4.4 Article

Fire history of a central Nevada pinyon-juniper woodland

Journal

CANADIAN JOURNAL OF FOREST RESEARCH
Volume 39, Issue 8, Pages 1589-1599

Publisher

CANADIAN SCIENCE PUBLISHING
DOI: 10.1139/X09-078

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. Great Basin Cooperative Ecosystem Studies Unit [FAA010017]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Our study reconstructed fire history (1445-2006) from tree rings for a Great Basin single-needle pinyon pine (Pinus monophylla Torr & Frem.)-Utah juniper (Juniperus osteosperma (Torr.) Little) woodland. Information from multiple lines of evidence, including dateable fire scars (n = 83), tree demography, and charred coarse woody debris, was used to quantify fire frequency, severity, and extent. Fire cycle models were developed using survivorship analysis of time-since-fire estimates. We investigated the spatial and temporal variation in historical fire regime, addressing the plausibility of postsettlement fire exclusion as an explanation for increased woodland area and density since the late 1800s. Historical fire regime was characterized by infrequent, small, high-severity fires. Estimated fire cycle (1570-1880) was 427 years, with no evidence of postsettlement stand-replacing fires. Topographic analyses indicated that in this drought-prone landscape, more mesic conditions favor continuous fuels that lead to more frequent or extensive fire. Superposed epoch analysis showed increased fire occurrence during drought years but with no influence of antecedent climatic conditions. More frequent grassland and shrubland fires were recorded by fire scars near valley floors. Thus, anthropogenic fire exclusion in adjacent, shrub-dominated communities presents a plausible mechanism for woodland expansion in the study area. However, there is little ecological justification for reintroducing fire to areas of historic woodland, where effects of fire exclusion have been minimal.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available