4.7 Article Proceedings Paper

Analyzing the effectiveness of alternative fuel reductions of a forested landscape in Northeastern China

期刊

FOREST ECOLOGY AND MANAGEMENT
卷 259, 期 7, 页码 1255-1261

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.foreco.2009.12.022

关键词

Economic analysis; Fire risk; Forest; Fuel reduction; LANDIS; Northeastern China

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Successful management of forest fire risk in the Northeastern China boreal forest ecosystem often involves trade-offs between fire dynamics, fire hazard reduction, and fiscal input. We used the LANDIS model to study the effects of alternative fuel reduction strategies on fire dynamics and analyzed cost effectiveness for each fuel reduction strategy based on cost-benefit theory. Five levels of fuel treatment area (2, 4, 6, 8, and 10% for each decade) and two fuel treatment types (prescribed burning [PB] and mechanical treatments in combination with prescribed fire [PR]) under current fire suppression simulated by LANDIS were compared in a 5 x 2 factorial design over a 300-year period. The results showed that PR scenarios are more effective at reducing the occurrence and burn area of catastrophic fires than PB scenarios. In addition, area burned by high intensity fire can be tremendously reduced by increasing low intensity fires with a higher level of treatment area under the various PR scenarios. The cost effectiveness of alternative fuel reduction strategies is strongly dependent on treatment area. In general, PB scenarios will be more cost effective in larger treatment areas and PR scenarios in smaller. We recommend mechanical treatments in combination with prescribed fire, with 4% of landscape treated in each decade (PR04) to be the optimal fuel reduction strategy in the study area based on risk control and cost efficiency analysis. However, the most challenging work in China is to make local forest policy makers and land managers accept the ecological function of fire on forest ecosystems. (C) 2009 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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