4.7 Article

Spatial models for inferring topographic controls on historical low-severity fire in the eastern Cascade Range of Washington, USA

期刊

LANDSCAPE ECOLOGY
卷 23, 期 2, 页码 227-240

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10980-007-9188-1

关键词

topographic controls; historical fire regimes; spatial statistics; eastern Washington; scale dependence

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Fire regimes are complex systems that represent an aggregate of spatial and temporal events whose statistical properties are scale dependent. Despite the breadth of research regarding the spatial controls on fire regime variability, few datasets are available with sufficient resolution to test spatially explicit hypotheses. We used a spatially distributed network of georeferenced fire-scarred trees to investigate the spatial structure of fire occurrence at multiple scales. Mantel's tests and geostatistical analysis of fire-occurrence time series led to inferences about the mechanisms that generated spatial patterns of historical fire synchrony (multiple trees recording fire in a single year) in eastern Washington, USA. The spatial autocorrelation structure of historical fire regimes varied within and among sites, with clearer patterns in the complex rugged terrain of the Cascade Range than in more open and rolling terrain further north and east. Results illustrate that the statistical spatial characteristics of fire regimes change with landform characteristics within a forest type, suggesting that simple relationships between fire frequency, fire synchrony, and forest type do not exist. Quantifying the spatial structures in fire occurrence associated with topographic variation showed that fire regime variability depends on both landscape structure and the scale of measurement. Spatially explicit fire-scar data open new possibilities for analysis and interpretation, potentially informing the design and application of fire management on landscapes, including hazardous fuel treatments and the use of fire for ecosystem restoration.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据