Relative importance of fuel management, ignition management and weather for area burned: evidence from five landscape–fire–succession modelsGeoffrey 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 D
A 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: firstname.lastname@example.org
International Journal of Wildland Fire 18(2) 147-156 http://dx.doi.org/10.1071/WF07085
Submitted: 27 June 2007 Accepted: 17 June 2008 Published: 3 April 2009
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.