4.7 Article

Prescribed fire mortality of Sierra Nevada mixed conifer tree species: effects of crown damage and forest floor combustion

Journal

FOREST ECOLOGY AND MANAGEMENT
Volume 162, Issue 2-3, Pages 261-271

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/S0378-1127(01)00521-7

Keywords

logistic regression; giant sequoia; mortality models; fuel loads; fire effects; California black oak

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Logistic regression equations of prescribed fire mortality were developed for white fir (Abies concolor [Gord. and Glend.] Lindl.), sugar pine (Pinus lambertiana Dougl.), ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa Laws.), incense-cedar (Calocedrus decurrens [Torr.] Floren.), and giant sequoia (Sequoiadendron giganteum [Lindley] Buchholz) in the southern Sierra Nevada, California. A total of 1025 trees were analyzed in this study. Variables included in the mortality equations are diameter at breast height, percent crown volume scorched, crown scorch height, and local forest floor consumption. The likelihood ratio 7,2 was highly significant (P < 0.0001) for all models developed and the receiver operating curve statistic ranged from 0.736 to 0.997 indicating good overall model performance. None of the logistic regression models developed for California black oak (Quercus kelloggii Newb.) produced a maximum likelihood estimate indicating that the variables measured were not significant predictors of mortality. Probability of death is lower for giant sequoia, incense-cedar, and ponderosa pine at high levels of percent crown volume scorched when compared to sugar pine and white fir. Forest floor consumption was a significant factor in the majority of the models developed indicating that mortality is not solely a function of crown damage. These models may be useful to forest managers planning prescribed fires and to ecologists interested in modeling the effects of fire on mixed conifer forests. (C) 2002 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available