, where a newcomer can see the variety of topics covered and select specific 

documents for learning about fundamental concepts, vocabulary, and management issues. Supplemental products, such as summaries and guidebooks, could be associated 

with the foundational syntheses. 

Some specialized topics within fire management already have Internet homes of their 

own, but there has been no systematic effort to make them complete or show relationships among documents. For example, at least five syntheses and one guidebook have 

been published on post-fire rehabilitation and restoration (Table 8). They are published 

by two different government offices and in two different journals; one of the journal 

articles is also available online from the Collaboration for Environmental Evidence. No 

single resource provides all of these documents in one place and helps readers figure 

out how they are related. Do the more recent ones completely replace the earliest one? 

How can someone using the guidebook know if some of its recommendations are outdated? The Burned Area Emergency Response Tools webpage (http://forest.moscowfsl.

wsu.edu/BAERTOOLS/) directs readers to two of these syntheses and also to related 

models, field guides, and catalogs. A more comprehensive website would include all 

of the syntheses and additional BAER tools and would indicate which documents have 

the most recent information on individual subtopics.

 Even with imprecise methods of counting, it is clear that increasing numbers of syntheses are being produced (Figure 1). They represent a tremendous information resource 

for managers, but their increasing abundance introduces the new challenge of guiding 

readers to the most recent, most pertinent synthesis on a topic or issue. FRAMES is one 

potential home for fire syntheses, and its Resource Catalog (https://www.frames.gov/

about/resource-cataloging-system) could provide the mechanism. However, it is currently difficult for a visitor to distinguish syntheses from other documents in FRAMES. 

Table 8—A family of interrelated syntheses on the effectiveness of post-fire rehabilitation and restoration treatments, listed by 

publication date. No single resource tells managers about all of them or how they are related.

 Authors Publication type Title

Robichaud and others (2000) Government publication (Rocky Evaluating the effectiveness of post-fire

Mountain Research Station) rehabilitation treatments

Napper (2006) Government publication The burned area emergency response treatment

(Washington Office) catalog (BAERCAT) (contains guidelines and 

 instructions)

Foltz and others (2009)a Government publication (Rocky A synthesis of post-fire road treatments for BAER

Mountain Research Station) teams: methods, treatment effectiveness, and

 decisionmaking tools for rehabilitation

Robichaud and others (2009) Journal article—Fire Ecology Emergency post-fire rehabilitation treatment

 effects on burned area ecology and long-term 

 restoration

Robichaud and others (2010)a Government publication (Rocky Post-fire treatment effectiveness for hillslope

Mountain Research Station) stabilization

Peppin and others (2010) Journal article—Forest Ecology Post-wildfire seeding in forests of the West: an

and Management evidence-based review

aThese two publications are featured on the Burned Area Emergency Response Tools webpage (http://forest.moscowfsl.wsu.edu/BAERTOOLS/).
40 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-337. 2015

An internal query of the database, provided by Project Manager Diana Olson, retrieved 

263 references with “synthesis” or “review” in the title; a search using the “public” 

side of the database retrieved 1,883 references. (See Table A.1 for search criteria.) 

Both searches retrieved many documents that are not syntheses, including proposals 

and after-action fire reviews. Managers and others interested in fire management need 

more comprehensive, straightforward ways to locate syntheses.

3.2 Do Readers Need Guidance on How to Use Syntheses?

Not everyone working in fire management is familiar with scientific literature and 

syntheses, and not all syntheses are written or packaged with managers in mind. Existing 

syntheses could be refurbished, if necessary, by writing a manager-oriented summary 

and highlighting key findings. Supplements could be written to present the implications 

more clearly and provide examples from the field.

Not everyone knows how to read syntheses and apply their information to management. Some guidance can be provided within a synthesis. For instance, the authors 

might provide a sidebar entitled “How to Use This Document,” in which they explain 

whether the synthesis provides definitive guidelines or more open-ended suggestions. 

They might also identify sections intended as background for someone new to the field 

versus sections that apply to particular specialties, subtopics, or geographic regions. 

Technical terms can be explained within the text or in a glossary. If a technical term 

has been misunderstood, controversial, or poorly defined in the past, a callout could 

be used to draw attention to the definition. For example, the guide to fuels treatments 

in dry mixed conifer forests of the Northwest (Jain and others 2012) uses a callout to 

define “resilience.” 

Relevant syntheses should be provided and discussed as part of professional development for fire managers, such as university courses and classes coordinated by the 

National Wildfire Coordinating Group. Instructors can improve participants’ critical 

reading skills if they take a few minutes to discuss how to find and use information in 

the synthesis. A few other concepts could also be discussed:

1. A synthesis usually presents examples and case studies to demonstrate a concept, 

not as a prescription for action. Medical practice provides a useful analogy. 

Kranke (2010) suggests that medical healthcare givers ask these questions 

about applying meta-analysis results to patient care:

•	 Are the patients in the trials like my patients?

•	 Are the inclusion criteria sensible?

•	 Do the outcomes make sense?

•	 Are the outcomes useful and do they matter to my patients?

Perhaps fire managers should replace “patients” with “stands” or “landscapes” 

and ask the same questions. 

2. Reports in a synthesis from the primary literature should not be cited without 

consulting the original document. Check the source to avoid misrepresenting 

the original research and propagating errors (Figure 5, p. 14). Everyone makes 

mistakes—even the author of this synthesis.

While interviewees did not support adding formal instruction in critical reading to the 

already full training load for managers, some suggested improving this skill in professional preparation, especially university classes. Upper-division classes often discuss 

how to read scientific papers. It may be worthwhile to add discussion on how to read 

and use syntheses and to supplement the discussion with examples and field experiences. 

“People need to know they 

can’t write a whole document 

just from a synthesis. In fact, 

does the synthesis encourage 

them to take shortcuts? Our 

agency culture should make 

it OK to read science. You 

should never feel bad about 

(a) reading or (b) going into 

the field just to look around.”

—Jeff Rose, Associate 

District Manager, Department 

of the Interior, Bureau of 

Land Management
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-337. 2015 41

A report on learning from escaped prescribed fires (Black and others 2012) points out 

that experiential learning is not just a nod to diverse learning styles; it is also a way to 

simulate the ways in which decisions are made, in which learners “...can experience 

the same uncertainty and equivocality that creates new perspectives and high impact 

learning but with low risk.” 

3.3 How Can Syntheses Stay Relevant as the Information Base Grows?

Even the most recent, most complete synthesis does not provide all of the sciencebased information needed to address a fire management issue. As noted above, before 

a manager decides to rely heavily on an example given in a synthesis, he or she should 

check the source. Furthermore, the information base used in the synthesis is probably 

incomplete by the time the manager consults it. That does not make the synthesis irrelevant, but it should be considered as the manager moves from accumulating information 

to choosing a wise course of action. As the information base on a topic grows, how does 

the relevance of a synthesis change? What might be done to keep it relevant? When 

has it outlived its usefulness? This section summarizes insights from the literature with 

suggestions from interviewees. 

When Has a Synthesis Outlived Its Usefulness?

If a synthesis provides a sound conceptual background and is based on reliable 

information, it remains useful even as the information base grows. The conceptual 

background helps readers learn how to think about the topic so they can integrate new 

information and their own experience into management decisions. For this purpose, a 

synthesis published as a stand-alone document may have longer-lasting usefulness than 

one published in a journal that constrains the scope and length of the article. 

Syntheses become less useful when fundamental concepts change substantially, novel 

ecological conditions emerge, or new research provides substantial new insights. For 

example, the 1981 “state-of-knowledge” review of the effects of fire on flora (Lotan 

and others 1981) describes fire regimes mainly in terms of return intervals, gives little 

attention to the influence of nonnative invasive plants, and does not mention climate 

change. By the mid-1990s, understanding of these factors had become essential for 

understanding fire’s influence on plant communities. A new review, organized around 

the fire regime concept, was published in 2000 (Brown and Smith 2000); another, focused on invasive plants and examining their influence on fire regimes, was published 

in 2008 (Zouhar and others 2008c)7

. Both of these syntheses also address the potential 

for fuels altered by climate change to alter fire regimes. Another example is provided by 

the family of syntheses on post-fire rehabilitation and restoration (Table 8). The 2010 

synthesis on post-fire hillslope stabilization (Robichaud and others 2010) “builds on” 

a more general synthesis on post-fire rehabilitation published in 2000 (Robichaud and 

others 2000) but has a narrower focus (erosion barriers, mulching, and chemical soil 

treatments). It also directs readers to recent syntheses on related topics. 

Syntheses become outdated when substantial new information conflicts with the patterns they report. For example, the 2000 synthesis on post-fire rehabilitation referred to 

above (Robichaud and others 2000) cited several studies showing that post-fire seeding 

7

 These are two of the six syntheses in the “Wildland Fire in Ecosystems” series, which replace the five 

published in the early 1980s. The more recent series covers not only plant communities and invasive plants 

but also wildlife (Smith 2000), air (Sandberg and others 2002), soils and water (Neary and others 2005), 

and cultural resources (Ryan and others 2012).
42 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-337. 2015

reduced erosion, while also expressing reservations about this practice. A 2010 systematic review of the subject (Peppin and others 2010) concluded that, while the majority 

of studies published before 2000 reported that post-fire seeding reduced erosion, they 

used less rigorous methods than recent research—and all of the more recent studies 

reported the practice to be ineffective. 

The data analyses in systematic reviews and meta-analyses could potentially be updated as new studies and monitoring data become available. If the new results diverge 

significantly from those reported in the original document, it may be time for a new one. 

How Can New Information Be Associated with Existing Syntheses? 

As long as the conceptual background in a synthesis remains sound and new findings are consistent with its conclusions, it does not need to be replaced. Nevertheless, 

managers do need to locate more recent findings and integrate them into decision making. Nearly half of interviewees suggested ways to provide new information related to 

topics covered by fire syntheses. Some of their suggestions would require either use 

of innovative information technology or more systematic education and professional 

development for managers in the use of existing tools:

•	 Improve electronic searches for new publications on fire and provide downloadable documents along with citations.

•	 Develop ways to electronically associate new research with existing syntheses.

•	 Develop ways to find monitoring results and associate them with syntheses.

•	 Publish short supplements to original syntheses.

•	 Develop procedures and/or provide tutorials to help managers filter citation 

databases for new information.

The first three of these are described more fully below.

Several interviewees mentioned the need to search more efficiently for fire research 

publications and download documents easily. Four large fire reference databases are currently available (Table 9), but as of 2014 none of them offers a precise way to search for 

syntheses. The Northern Rockies Fire Science Network is filtering reference databases 

to produce a list of region-specific references for its website, and other JFSP Knowledge 

Exchange Consortia are using other approaches to provide citation lists for managers. 

The ability to download documents varies between and even within databases, in part 

because of copyright protections. The current situation is complex and varies from one 

region to another. Would it help managers to have better nation-wide search/download 

capabilities? What investment would be needed to substantially increase efficiency? 

These questions merit further discussion as the fire information base grows.

A synthesis could form the foundation for a family of documents on a fire-related 

topic, to which new publications are added as they become available. The Burned Area 

Emergency Response Tools website (http://forest.moscowfsl.wsu.edu/BAERTOOLS/) 

could serve this function for postfire restoration and rehabilitation documents. The 

Fire Effects Information System (FEIS, http://www.feis-crs.org/feis/) user interface 

offers another approach. “Fire studies” (research publications, summaries of research 

projects, and summaries of monitoring projects) are published in FEIS and linked to 

species reviews. Fire studies either provide details on research described in the review 

or summarize research published after the review was completed. When a user finds 

a species review in FEIS, he or she automatically has access to a list of associated fire 

studies (Figure 14). Fire studies are currently created only when new research is located 

for a species review, but this functionality could be used to add new information more 

systematically and associate it with all relevant species reviews.

“Used to be you’d just call 

a scientist and say, ‘What 

have you been up to?’ but 

it’s harder now to stay up-todate.”

—Jeff Rose, Associate 

District Manager, Department 

of the Interior, Bureau of Land 

Management, Burns, OR
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-337. 2015 43

The same functionality could be used to associate monitoring reports with syntheses. 

Managers use monitoring results to inform local decisions, but these results could also 

be used to inform broader discussions of fire management if summarized and associated with syntheses. Monitoring results may be especially helpful for understanding the 

long-term effects of fire, since research studies tend to focus on the first few post-fire 

years. Robichaud and others (2010) emphasize the importance of long-term post-fire 

monitoring: “If we want to avoid today’s solutions becoming tomorrow’s problems, 

we must also evaluate longer term ecological consequences ... and ensure that they are 

included in the treatment decision-making process.” Improved information systems 

that connect syntheses with recent research and monitoring results could help managers 

“get the most out of” monitoring data (Chen and others 2013). Insights about database 

design might be gained from regional and national databases for other environmental 

management issues, such as the stream management projects database described by 

Jenkinson and others (2006). 

Just as a new synthesis requires effective marketing and delivery before it will be 

integrated into practice, any innovations that provide updates, supplement syntheses, or 

improve managers’ ability to find information should be widely publicized.

Table 9—Searches for syntheses in four reference databases on fire produced many “hits,” but results were imprecise. The 

FRAMES Resource Catalog and the E. V. Komarek Fire Ecology Database (http://www.talltimbers.org/fedb-intro.html) 

are searchable simultaneously through FRAMESa. See Appendix A (Table A.1) for search dates and algorithms.

Database name 

and location Web address

Total 

number of 

citations

Search by...

Products 

and services 

Topic Region available

Search results 

for reviews & 

syntheses

FRAMES Resource 

Catalog + E.V. Komarek Fire Ecology 

Database

http://www.

frames.gov/

search/

~16,000 All wildland fire 

topics and numerous media. 

Filters provide 

searches by 

medium, topic, 

etc. 

All, with filters 

to search by 

region

Search of full 

records for documents: 1,883 

hits. Retrieved 

after-action fire 

reviews, proposals, and other 

reports. 

Citation and description. Links 

to Internet location for some 

recent publications.

Citation Retrieval 

System (CRS) for 

the Fire Effects Information System

http://www. 

feis-crs.org

~60,000 Fire effects and 

related ecology 

for organisms 

in the United 

States

All, with 

keywords to 

search by 

state and/or 

Forest and 

Range Ecosystem (Garrison and others 

1977) 

Search using 

keywords: 518 

hits. Retrieved 

syntheses that 

address fire as a 

minor influence 

but do not focus 

on fire. 

Citation and keywords, including 

“review”

Fire Research Institute Library

http://www.

fireresearchinstitute.org

~122,000 All wildland fire 

topics, all kinds 

of documents 

and media

All, including 

international

Search of titles: 

1,572 hits. Retrieved afteraction reviews, 

proposals, etc. 

Citation and 

abstract. Functionality to obtain 

a copy, contact 

author for a 

copy, and/or 

receive monthly 

list of new publications.

aUsers can search the FRAMES and Komarek databases separately by making a selection in the “Source” filter, the last option in the list of filters 

on the search page. A search of FRAMES alone yielded 1,213 hits, and a search of the Komarek database alone yielded 817 hits.
44 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-337. 2015

Figure 14—The user interface for the Fire Effects Information System (FEIS) provides a way to associate recent 

research studies and monitoring reports with previously published syntheses. In this example, the species review for 

Pacific ponderosa pine, published in 1992, is supplemented by seven fire studies. Four of these became available 

after the review was published.
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-337. 2015 45

4.0 Conclusions—The Future of Synthesis for Fire Managers ____________

Fire management has a deep, valuable legacy of knowledge in the research and management communities, and hundreds of new publications become available each year. 

With more research, an increasing number of journals, and limited budgets for learning 

at meetings and conferences, the need for synthesis is more important than ever. In a 

management environment that makes more demands on fewer people, the need to locate 

information and objectively assess its management implications is increasing as well. 

The need to manage wisely in a world where information is available to all increases 

the need for syntheses to be clear, defensible, and easily accessible. 

This challenge is not insurmountable. Fire management 

is far from alone in needing 

high-quality syntheses, so the 

tools for meeting these needs 

are either available or being 

developed. Ecologists and other 

environmental scientists have 

become international leaders 

in assembling diverse information from diverse disciplines 

and cultural perspectives to 

address environmental issues. 

Centers of expertise now bring 

researchers, decision makers, 

and other stakeholders together 

to find ways to answer difficult 

management questions with 

rigorous analysis of information. Information specialists are 

providing new, sophisticated 

tools for compiling and managing huge volumes of information.

So what attitudes and actions will help us provide high-quality information syntheses 

for fire managers in the future? I suggest the following:

•	 Continue to synthesize information for fire managers. The information base and 

managers’ needs for synthesis will continue to increase.

•	 Update or replace existing syntheses when they become out-of-date.

•	 Explore the potential for information technology to help managers harvest more 

knowledge from existing information. Specific areas where innovative technology could help include (1) providing locations where managers can easily find 

fire syntheses and see the relationships among syntheses on similar topics; (2) 

associating recent research and monitoring reports with already published syntheses; and (3) accompanying each synthesis with supplemental products such 

as flyers, summaries, webinars, and guidebooks. In addition, new technology 

may be needed to manage citations and documents and to archive data for possible meta-analysis. 

•	 Encourage researchers to design studies with potential for future data-pooling 

and meta-analysis in mind. At the same time, do not let the drive for “poolable 

data” limit exploration of innovative research methods or the potential for managers and scientists to “coproduce” knowledge. 

Conclusions—To meet managers’ 

growing need for syntheses and 

integrated information...

•	 Continue to produce syntheses that harvest information from science and management to address fire management 

issues.

•	 Explore new techniques for managing 

syntheses, references, research results, 

and monitoring data.

•	 Encourage use of research and monitoring techniques that produce data with 

potential for pooling and meta-analysis.

•	 Explore the potential for integrating syntheses with models.

•	 Learn more about “what works” in disseminating syntheses and getting them 

used to inform management decisions.
46 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-337. 2015

•	 Do not underestimate the value of qualitative reviews and qualitative sections 

in systematic reviews and meta-analyses. They provide a conceptual framework 

for thinking about a topic, and they can integrate historical research with more 

recent work. Statistical analyses cannot substitute for having well-informed minds 

consider all the information available and analyze its management implications.

•	 Look for synergistic relationships between syntheses and models, since both of 

these tools are based on past research. Would a synthesis of the science basis 

for a model help users understand how to apply it appropriately? Can model 

results be incorporated more often into syntheses? Can results from syntheses 

be used to validate models?

•	 Foster relationships and improve communication networks among researchers, 

science delivery specialists, and managers. Collaboration is essential for producing a high-quality synthesis, delivering it to managers, and getting it used 

appropriately. Science delivery specialists are good at this, but do not leave it 

all up to them.

•	 Use regional and local networks to learn more about how syntheses are disseminated and used. Which ones are most used, in which regions, and why? 

Syntheses represent a substantial investment of time and energy for those who develop 

them, a sizeable investment by research sponsors, and a huge information resource for 

fire managers. They need to be well written, widely distributed, and wisely used to 

make sure that our rich legacy of information about wildland fire contributes to effective management on the ground. While it is always challenging to provide support for 

developing and maintaining information resources such as syntheses, wildland management organizations should weigh the cost of providing current, high-quality information 

syntheses against the cost of managing without it.

Literature Cited ___________________________________________________

Anonymous. 2013. Joint Fire Science Program 2013 progress report. Boise, ID: National Interagency Fire 

Center. 18 p.

Anderson, R.S.; Hallett, D. J.; Berg, E.; and others. 2006. Holocene development of boreal forests and fire 

regimes on the Kenai lowlands of Alaska. The Holocene. 16(6): 791-803.

Bartuszevige, Anne M.; Kennedy, Patricia L. 2009. Synthesis of knowledge on the effects of fire and thinning treatments on understory vegetation in U.S. dry forests. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University, 

Extension and Experiment Station Communications. 132 p.

Bem, Daryl J. 1995. Writing a review article for Psychological Bulletin. Psychological Bulletin. 118:172-177.

Black Anne E.; Saveland, James; Thomas, Dave; Ziegler, Jennifer. 2012. Using escaped prescribed 

fire reviews to improve organizational learning (JFSP project 10-1-05-1). Boise, ID, Joint Fire 

Science Program. 31 p.

Blum, Deborah; Knudson, Mary; Henig, Robin Marantz. 2006. A field guide for science writers, second 

edition. New York, Oxford University Press: 32-33. 321 p.

Boell, Sebastian K.; Cecez-Kecmanovic, Dubravka. 2010. Literature reviews and the hermeneutic circle. 

Australian Academic & Research Libraries. 41(2): 129-144.

Brewer, Carol A.; Gross, Louis J. 2003. Training ecologists to think with uncertainty in mind. Ecology. 

84(6): 1412-1414.

Brown, James K.; Smith, Jane Kapler (eds.). 2000. Wildland fire in ecosystems: effects of fire on flora. 

Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-42-volume 2. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Rocky Mountain Research Station. 257 p.

Centre for evidence-based conservation (CEBC). 2010. Guidelines for systematic review in environmental 

management. Version 4.0. Environmental evidence. Online: www.environmentalevidence.org/Authors.

htm. 74 p.

Chen, Xiaoli; Emery, Nathan; Garcia, Elizabeth S.; and others. 2013. Perspectives on disconnects between 

scientific information and management decisions on post-fire recovery in western US. Environmental 

Management. 52: 1415-1426.

Cox, Jerry R. 1993. Honest scientific writing. Rangelands. 15(1): 13-15.
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-337. 2015 47

Davis, Emily Jane; Moseley, Cassandra; Olsen, Christine; and others. 2013. Diversity and dynamism of 

fire science user needs. Journal of Forestry. 111(2): 101-107.

Derish, P. A.; Annesley, T. M. 2011. How to write a rave review. Clinical Chemistry. 57(3): 388-391.

Dwire, Kathleen A.; Meyer, Kristen E.; Ryan, Sandra E.; and others. 2011. A guide to fuels management 

in riparian areas of the Interior West. Final report to the Joint Fire Science Program, Project 09-2-01-

20. Boise, ID: Joint Fire Science Program. Online: http://www.firescience.gov/projects/09-2-01-20/

project/09-2-01-20_09-2-01-20_Deliverable_01.pdf. 

Dytham, Calvin. 2011. Choosing and using statistics: a biologist’s guide (3rd edition). West Sussex, UK: 

Wiley-Blackwell. 298 p.

Egger, Matthias; Smith, George Davey; O’Rourke, Keith. 2001a. Chapter 1. Rationale, potentials, and 

promise of systematic reviews. In: Systematic reviews in health care: meta-analysis in context, 2nd 

edition. London: BMJ Publishing Group: 3-19.

Egger, Matthias; Smith, George Davey; Schneider, Martin. 2001b. Chapter 12. Systematic reviews of observational studies. In: Systematic reviews in health care: meta-analysis in context, 2nd edition. London: 

BMJ Publishing Group: 211-227.

Eisenhardt, Kathleen M. 1989. Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management 

Review. 14(4): 532-550.

Eisenhardt, Kathleen M.; Graebner, Melissa E. 2007. Theory building from cases: opportunities and challenges. Academy of Management Journal. 50(1): 25-32.

Eskew, Lane, Director of Publishing Services 21 April 2014. 2014. [Personal communication]. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fort Collins, CO. 

Evans, Alexander M. 2008. Synthesis of knowledge from woody biomass removal case studies. Santa Fe, 

NM: Forest Guild. 39 p.

Evans, Alexander M.; Everett , Rick G.; Stephens , Scott L.; Youtz, James A. 2011. Comprehensive fuels 

treatment practices guide for mixed conifer forests: California, central and southern Rockies, and the 

Southwest. Santa Fe, NM: Forest Guild. 106 p.

Eysenck, H.J. 1995. Meta-analysis or best-evidence synthesis? Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice. 

1(1): 29-36.

Fazey, Ioan; Salisbury, Janet G.; Lindenmayer, David B.; and others. 2004. Can methods applied in medicine 

be used to summarize and disseminate conservation research? Environmental Conservation. 31(3): 190-198.

Ferguson, Daniel B.; Rice, Jennifer; Woodhouse, Connie. 2014. Linking environmental research and practice: lessons from the integration of climate science and water management in the western United States. 

Tucson, AZ: Climate Assessment for the Southwest. 18 p. Online: www.climas.arizona.edu/publication/

report/linking-environmental-research-and-practice. 

Foltz, Randy B.; Robichaud, Peter R.; Rhee, Hakjun. 2009. A synthesis of postfire road treatments for BAER 

teams: methods, treatment effectiveness, and decisionmaking tools for rehabilitation. Gen. Tech. Rep. 

RMRS-GTR-228. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain 

Research Station. 152 p.

Frame, Christine. 2010. Sink or source? Fire and the forest carbon cycle. Fire Science Brief. 86. Boise, 

ID: Joint Fire Science Program. 6 p.

Fulé, Peter Z.; Crouse, Joseph E.; Roccaforte, John Paul; Kalies, Elizabeth L. 2012. Do thinning and/or 

burning treatments in western USA ponderosa or Jeffrey pine-dominated forests help restore natural fire 

behavior? Forest Ecology and Management. 269: 68-81.

Garrison, George A.; Bjugstad, Ardell J.; Duncan, Don A.; and others. 1977. Vegetation and environmental features of forest and range ecosystems. Agric. Handb. 475. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service. 68 p.

Gates, Simon. 2002. Review of methodology of quantitative reviews using meta-analysis in ecology. Journal 

of Animal Ecology. 71: 547-557. 

Grant, Maria J.; Booth, Andrew. 2009. A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated 

methodologies. Health Information and Libraries Journal. 26: 91-108.

Greene, Anne E. 2013. Writing science in plain English. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 136 p.

Gucker, Corey L.; Zouhar, Kristin; Smith, Jane Kapler; Stone, Katharine R. 2012. Characteristics of information available on fire and invasive plants in the eastern United States. Fire Ecology. 8(2): 57-81.

Guston, David H. 2001. Boundary organizations in environmental policy and science: an introduction. 

Science, Technology, & Human Values. 26(4): 399-408.

Harrison, Freya. 2011. Getting started with meta-analysis. Methods in Ecology and Evolution. 2: 1-10.

Henebry, Geoffrey M. 2011. Beyond words: effective graphics and metadata are keys to concise scientific 

communication. Landscape Ecology. 26: 1355-1358.

Higuera, Philip E., Barnes, Jennifer L.; Chipman, Melissa L.; and others. 2011. The burning tundra: a look 

back to the last 6,000 years of fire in the Noatak National Preserve, northwestern Alaska. Alaska Park 

Science. 10(1): 37-41.
48 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-337. 2015

Hood, Sharon M. 2010. Mitigating old tree mortality in long-unburned, fire-dependent forests: a synthesis. 

RMRS-GTR-238. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain 

Research Station. 71 p.

Hudak, Andrew T.; Rickert, Ian; Morgan, Penelope; and others. 2011. Review of fuel treatment effective-

ness in forests and rangelands and a case study from the 2007 megafires in central Idaho, USA. Gen.

Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-252. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky 

Mountain Research Station. 60 p.

Hunter, M. E.; Shepperd, W. D.; Lentile, J. E.; and others. 2007. A comprehensive guide to fuels treatment 

practices for ponderosa pine in the Black Hills, Colorado Front Range, and Southwest. Gen. Tech. Rep. 

RMRS-GTR-198. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain 

Research Station. 93 p.

Innes, Robin J. 2013. Fire regimes in Alaskan tundra communities. In: Fire Effects Information System. U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory, 

Producer. Online: http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/fire_regimes/AK_tundra/all.html [24 May 2014].

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2007. Summary for policymakers. In: Solomon, S.; Qin, 

D.; Manning, M.; and others (eds.). Climate change 2007: The physical science basis. Contribution of 

Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 

Cambridge, UK: New York: Cambridge University Press. 18 p.

Irland, L. C. 1995. Tips for authors: crafting tables for applied journal articles. Northern Journal of Applied 

Forestry. 12(1): 5-7.

Jahangirian, M.; Eldabi, T.; Garg, L.; and others. 2011. A rapid review method for extremely large corpora of 

literature: Applications to the domains of modelling, simulation, and management. International Journal 

of Information Management. 31(3): 234-243.

Jain, Theresa B.; Battaglia, Mike A.; Han, Han-Sup; and others. 2012. A comprehensive guide to fuel 

management practices for dry mixed conifer forests in the northwestern United States. Gen. Tech. Rep. 

RMRS-GTR-292. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain 

Research Station. 331 p.

Jenkinson, Robin G.; Barnas, Katie A.; Braatne, Jeffrey H.; and others. 2006. Stream restoration databases 

and case studies: a guide to information resources and their utility in advancing the science and practice 

of restoration. Restoration Ecology. 14(2): 177-186.

Kalies, E.; Covington, W.; Chambers, C.; Rosenstock, S. 2010. How do thinning and burning treatments 

in southwestern conifer forests in the United States affect wildlife density and population performance? 

CEE Review 09-005 (SR66). Bangor, UK: Collaboration for Environmental Evidence. 46 p. Online: 

http://www.environmentalevidence.org/Documents/Completed_Reviews/SR66.pdf. 

Kennedy, Patricia L.; Fontaine, Joseph B. 2009. Synthesis of knowledge on the effects of fire and fire 

surrogates on wildlife in U.S. dry forests. Special Report 1096. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University, 

Extension and Experiment Station Communications. 132 p.

Knapp, Eric E.; Estes, Becky L.; Skinner, Carl N. 2009. Ecological effects of prescribed fire season: a 

literature review and synthesis for managers. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-224. Albany, CA: U.S. Depart-

ment of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station. 80 p.

Kocher, Susan D.; Toman, Eric; Trainor, Sarah F.; and others. 2012. How can we span the boundaries be-

tween wildland fire science and management in the United States? Journal of Forestry. 110(8): 421-428.

Kranke, P. 2010. Evidence-based practice: How to perform and use systematic reviews for clinical decisionmaking. European Journal of Anaesthesiology. 27(9): 763-772.

Krueger, William C.; Kelley, Claudia E. 2000. Describing and categorizing natural resources literature. 

Rangelands. 22(4): 37-39.

Lajeunesse, Marc J. 2010. Achieving synthesis with meta-analysis by combining and comparing all avail-

able studies. Ecology. 91(9): 2561-2564.

Leidolf, Andreas; Bissonette, John A. 2009. The effects of fire on avian communities: spatio-temporal at-

tributes of the literature 1912-2003. International Journal of Wildland Fire. 18: 609-622.

Lerzman, Ken. 1995. Ecology 101. Notes on writing papers and theses. Bulletin of the Ecological Society 

of America. 76(2): 86-90.

Lotan, James E.; Alexander, Martin E.; Arno, Stephen F.; and others. 1981. Effects of fire on flora: A stateof-knowledge review: National fire effects workshop: Proceedings. 1978 April 10-14; Denver, CO. Gen. 

Tech. Rep. WO-16. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 71 p.

Luce, Charles; Morgan, Penny; Dwire, Kathleen; and others. 2012. Climate change, forests, fire, water, 

and fish: Building resilient landscapes, streams, and managers. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-290. Fort 

Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 207 p.

Lupia, Arthur. 2013. Communicating science in politicized environments. Proceedings of the National 

Academy of Sciences. 110(3): 14048-14054.
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-337. 2015 49

Lyon, L. Jack; Brown, James K.; Huff, Mark H.; Smith, Jane Kapler. 2000. Chapter 1: Introduction. In: 

Smith, Jane Kapler (ed.). Wildland fire in ecosystems: effects of fire on fauna. RMRS-GTR-42-volume 

1. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: 1-7.

Marlow, Clayton B. 2000. Perspectives: Science in rangeland management. Rangelands. 22(4): 57-59.

Marshall, Douglas J.; Wimberly, Michael; Bettinger, Pete; Stanturf, John. 2008. Synthesis of knowledge 

of hazardous fuels management in loblolly pine forests. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-110. Asheville, NC: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station. 43 p.

McCaffrey, S.; Olsen, C. 2012b. Eight questions answered: social science and wildfire. Unpublished paper 

on file at: Evanston, IL: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station. 3 p.

McCaffrey, Sarah M., Research Social Scientist 16 May 2014. 2014. [Personal communication]. U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station, Evanston, IL. 

McCaffrey, Sarah M.; Olsen, Christine C. 2012a. Research perspectives on the public and fire management: 

a synthesis of current social science on eight essential questions. Gen. Tech. Rep. NRS-104. Newtown 

Square, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station. 40 p.

McIver, James; Erickson, Karen; Youngblood, Andrew. 2012. Principal short-term findings of the National 

Fire and Fire Surrogate study. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-860. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 210 p.

McKinley, Duncan C.; Ryan, Michael G.; Birdsey, Richard A.; and others. 2011. A synthesis of current 

knowledge on forests and carbon storage in the United States. Ecological Applications. 21(6): 1902-1924.

Merriam-Webster. 2007. Merriam-Webster dictionary. Online: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/synthesis [21 December 2012].

Merriam-Webster. 2012. Merriam-Webster word central. Online: http://www.wordcentral.com/cgi-bin/stu

dent?book=Student&va=synthesis [22 December 2012].

Miller, Melanie. 2000. Chapter 2: Fire autecology. In: Brown, James K.; Smith, Jane Kapler (eds.). Wildland 

fire in ecosystems: effects of fire on flora. RMRS-GTR-42-volume 2. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: 9-34.

Miller, R.F.; Bates, J.D.; Svejcar, T.J.; and others. 2007. Western juniper field guide: asking the right questions to select appropriate management actions. Circular 1321. Reston, VA: U.S. Geological Survey. 11 p.

Miller, Richard F.; Bates, Jon D.; Svejcar, Tony J.; and others. 2005. Biology, ecology, and management 

of western juniper. Tech. Bull. 152. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University Agricultural Experiment 

Station. 77 p.

Murray, J. A. H. (ed.). 1971. Oxford English Dictionary. New York: Oxford University Press. 

Napper, C. 2006. The burned area emergency response treatment catalog (BAERCAT). Tech. Rep. 0625 

1801-SDTDC. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, National Technology 

& Development Program, Watershed, Soil, Air Management. 253 p. Online: http://www.fs.fed.us/eng/

pubs/pdf/BAERCAT/lo_res/06251801L.pdf [2009, June 19]. 

Neary, Daniel G.; Ryan, Kevin C.; DeBano, Leonard F. (eds.). 2005 (revised 2008). Wildland fire in ecosystems: effects of fire on soils and water. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-42-volume 4. Ogden, UT: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 250 p.

Peppin, Donna; Fulé, Peter Z.; Sieg, Carolyn Hull; and others. 2010. Post-wildfire seeding in forests of the 

West: an evidence-based review. Forest Ecology and Management. 260(5): 573-586.

Perelman, Leslie C.; Paradis, James; Barrett, Edward. 2001. The Mayfield electronic handbook of technical and scientific writing. Mountain View, CA: Mayfield Publishing Company, Inc. (Producer). Online: 

http://www.mhhe.com/mayfieldpub/tsw/home.htm [2014, May 15]. 

Popay, Jennie; Roberts, Helen; Snowden, Amanda; and others. 2006. Guidance on the conduct of narrative 

synthesis in systematic reviews. Lancaster, UK: Online: http://www.lancaster.ac.uk/shm/research/nssr/

research/dissemination/publications.php; http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.17

8.3100&rep=rep1&type=pdf. 92 p. 

Puettmann, Klaus J.; Coates, K. David; Messier, Christian. 2009. A critique of silviculture: managing for 

complexity. Washington, DC: Island Press. 208 p.

Pullin, Andrew S.; Stewart, Gavin B. 2006. Guidelines for systematic review in conservation and environmental management. Conservation Biology. 20(6): 1647-1656.

Reckhow, Kenneth H. 1994. Importance of scientific uncertainty in decision making. Environmental 

Management. 18(2): 161-166.

Robichaud, Peter R.; Ashmun, Louise E.; Sims, Bruce D. 2010. Post-fire treatment effectiveness for hillslope stabilization. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-240. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 62 p.

Robichaud, Peter R.; Beyers, Jan L.; Neary, Daniel G. 2000. Evaluating the effectiveness of postfire rehabilitation treatments. Gen. Tech. Rep RMRS-GTR-63. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 85 p.
50 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-337. 2015

Robichaud, Peter R.; Lewis, Sarah A.; Brown, Robert E.; Ashmun, Louise E. 2009. Emergency post-fire 

rehabilitation treatment effects on burned area ecology and long-term restoration. Fire Ecology. 5(1): 

115-128.

Rowley, Jennifer. 2007. The wisdom hierarchy: representations of the DIKW hierarchy. Journal of information science. 33(2): 163-180.

Ruggiero, Leonard F. 2013. The politics of ignorance. The Journal of Wildlife Management. 77(8): 627.

Russell-Smith, Jeremy; Whitehead, Peter J.; Cook, Garry D.; Hoare, James L. 2003. Response of Eucalyptusdominated savanna to frequent fires: lessons from Munmarlary, 1973-1996. Ecological Monographs. 

73(3): 349-375.

Ryan, Kevin C.; Jones, Ann Trinkle; Koerner, Cassandra L.; Lee, Kristine M. (eds.). 2012. Wildland fire 

in ecosystems: effects of fire on cultural resources and archaeology. RMRS-GTR-42-volume 3. Fort 

Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 224 p.

Ryan, Kevin C.; Koerner, Cassandra. 2012. Chapter 2: Fire behavior and effects: principles for archaeologists. In: Ryan, Kevin C.; Jones, Ann Trinkle; Koerner, Cassandra L.; Lee, Kristine M. (eds.). Wildland 

fire in ecosystems: effects of fire on cultural resources and archaeology. RMRS-GTR-42-volume 3. Fort 

Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: 15-84.

Ryan, Michael G.; Harmon, Mark E.; Birdsey, Richard A.; and others. 2010. A synthesis of the science on 

forests and carbon for U.S. forests. Issues in Ecology. 13. 16 p.

Ryan, Michael G.; Vose, James M. 2012. Chapter 2: Effects of climatic variability and change. In: Vose, 

James M.; Peterson, David L.; Patel-Weynand, Toral (eds.). Effects of climatic variability and change 

on forest ecosystems: a comprehensive science synthesis for the U.S. forest sector. PNW-GTR-870. 

Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station: 7-95.

Saab, Victoria; Block, William; Russell, Robin; and others. 2007. Birds and burns of the Interior West. 

PNW-GTR-712. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest 

Research Station. 23 p.

Sandberg, David V.; Ottmar, Roger D.; Peterson, Janice L.; Core, John. 2002. Wildland fire in ecosystems: 

effects of fire on air. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-42-volume 5. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 79 p.

Sheikheldin, Gussai; Krantzberg, Gail; Schaefer, Karl. 2010. Science-seeking behaviour of conservation 

authorities in Ontario. Environmental Management. 45: 912-921.

Simkin, M. V.; Roychowdhury, V. P. 2003. Read before you cite! Complex systems. 14: 269-274.

Smith, Jane Kapler (ed.). 2000. Wildland fire in ecosystems: effects of fire on fauna. Gen. Tech. Rep. 

RMRS-GTR-42-volume 1. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain 

Research Station. 83 p.

Smith, Jane Kapler; Fischer, William C. 1997. Fire ecology of the forest habitat types of northern Idaho. 

INT-GTR-363. Ogden, UT: Intermountain Research Station. 142 p.

Smith, Jane Kapler; Zouhar, Kristin; Sutherland, Steve; Brooks, Matthew L. 2008. Chapter 16. Fire and 

nonnative plants—summary and conclusions. In: Zouhar, Kristin; Smith, Jane Kapler; Sutherland, Steve; 

Brooks, Matthew L. (eds.). Wildland fire in ecosystems: fire and nonnative invasive plants. RMRSGTR-42-volume 6. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain 

Research Station: 293-296.

Smith, Rebecca; Lee, Martha E.; Kim, Yeon-Su. 2013. Joint Fire Science Program publication survey—

feedback from fire professionals, final report. Online: http://www.firescience.gov/projects/11-C-01-02/

project/11-C-01-02_final_report.pdf 60 p.

Solomon, Susan; Qin, Dahe; Manning, Martin; and others. 2007. Box TS.1: Treatment of uncertainties in 

the Working Group I assessment. In: Solomon, Susan; and others (eds.). Climate change 2007: Technical 

Summary. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental 

Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press: 22-23.

Sommers, William T.; Coloff, Stanley G.; Conard, Susan G. 2011. Fire history and climate change. Report 

submitted to the Joint Fire Science Program for Project 09-2-01-09. Boise, ID: Joint Fire Science Program. 

Online: http://www.firescience.gov/projects/09-2-01-9/project/09-2-01-9_09_2_01_9_Deliverable_01.

pdf. 215 p.

Stephens, Scott L.; McIver, James D.; Boerner, Ralph E.; and others. 2012. The effects of forest fuelreduction treatments in the United States. BioScience. 62(6): 549-560.

Stone, Katharine R. 2009. Morus alba. In: Fire Effects Information System. U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory, Producer. Online: http://

www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/plants/tree/moralb/all.html. 

Stone, Katharine R.; Pilliod, David S.; Dwire, Kathleen A.; and others. 2010. Fuel reduction management 

practices in riparian areas of the Western USA. Environmental Management. 46: 91-100.
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-337. 2015 51

Thomas, Jack Ward; Burchfield, James. 2000. Science, politics, and land management. Rangelands. 22(4): 

45-48.

Thompson, Paul B. 1986. Uncertainty arguments in environmental issues. Environmental Ethics. 8: 59-75.

Timmons, Rebecca S.; deBano, Leonard; Ryan, Kevin C. 2012. Chapter 9: Implications of fire management 

on cultural resources. In: Ryan, Kevin C.; Jones, Ann Trinkle; Koerner, Cassandra L.; Lee, Kristine M. 

(eds.). Wildland fire in ecosystems: effects of fire on cultural resources and diversity. RMRS-GTR42-volume 3. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain 

Research Station: 71-190.

Tufte, Edward R. 1997. Visual explanations. Cheshire, CT: Graphics Press. 156 p.

U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2011. U.S. Department of Agriculture Plain Writing Act compliance report. 

Online: http://www.usda.gov/documents/PL-Report-final.pdf. [25 May 2014].

Underwood, A. J.; Chapman, M. G. 2003. Power, precaution, Type II error and sampling design in assessment of environmental impacts. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology. 296: 49-70.

Vose, James M.; Peterson, David L.; Patel-Weynand, Toral (eds.). 2012. Effects of climatic variability and 

change on forest ecosystems: a comprehensive science synthesis for the U.S. forest sector. Gen. Tech. 

Rep. PNW-GTR-870. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest 

Research Station. 265 p.

Webster, Jane; Watson, Richard T. 2002. Analyzing the past to prepare for the future: Writing a literature 

review. Management Information Systems Quarterly. 26(2): xiii-xxiii.

Werth, Paul A.; Potter, Brian E.; Clements, Craig B.; and others (eds.). 2011. Synthesis of knowledge of 

extreme fire behavior: Volume 1 for managers. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-854. Portland, OR: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 144 p.

Wright, Vita. 2006. Overcoming barriers to the use of science in national parks (session summary). In: 

Harmon, David (ed.). People, places, and parks: Proceedings of the 2005 George Wright Society Conference on parks, protected areas, and cultural sites. Hancock, MI: The George Wright Society: 400-404.

Zouhar, Kris. 2010. Rhamnus cathartica, R. davurica. In: Fire Effects Information System. U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory, Producer. 

Online: http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/plants/shrub/rhaspp/all.html. [29 December 2012].

Zouhar, Kristin; Munger, Gregory T.; Smith, Jane Kapler. 2008b. Chapter 12. Gaps in scientific knowledge 

about fire and nonnative invasive plants. In: Zouhar, Kristin; Smith, Jane Kapler; Sutherland, Steve; 

Brooks, Matthew L. (eds.). Wildland fire in ecosystems: fire and nonnative invasive plants. RMRSGTR-42-volume 6. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain 

Research Station: 243-259.

Zouhar, Kristin; Smith, Jane Kapler; Sutherland, Steve. 2008a. Chapter 2. Effects of fire on nonnative 

invasive plants and invasibility of wildland ecosystems. In: Zouhar, Kristin; Smith, Jane Kapler; Sutherland, Steve; Brooks, Matthew L. (eds.). Wildland fire in ecosystems: fire and nonnative invasive plants. 

RMRS-GTR-42-volume 6. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky 

Mountain Research Station: 7-31.

Zouhar, Kristin; Smith, Jane Kapler; Sutherland, Steve; Brooks, Matthew L. (eds.). 2008c. Wildland fire 

in ecosystems: fire and nonnative invasive plants. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-42-volume 6. Fort 

Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 355 p.
52 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-337. 2015

Appendix A—Methods _____________________________________________

This report is based on information in the literature, examination of syntheses on fire 

management topics, informal interviews, and personal experience. 

I used two broad-based citation databases (Scopus and Web of Science) and one 

forestry database (FS Info) to search for literature on reviewing and synthesizing information. These were searched on keywords such as “literature review,” “synthesis,” and 

“writing” (Table A.1). The searches generated long lists of citations that were further 

refined by searching within results and limiting subject categories. From the refined 

searches, I examined references covering information management, literature reviews, 

meta-analysis, systematic reviews, and science delivery (also called “technology transfer,” 

“science brokering,” and “boundary spanning”). Many of these references focused on 

information management and synthesis in general. Others focused on specialized fields, 

mostly in the health sciences or natural resource management. I “chased backward” from 

these documents to find background references and “chased forward” from those that 

seemed conceptually innovative to see if their thoughts had been further developed or 

their suggestions had been implemented. For a description of “chasing” techniques, see 

Items 4 and 5 (p. 14) in Section 2.1, “Complete, Unbiased Information Base.”

To find syntheses on wildland fire, I examined all JFSP-sponsored syntheses, whether 

published as stand-alone documents (listed at https://www.firescience.gov/JFSP_publications.cfm#tab5), in refereed journals, or by the Collaboration for Environmental 

Evidence (http://www.environmentalevidence.org/). I chased backward from these to 

find earlier syntheses on fire in the United States. I examined all syntheses mentioned 

as examples by interviewees.

Table A.1—Criteria used for citation searches in this report.

Location of 

information

Database or 

search engine Date of search Search criteria

Appendix A. 

Methods 

FSInfo Nov 2013 Searched for subject and/or keyword including the following in various 

combinations: applied science, literature review, literature reviews, literature search, literature survey, synthesis, technology transfer, writing.

Scopus Nov 2013 Searched for title, abstract, and/or keywords including the following in various combinations: article, ecological synthesis, information retrieval, learning, literature review, methodology, publication, reading, research, review, 

science communication, synthesis, teaching, writing. 

Limited to English-language literature. 

Web of Science Nov 2013 Searched for topics that include “literature review.”

Searched for results that include “writing.”

Limited categories to communication, education, forestry, information science, and related terms.

Figure 1, 

Section 3.1

FRAMES Resource Catalog27 Nov 2012 Internal search provided by Diana Olson: Searched for titles containing 

((synthesis or review) + fire).

Figure 1 FRAMES Resource Catalog11 May 2014 Counted documents containing each year from 1960 through 2009, then 

calculated totals per decade.

Section 3.1, 

Table 9

FRAMES Resource Catalog13 May 2014 Searched documents for synthesis, then review, then added them and 

subtracted (synthesis + review) to remove duplicates. 

Citation Retrieval System 

(FEIS)

13 May 2014 Searched for keywords (review + fire).

Fire Research 

Institute

13 May 2014 Searched for synthesis in title, then review in title, then added them.
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-337. 2015 53

For insights about writing syntheses and applying them to management, I sought 

help from those most closely involved: scientists, managers, and science delivery specialists. I invited 69 people to be interviewed. Of those, 40 responded. I interviewed 

35 (Table A.2) and received helpful correspondence from several others. Interviewees 

were selected based on field of expertise, geographic location, agency or employer, and 

recommendations from other interviewees. The resulting group was diverse (FigureA.1). 

Table A.2—Interviewees for this project. 

 Interviewee Position, agency, location

John Barborinas Wildland Fire Management Planner, National Interagency Fire 

Center, DOI Bureau of Indian Affairs, Ignacio, CO

Jamie Barbour Program Manager, Focused Science Delivery and Goods, 

Services, and Values Program, USDA Forest Service, Pacific 

Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR

Dave Campbell District Ranger (retired), West Fork District, Bitterroot National 

Forest, Darby, MT

Nan Christianson Assistant Station Director, Communications, USDA Forest Service, 

Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fort Collins, CO

Nate Fayram Project Coordinator, Tallgrass Prairie and Oak Savanna Fire 

Science Consortium, Madison, WI

Bob Gillaspy State Rangeland Management Specialist, Oregon State Office, 

USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service, Portland, OR

Richy Harrod Deputy Fire Staff Officer, Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest, 

Wenatchee, WA

Christel Kern Research Forester, USDA Forest Service, Northern Research 

Station, Grand Rapids, MN

Paul Langowski Regional Branch Chief, Fuels and Fire Ecology, Rocky Mountain 

Region, USDA Forest Service, Golden, CO

Sherry Leis Program Leader, Great Plains Fire Science Consortium, 

Springfield, MO

Alan Long Administrative Director, Southern Fire Exchange, Tall Timbers 

Research Station, Tallahassee, FL; Professor Emeritus, 

University of Florida, Gainesville, FL

Charlie Luce Research Hydrologist, USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain 

Research Station, Boise, ID

Chris Mallek Fire Ecologist, Great Basin Science Delivery and California Fire 

Science Consortium - Sierra Nevada Region, University of 

California, Davis, CA

Joe Marschall Coordinator, Oak Woodlands and Forests Fire Consortium, 

University of Missouri, Columbia, MO

Rhonda Mazza Science Writer/Editor, editor of Science Findings, USDA Forest 

Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR

Richard F. Miller Professor Emeritus, Range and Fire Ecology, Oregon State 

University, Corvallis, OR

(continued)
54 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-337. 2015

Dan Mindar Fire Application Specialist, DOI National Park Service, Rocky 

Mountain Research Station, Luna, NM

Helen Mohr Director, Consortium of Appalachian Fire Managers and Scientists, 

Clemson, SC

Eugénie MontBlanc Coordinator, Great Basin Science Delivery, Reno, NV

Penelope Morgan Professor, Department of Forest, Rangeland, and Fire Sciences, 

University of Idaho, Moscow, ID

Caroline Noble Fire Ecologist, Southeast Region, National Park Service, Tall 

Timbers Research Station, Tallahassee, FL

Jennifer Northway Assistant Fire Ecologist, Alaska Region, National Park Service, 

Fairbanks, AK

Tami Parkinson-Whitford Fire Application Specialist, USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain 

Research Station, Boise, ID

Elizabeth Pickett Executive Director, Hawaii Wildfire Management Organization/

Pacific Fire Exchange, Kamuela, HI 

Zach Prusak Florida Fire Manager, Florida Chapter Office, The Nature 

Conservancy, Altamonte Springs, FL

Mike Rauscher Managing Editor, Forest Encyclopedia Network, Leicester, NC

Jeff Rose Associate District Manager, DOI Bureau of Land Management, 

Burns, OR

Michael G. Ryan Research Ecologist (retired), USDA Forest Service, Rocky 

Mountain Research Station, Fort Collins, CO

Dean Simon Fire and Forest Management, North Carolina Wildlife Resources 

Commission, Lawndale, NC 

William T. Sommers Research Professor, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA

Mary Taber Fire Ecologist (retired), National Interagency Fire Center, DOI 

Bureau of Indian Affairs, Boise, ID

Jim Thinnes Regional Silviculturist (retired), Rocky Mountain Region, USDA 

Forest Service, Golden, CO

Rachel White Science Writer/Editor, USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest 

Research Station, Portland, OR

Brett Williams Fire Ecologist, Wildland Fire Center, Eglin Air Force Base, 

Niceville, FL

Robert Ziel Program Coordinator, Lake States Fire Science Consortium, 

Marquette, MI

Table A.2—(Continued.) 

 Interviewee Position, agency, location
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-337. 2015 55

Figure A.1—Participants in interviews.
56 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-337. 2015

This was a convenience sample rather than a random or systematic sample, but I noted 

that few major new concepts emerged after about 10 interviews. On the other hand, 

every person I spoke with provided unique insights about practical aspects of synthesis 

for fire management: how to produce better syntheses, how to deliver them more efficiently, and how to get them used appropriately. Every interviewee, without exception, 

gave my questions full attention and offered new ideas. I am deeply grateful for their 

time, consideration, and expertise.

Interviews were conducted as informal conversations. Each lasted 30 to 60 minutes 

and covered the following questions, whether they were asked explicitly or arose from 

the flow of conversation:

1. What makes a scientifically defensible synthesis? Do you have any examples 

(good or bad)?

2. What makes a synthesis especially useful to field practitioners? Do you have 

any examples (good or bad)?

3. Is “outdatedness” a problem for syntheses? If it is, how can it be addressed?

4. Do you have suggestions on how to help practitioners use syntheses more 

efficiently and effectively?

While this report is based on the content of many documents and reflections from 

many experts, it is also based on my own convictions. I have taught technical writing 

at the undergraduate and graduate levels, and I have been writing syntheses on fire and 

teaching about wildland fire for nearly 40 years. For the past 20 years, I have edited 

syntheses on fire effects for the Fire Effects Information System (http://www.feis-crs.

org/feis/) and other publication outlets. I hope this experience has infused the project 

with insight rather than bias, but I am responsible for the content either way. 

Several citation databases were searched to produce tables and figures in this report, 

and the search logic is documented in Table A.1.
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-337. 2015 57

Appendix B—Guiding Questions for Planning a Synthesis

This detailed list can be used to guide synthesis planning. The topics below correspond to the “development stages” in Figure 2 (p. 3) but offer more detail in regard to 

each question. The items under “Initiating a Synthesis” must be addressed before work 

can go forward. Questions and statements in the next sections should be considered in 

the planning process and again at each development stage. These guidelines are not 

intended to be prescriptive or all-encompassing but rather to offer a starting point for 

synthesis planners.

1. Initiating a Synthesis

1.1. What is the potential synthesis for? Write clear objectives. 

1.2. Who needs it? Identify the audience(s) and weigh their needs for information.

1.3. What is it about? What are the guiding questions or objectives?

1.3.1. Is it a topic, an issue, or a question about a management practice? List 

examples of questions that managers should be able to address using 

the synthesis.

1.3.2. Develop a clearly focused topic statement or question. This could be 

a broad topic like “climate change and fire regimes,” a broad question 

like “How does fire affect invasion by nonnative plant species?” or a 

very specific question like “Does postfire seeding reduce the spread of 

invasive plants in the western states?”8

1.3.3. Develop the focus further, making it clear enough to help determine 

the breadth of the search for information, the criteria for including 

information, and the type of synthesis to be produced.

1.3.4. Is the potential synthesis national or regional in scope? If national with 

regional variation, include managers from different regions to figure 

out how regional needs can be addressed.

1.4. Who has the information, and how much is there?

1.4.1. How much information is available from various potential sources—

academic journals, theses and dissertations, government publications, 

monitoring data, management case studies, management experience?

1.4.2. If information is needed from managers, who can furnish it?

1.5. Is synthesis feasible? (Also see Table 2, p. 7.)

1.5.1. What kind of synthesis would best serve managers’ needs—qualitative 

review, systematic review, or meta-analysis? An approach that combines these techniques may serve managers best.

1.5.2. Is there enough information from the desired sources to produce the 

kind of synthesis needed? For example, if a rigorous systematic review or meta-analysis is needed, is enough quantitative information 

available to create a credible product? If management case studies are 

needed, are enough available to illustrate the range of treatments or 

outcomes that the synthesis needs to cover? 

1.6. What should the final products be, and who can produce them? 

1.6.1. Who can write the synthesis or various parts of it? Who has the right 

background, the time, the interest, the writing ability? Should different 

people (scientist, manager, science delivery specialist) take the lead for 

different sections?

8 In fact, all of these have been the subject of syntheses sponsored by the JFSP. See Sommers and others 

(2011), Zouhar and others (2008c), and Peppin and others (2010).
58 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-337. 2015

1.6.2. Are different products needed for different audiences and purposes? 

Should different people take the lead for the main synthesis and any 

fact sheets, handouts, or summaries that are produced from it? 

2. Searching for Information

2.1. What kinds of information should be used? (Build on the discussion from questions 1.4 and 1.5 above.)

2.1.1. Develop a list of potential electronic search engines and databases. 

Then develop a search algorithm to use for each. It is likely to take 

iteration to get the search algorithms right. Document the algorithms 

finally adopted. 

2.1.2. Develop a list of other potential information sources and a procedure for systematically obtaining information from each. Document 

 procedures.

2.1.3. If management input is needed, refine the procedure for obtaining it 

with a small, willing group. Optimize the use of their time. Minimize 

iteration.

2.2. Does the topic have regional variation? If different kinds of information are 

needed from different regions, develop ways to address the varying needs. 

2.3. Revisit question 1.5.2 again: Is the available information adequate for the 

products desired? 

3. Writing and Packaging

3.1. How much background information should be provided? Base decisions on how 

the synthesis will be used, both by managers and by other audiences.

3.2. How much context should be given, and where should it be placed?

3.2.1. Would information source tables be helpful? Should they be placed in 

the text or in appendices?

3.2.2. Is the information hedged appropriately and as precisely as possible?

3.2.3. Are information gaps identified clearly?

3.3. What organization scheme will work best for managers?

3.3.1. Should the synthesis be organized by topic and subtopic? By region? 

By issue or management question? 

3.3.2. What navigation aids (page references, electronic links, etc.) would be 

helpful?

3.4. Are management implications fully developed?

3.4.1. What is the best role for managers in regard to implications? Should 

they be authors? co-authors? reviewers? 

3.4.2. Are management implications written as clearly and directly as possible?

3.4.3. Is the relationship between the information base and management implications clear, so readers know what the authority is for the implications?

3.5. How can packaging improve usefulness? What features make documents easy 

for managers to use? 

3.5.1. Look at tables, graphics, fonts, use of white space, and other features. 

3.5.2. Consider use of color, callouts, and other ways to emphasize important 

points and make the document visually appealing. 
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-337. 2015 59

4. Reviewing and Revising

4.1. Does the draft synthesis meet the need as stated in the objectives (1.1 above)? 

Obtain review comments from a variety of potential users, especially in regard 

to management implications. 

4.1.1. If the synthesis has different information for different regions, obtain 

reviews from all regions. 

4.1.2. If reviewers and authors disagree substantially, bring them into a discussion so they can learn from one another and improve the synthesis.

4.2. Is the information basis clear, and does it support the conclusions and management implications?

4.3. Is the writing clear? Is the organization clear and useful?

4.4. Is the packaging clear, useful, and appealing?

4.5. Are the management implications clear, highlighted, easy to find? 

5. Delivering Final Products

5.1. Where will managers look for the synthesis and associated products? Managers and science delivery specialists already have communication networks and 

know what kinds of products and techniques appeal to those who need this 

information. Encourage creativity and variety in advertising, marketing, and 

training. Encourage sharing of materials and techniques. 

5.1.1. Do different products (the full synthesis and associated summaries, 

fact sheets, etc.) need different distribution strategies? 

5.1.2. Are different strategies needed to reach different audiences, both within and outside the fire management community? 

5.2. What are the opportunities for delivering in person—meetings, conferences, 

webinars?

5.3. How can the synthesis be integrated into education and professional development?

5.4. Are any tools needed to help managers figure out how to use the synthesis?


To learn more about RMRS publications or search our online titles:

www.fs.fed.us/rm/publications

www.treesearch.fs.fed.us

Federal Recycling Program Printed on Recycled Paper

In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) 

civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, 

and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from 

discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity 

(including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/

parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or 

reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted 

or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing 

deadlines vary by program or incident. 

Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program 

information (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should 

contact the responsible Agency or USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice 

and TTY) or contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. 

Additionally, program information may be made available in languages other than English. 

To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination 

Complaint Form, AD-3027, found online at http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_

cust.html and at any USDA office or write a letter addressed to USDA and provide in 

the letter all of the information requested in the form. To request a copy of the complaint 

form, call (866) 632-9992. Submit your completed form or letter to USDA by: (1) mail: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 

Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, D.C. 20250-9410; (2) fax: (202) 690-7442; or 

(3) email: program.intake@usda.gov.