2008
DOI: 10.2174/1874398600801010001
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Fire Probability, Fuel Treatment Effectiveness and Ecological Tradeoffs in Western U.S. Public Forests

Abstract: Fuel treatment effectiveness and non-treatment risks can be estimated from the probability of fire occurrence. Using extensive fire records for western US Forest Service lands, we estimate fuel treatments have a mean probability of 2.0-7.9% of encountering moderate-or high-severity fire during an assumed 20-year period of reduced fuels.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
2

Citation Types

0
6
0

Year Published

2010
2010
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 33 publications
(6 citation statements)
references
References 30 publications
(49 reference statements)
0
6
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Although the chaparral and oak fuel types in the low elevation region had relatively rapid fire spread rates, there were few treatments in those areas to reduce the spread of fire. The relationship between treatment effect and area of intersection between fires and treatments speaks to one of the concerns over fuels treatment efficacy: for treatments to be effective, they must intersect with fires that occur stochastically across space and time (Rhodes and Baker 2008). The strength of the LANDIS-II model is that it simulates the stochastic nature of fire and how the probability of fire is conditioned on multiple, interacting, dynamic processes (such as succession, weather, topography, disturbance history and stochastic ignitions) that vary over time across large, heterogeneous landscapes.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Although the chaparral and oak fuel types in the low elevation region had relatively rapid fire spread rates, there were few treatments in those areas to reduce the spread of fire. The relationship between treatment effect and area of intersection between fires and treatments speaks to one of the concerns over fuels treatment efficacy: for treatments to be effective, they must intersect with fires that occur stochastically across space and time (Rhodes and Baker 2008). The strength of the LANDIS-II model is that it simulates the stochastic nature of fire and how the probability of fire is conditioned on multiple, interacting, dynamic processes (such as succession, weather, topography, disturbance history and stochastic ignitions) that vary over time across large, heterogeneous landscapes.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A fundamental concern is that, given the stochastic nature of fire, if fires rarely or never encounter fuels treatments on the landscape, the ability of treatments to reduce fire severity will be minimised (Rhodes and Baker 2008). Furthermore, fuels treatments are fully effective for a limited time, further decreasing opportunities for intersection.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, when years with extreme area of fire are considered, the effects of current management and accelerated restoration were larger compared https://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol22/iss1/art25/ to no management on federal lands. Years with extremely high fire area would have more fire-fuel treatment encounters than in years with less fire, making higher fuel treatment scenarios more effective during those years (Rhodes and Baker 2008, Barros et al 2017. Considering only extreme fire years, the variation in amount of high-severity fire among the scenarios was quite large, and distributions of high-severity fire overlapped among the scenarios.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A variety of fuel treatments have been promoted as a means of restoring fire-dependent forests to conditions that better resemble historical and healthy conditions that existed prior to long-term fire suppression [16][17][18][19][20]. However, several experts point out that it may not be financially, politically, and/or physically feasible to decrease fuel loads enough to significantly reduce wildfire losses [12,21,22].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%