Relative importance of fuel management, ignition management and weather for area burned: evidence from five landscape–fire–succession models
Geoffrey J. Cary A B H , Mike D. Flannigan C , Robert E. Keane D , Ross A. Bradstock B E , Ian D. Davies A , James M. Lenihan F , Chao Li G , Kimberley A. Logan C and Russell A. Parsons DA The Fenner School of Environment and Society, Linnaeus Way (Building 48), College of Medicine, Biology & The Environment, The Australian National University, Canberra, ACT 0200, Australia.
B Bushfire Cooperative Research Centre, Level 5, 340 Albert St., East Melbourne, VIC 3002, Australia.
C Canadian Forest Service, 1219 Queen St. East, Sault Ste Marie, ON, P6A 2E5, Canada.
D USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Missoula Fire Sciences Laboratory, 5775 W Broadway St., Missoula, MT 59808, USA.
E Department of Environment and Climate Change (NSW), PO Box 1967, Hurstville, NSW 1481, Australia.
F USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Corvallis Forestry Sciences Laboratory, 3200 SW Jefferson Way, Corvallis, OR 97331, USA.
G Canadian Forest Service, Northern Forestry Centre, 5320-122nd St., Edmonton, AB, T6H 3S5, Canada.
H Corresponding author. Email: geoffrey.cary@anu.edu.au
International Journal of Wildland Fire 18(2) 147-156 https://doi.org/10.1071/WF07085
Submitted: 27 June 2007 Accepted: 17 June 2008 Published: 3 April 2009
Abstract
The behaviour of five landscape fire models (CAFÉ, FIRESCAPE, LAMOS(HS), LANDSUM and SEM-LAND) was compared in a standardised modelling experiment. The importance of fuel management approach, fuel management effort, ignition management effort and weather in determining variation in area burned and number of edge pixels burned (a measure of potential impact on assets adjacent to fire-prone landscapes) was quantified for a standardised modelling landscape. Importance was measured as the proportion of variation in area or edge pixels burned explained by each factor and all interactions among them. Weather and ignition management were consistently more important for explaining variation in area burned than fuel management approach and effort, which were found to be statistically unimportant. For the number of edge pixels burned, weather and ignition management were generally more important than fuel management approach and effort. Increased ignition management effort resulted in decreased area burned in all models and decreased number of edge pixels burned in three models. The findings demonstrate that year-to-year variation in weather and the success of ignition management consistently prevail over the effects of fuel management on area burned in a range of modelled ecosystems.
Additional keywords: CAFÉ, fire management, FIRESCAPE, LAMOS, LANDSUM, model comparison, SEM-LAND, simulation modelling.
Acknowledgements
Sandra Lavorel contributed suggestions regarding the experimental design. Hong He contributed suggestions about approaches for analysing the results and interpreting the findings. Scott Stephens and Malcolm Gill are gratefully acknowledged for comments on an earlier manuscript. The Program for Energy Research and Development (PERD) of Natural Resources Canada and the US National Fire Plan are gratefully acknowledged for partially funding the present research.
Bessie WC , Johnson EA (1995) The relative importance of fuels and weather on fire behaviour in subalpine forests. Ecology 76, 747–762.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Bradstock RA, Bedward M, Gill AM , Cohn JS (2005) Which mosaic? A landscape ecological approach for evaluating interactions between fire regimes, habitat and animals. Wildlife Research 32, 409–423.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Cary GJ (2005) Research priorities arising from the 2002–2003 bushfire season in south-eastern Australia. Australian Forestry 68, 104–111.
Cary GJ, Keane RK, Gardner RH, Lavorel S, Flannigan M, Davies ID, Li C, Lenihan JM, Rupp TS , Mouillot F (2006) Comparison of the sensitivity of landscape-fire succession models to variation in terrain, fuel pattern, climate and weather. Landscape Ecology 21, 121–137.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Cumming SG (2005) Effective fire suppression in boreal forests. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 35, 772–786.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Flannigan MD, Logan KA, Amiro BD, Skinner WR , Stocks BJ (2005) Future area burned in Canada. Climatic Change 72, 1–16.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | CAS |
Keeley JE, Fotheringham CJ , Morais M (1999) Reexamining fire suppression impacts on brushland fire regimes. Science 284, 1829–1832.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | CAS | PubMed |
Li C (2000) Reconstruction of natural fire regimes through ecological modelling. Ecological Modelling 134, 129–144.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Radeloff VC, Hammer RB, Stewart SI, Fried JS, Holcomb SS , McKeefry JF (2005) The wildland–urban interface in the United States. Ecological Applications 15, 799–805.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Richardson CW (1981) Stochastic simulation of daily precipitation, temperature, and solar radiation. Water Resources Research 17, 182–190.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Shang BZ, He HS, Crow TR , Shifley SR (2004) Fuel load reductions and fire risk in central hardwood forests of the United States: a spatial simulation study. Ecological Modelling 180, 89–102.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Swetnam TW (1993) Fire history and climate change in giant sequoia groves. Science 262, 885–889.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | PubMed |
Ward PC, Tithecott AG , Wotton BM (2001) Reply – A reexamination of the effects of fire suppression in the boreal forest. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 31, 1467–1480.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
