4.7 Article

Forest fuel mapping and evaluation of LANDFIRE fuel maps in Boulder County, Colorado, USA

Journal

FOREST ECOLOGY AND MANAGEMENT
Volume 257, Issue 7, Pages 1603-1612

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.foreco.2009.01.020

Keywords

Fuel mapping; LANDFIRE; Classification and regression trees; Fire simulation; Colorado Front Range; Geographic information system; FARSITE

Categories

Funding

  1. National Science Foundation Geography Program [BCS 0540928]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

A key challenge in modern wildfire mitigation and forest management is accurate mapping of forest fuels in order to determine spatial fire hazard, plan mitigation efforts, and manage active fires. This study quantified forest fuels of the montane zone of Boulder County, CO, USA in an effort to aid wildfire mitigation planning and provide a metric by which LANDFIRE national fuel maps may be compared. Using data from 196 randomly stratified field plots, pre-existing vegetation maps, and derived variables, predictive classification and regression tree models were created for four fuel parameters necessary for spatial fire simulation with FARSITE (surface fuel model, canopy bulk density, canopy base height, and stand height), These predictive models accounted for 56-62% of the variability in forest fuels and produced fuel maps that predicted 91.4% and 88.2% of the burned area of two historic fires simulated in the FARSITE model. Simulations of areas burned based on LANDFIRE national fuel maps were less accurate, burning 77.7% and 40.3% of the historic fire areas. Our results indicate that fuel mapping efforts that utilize local area information and biotic as well as abiotic predictors will more accurately simulate fire spread rates and reflect the inherent variability of forested environments than do current LANDFIRE data products. (C) 2009 Elsevier 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