[an error occurred while processing this directive] [an error occurred while processing this directive]
[an error occurred while processing this directive]Assessing the effects of alternative fuel treatments to reduce wildfire exposure
Received date: 2021-12-30
Accepted date: 2022-04-19
Online published: 2024-10-16
Copyright
Roghayeh Jahdi , Liliana Del Giudice , Massimo Melis , Raffaella Lovreglio , Michele Salis , Bachisio Arca , Pierpaolo Duce . [J]. 林业研究(英文版), 2023 , 34(2) : 373 -386 . DOI: 10.1007/s11676-022-01504-2
Effective landscape-scale fuel management strategies are essential for reducing wildfire risk in Mediterranean fire-prone areas. In this study, the minimum travel time (MTT) fire-spread algorithm as implemented in FlamMap was applied to assess the potential of alternative fuel treatments for lowering wildfire losses in a 5,740-ha study area in eastern Sardinia, Italy. Twenty-seven wildfires at 10-m resolution were simulated considering three wind speeds (15, 18, and 21 km h−1) to compare fuel treatments: no treatment (NT), irrigated agroforestry areas with shrub clearing (T1), prescribed fire in eucalyptus stands (T2), and irrigated grasslands (T3). The simulations replicated a recent large wildfire that occurred in the study area (Orrì wildfire, 2019) and considered the weather and fuel moisture conditions associated with this event. The average wildfire exposure outputs (burned area, probability of burning, conditional flame length, potential crown fire occurrence, and surfaces withflame lengths above 2.5 m) decreased after fuel treatments, compared to no treatment. T1 was the most effective strategy in mitigating wildfire hazards and provided the most significant performance for several wildfire exposure indicators. Treating only 0.5% of the study area (~ 30 ha) resulted in a decrease in all wildfire exposure metrics to ~ 10% within the study area. In addition, the total surface characterized by high flame length (average > 2.5 m) was the lowest in the T1 treatment. This study can help land and fire managers optimize fuel treatment opportunities and wildfire risk mitigation strategies in Mediterranean areas.
1 |
|
2 |
|
3 |
|
4 |
|
5 |
Albini FA (1979) Spot fire distance from burning trees: a predictive model (Vol. 56). Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Forest Service, US Department of Agriculture.
|
6 |
|
7 |
|
8 |
|
9 |
|
10 |
|
11 |
Anderson HE (1982) Aids to determining fuel models for estimating fire behaviour. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service General Technical Report INT-122 https://doi.org/10.2737/INT-GTR-122
|
12 |
Andrews PL, Heinsch FA, Schelvan L (2011) How to generate and interpret fire characteristics charts for surface and crown fire behavior (No. 253). US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. https://doi.org/10.2737/RMRS-GTR-253
|
13 |
|
14 |
|
15 |
|
16 |
|
17 |
|
18 |
Calkin DE, Ager AA, Thompson MP (2011) A comparative risk assessment framework for wildland fire management: The 2010 Cohesive Strategy Science Report, Gen. Tech Rep RMRS-GTR-262 Fort Collins, CO https://doi.org/10.2737/RMRS-GTR-262
|
19 |
|
20 |
|
21 |
|
22 |
|
23 |
|
24 |
|
25 |
|
26 |
|
27 |
|
28 |
|
29 |
|
30 |
|
31 |
Finney MA (1998) FARSITE: Fire Area Simulator–model development and evaluation. Research Paper RMRS-RP-4 Revised. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. p 47 https://doi.org/10.2737/RMRS-RP-4
|
32 |
Finney MA (2006) An overview of FlamMap fire modelling capabilities. In: Andrews, P.L., Butler, B.W. (Eds.), Fuels Management-How to Measure Success. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Proceedings RMRS-P-41, pp. 213–220.
|
33 |
|
34 |
|
35 |
|
36 |
|
37 |
|
38 |
|
39 |
|
40 |
|
41 |
|
42 |
|
43 |
|
44 |
|
45 |
|
46 |
|
47 |
|
48 |
|
49 |
|
50 |
|
51 |
|
52 |
|
53 |
|
54 |
Parisien MA, Kafka VG, Hirsch KG, Todd JB, Lavoie SG, Maczek PD (2005) Mapping wildfire susceptibility with the BURN-P3 simulation model. Natural Resources Canada, Canadian Forest Service, Northern Forestry Centre, Edmonton, Alberta. Information Report NOR-X-405, p 36
|
55 |
|
56 |
Pellizzaro G, Ventura A, Zara P (2005) Influence of seasonal weather variations on fuel status for some shrubs typical of Mediterranean Basin. In: Proceeding’s 6th Fire and Forest Meteorology Symposium and 19th Interior West Fire Council Meeting, 24e27 Canmore, AB, Canada
|
57 |
Peratoner G, Vitalone L, Pramsohler M, Kasal A (2017) Effect of irrigation and N fertilization on the botanical composition of mountain meadows. Grassland Science in Europe, Vol. 22 – Grassland resources for extensive farming systems in marginal lands: major drivers and future scenarios. Proceedings of the 19th Symposium of the European Grassland Federation Alghero, Italy 7–10 681.
|
58 |
Pinto A, Fernandes PM, Loureiro C (2014) Prescribed burning guide for Blue Gum plantations. GIFF SA/University of Trás-os-Montes and Alto Douro. Vila Real, Portugal. https://doi.org/10.13140/2.1.3313.5688.
|
59 |
|
60 |
Rothermel RC (1972) A mathematical model for predicting fire spread in wildland fuels. Res. Pap. INT-115. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 40 p. https://www.fs.usda.gov/treesearch/pubs/32533
|
61 |
Rothermel RC (1991) Predicting behaviour and size of crown fires in the northern rocky mountains. Res. Pap. INT-RP-438. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. 46 p. https://doi.org/10.2737/INT-RP-438
|
62 |
|
63 |
|
64 |
|
65 |
|
66 |
|
67 |
|
68 |
|
69 |
Scott JH, Burgan R (2005) Standard fire behaviour fuel models: a comprehensive set for use with Rothermel’s surface fire spread model. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-153. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 72 p. https://doi.org/10.2737/RMRS-GTR-153
|
70 |
Scott JH, Reinhardt ED (2001) Assessing crown fire potential by linking models of surface and crown fire behaviour. Res. Pap. RMRS-RP-29. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 59 https://doi.org/10.2737/RMRS-RP-29
|
71 |
|
72 |
|
73 |
|
74 |
|
75 |
|
76 |
|
/
〈 |
|
〉 |