2008
DOI: 10.4996/fireecology.0401074
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Measuring the Rate of Spread of Chaparral Prescribed fires in Northern California

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
5

Citation Types

2
14
0
2

Year Published

2009
2009
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

2
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 27 publications
(18 citation statements)
references
References 21 publications
2
14
0
2
Order By: Relevance
“…Fernandes (2009) in conifer forest litter in Sevivas, Portugal, concluded that the Byram (1959) model under-predicted observed experimental fl ame length. Similar results were found by Stephens et al (2008) when comparing the predicted Byram's fl ame length with observed values from Chaparral Prescribed Fires in Northern California. The Byram's fi reline intensity is useful to quantify certain fl ame characteristics but one should not necessarily always expect good agreement between observed fl ame lengths and predictions (CHENEY, 1990;CRUZ, 2012).…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 74%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Fernandes (2009) in conifer forest litter in Sevivas, Portugal, concluded that the Byram (1959) model under-predicted observed experimental fl ame length. Similar results were found by Stephens et al (2008) when comparing the predicted Byram's fl ame length with observed values from Chaparral Prescribed Fires in Northern California. The Byram's fi reline intensity is useful to quantify certain fl ame characteristics but one should not necessarily always expect good agreement between observed fl ame lengths and predictions (CHENEY, 1990;CRUZ, 2012).…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 74%
“…According the same authors, the MAPE was 42%. Under-prediction bias by the Rothermel (1972) surface fi re spread model was already reported by several other authors such as McCaw (1995) in Australian shrubland; Grabner et al (1999) in oak savannas in the USA; Stephens et al (2008) and Weise et al (2016) in chaparral fuel beds of California; and others. Cruz and Alexander (2013) in a review over 49 different publications that evaluated the effi ciency of several different rate of spread predicting models (including the Rothermel model), determined that only 3% of the predictions (35 out of 1278) were considered to be exact.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 75%
“…Nevertheless, there are some studies that concluded that the BehavePlus usually underestimates the data obtained from experimental burnings (STREEKS et al, 2005;STEPHENS et al, 2008, FERNANDES, 2009. Therefore, it is recommended that the BehavePlus should be used only by experienced forest fire managers who can combine the simulated results with field experience, to forecast the fire behavior with superior effectiveness.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Decisions should not be taken based solely on simulations, as discrepancies between simulated and experimental data are commonly found in published works (e.g. GOULD et al, 1996;BURROWS, 1994;BURROWS, 1999;CRUZ;FERNANDES, 2008;MCCAW et al, 2008;STEPHENS et al, 2008;FERNANDES, 2009).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%