4.5 Article

Validation of remote sensing of burn severity in south-eastern US ecosystems

Journal

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF WILDLAND FIRE
Volume 20, Issue 3, Pages 453-464

Publisher

CSIRO PUBLISHING
DOI: 10.1071/WF10013

Keywords

Apalachicola National Forest; burn monitoring; CBI; composite burn index; depression swamp; differenced normalised burn ratio; dNBR; ecological change; NBR; normalised burn ratio; Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge; Osceola National Forest; prescribed fire; sandhill; upland pine; wet flatwood; wildfire

Categories

Funding

  1. Joint Fires Science Program [06-2-1-31]
  2. US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
  3. Tall Timbers Research Station and Land Conservancy

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We assessed an existing method of remote sensing of wildland fire burn severity for its applicability in south-eastern USA vegetation types. This method uses Landsat satellite imagery to calculate the Normalised Burn Ratio (NBR) of reflectance bands sensitive to fire effects, and the change in NBR from pre- to post fire (dNBR) to estimate burn severity. To ground-truth ranges of NBR and dNBR that correspond to levels of burn severity, we measured severity using the Composite Burn Index at 731 locations stratified by plant community type, season of measurement, and time since fire. Best-fit curves relating Composite Burn Index to NBR or dNBR were used to determine reflectance value breakpoints that delimit levels of burn severity. Remotely estimated levels of burn severity within 3 months following fire had an average of 78% agreement with ground measurements using NBR and 75% agreement using dNBR. However, percentage agreement varied among habitat types and season of measurement, with either NBR or dNBR being advantageous under specific combinations of conditions. The results suggest this method will be useful for monitoring burned area and burn severity in south-eastern USA vegetation types if the provided recommendations and limitations are considered.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available