4.7 Article

Anthropogenic influences on potential fire spread in a pyrogenic ecosystem of Florida, USA

Journal

LANDSCAPE ECOLOGY
Volume 19, Issue 2, Pages 153-165

Publisher

KLUWER ACADEMIC PUBL
DOI: 10.1023/B:LAND.0000021714.97148.ac

Keywords

fire modeling; fuel fragmentation; FARSIDE; historic; pyrogenic; Southeast US

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Fire has historically been an important ecological factor maintaining southeastern U. S. vegetation. Humans have altered natural fire regimes by fragmenting fuels, introducing exotic species, and suppressing fires. Little is known about how these alterations specifically affect spatial fire extent and pattern. We applied historic (1920 and 1943) and current (1990) GIS fuels maps and the FARSITE fire spread model to quantify the differences between historic and current fire spread distributions. We held all fire modeling variables (wind speed and direction, cloud cover, precipitation, humidity, air temperature, fuel moistures, ignition source and location) constant with exception of the fuel models representing different time periods. Model simulations suggest that fires during the early 1900's burned freely across the landscape, while current fires are much smaller, restricted by anthropogenic influences. Fire extent declined linearly with patch density, and there was a quadratic relationship between fire extent and percent landscape covered by anthropogenic features. We found that as little as 10 percent anthropogenic landcover caused a 50 percent decline in fire extent. Most landscapes (conservation or non-conservation areas) are now influenced by anthropogenic features which disrupt spatial fire behavior disproportionately to their actual size. These results suggest that land managers using fire to restore or maintain natural ecosystem function in pyrogenic systems will have to compensate for anthropogenic influences in their burn planning.

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