Free Standard AU & NZ Shipping For All Book Orders Over $80!
Register      Login
International Journal of Wildland Fire International Journal of Wildland Fire Society
Journal of the International Association of Wildland Fire
Shopping Cart: ( empty )
You are here: Home > Journals > WF > WF08017
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Contents Vol 18(4)

Fuel characterization in the southern Appalachian Mountains: an application of Landscape Ecosystem Classification

Aaron D. Stottlemyer A F , Victor B. Shelburne B , Thomas A. Waldrop C , Sandra Rideout-Hanzak D and William C. Bridges E
+ Author Affiliations
- Author Affiliations

A Wildlife Technology, Penn State University, DuBois, PA 15801, USA.

B Department of Forestry and Natural Resources, Clemson University, Clemson, SC 29631, USA.

C USDA Forest Service, Southern Research Station, Clemson, SC 29631, USA.

D Department of Range, Wildlife and Fisheries Management, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX 79409, USA.

E Department of Applied Economics and Statistics, Clemson University, Clemson, SC 29631, USA.

F Corresponding author. Email: ads175@psu.edu

International Journal of Wildland Fire 18(4) 423-429 https://doi.org/10.1071/WF08017
Submitted: 30 January 2008  Accepted: 24 June 2008   Published: 29 June 2009

Abstract

Prescribed fire has been widely used in the south-eastern United States to meet forest management objectives, but has only recently been reintroduced to the southern Appalachian Mountains. Fuel information is not available to forest managers in this region and direct measurement is often impractical owing to steep, remote topography. The objective of the present study was to determine whether landscape ecosystem classification (LEC) site units support different types and amounts of fuel in the Chauga Ridges, a subregion of the Blue Ridge Mountain Province. Ecosystem classification identifies vegetation assemblages that are the expressive result of soils, physiography and vegetation, and recur predictably on the landscape. Four fuel complexes were identified using LEC units and field measurements of fuel characteristics. Fuel bed depth, duff (Oe + Oa) thickness, 1000-h fuel loading, and Rhododendron maximum, R. minus, and Vaccinium spp. ground cover were discriminating fuel characteristics of xeric, intermediate, submesic, and mesic site units. Discriminant function analysis provided an overall 64% cross-validation success rate using 138 undisturbed, randomly located plots. This method of characterizing fuel complexes may also be possible in other forested ecosystems where LECs or other ecological vegetation classifications have been developed.

Additional keywords: Chauga Ridges, discriminant analysis, ecological units, ericaceous fuels, fuel loading, physiography, wildland fire.


Acknowledgements

Funding for the present study was provided by Interagency Joint Fire Science Program grant 01–1-4–02. We thank Adam Coates for assisting with field work during the 2003 field season and Geoff Wang and two anonymous reviewers for useful comments.


References


Abella SR, Shelburne VB , MacDonald NW (2003) Multifactor classification of forest landscape ecosystems of Jocasse Gorges, southern Appalachian Mountains, South Carolina. Canadian Journal of Forest Research  33, 1933–1946.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | Anderson HE (1978) Graphic aids for field calculation of dead, down forest fuels. USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, General Technical Report INT-45. (Ogden, UT)

Andrews PL (1986) BEHAVE: fire behavior prediction and fuel modeling system – BURN subsystem, Part 1. USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, General Technical Report INT-194. (Ogden, UT)

Baker TT , Van Lear DH (1998) Relations between density of rhododendron thickets and diversity of riparian forests. Forest Ecology and Management  109, 21–32.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | Barnes BV, Zak DR, Denton SR, Spurr SH (1998) ‘Forest Ecology.’ 4th edn. (Wiley: New York)

Beers TW, Dress PE , Wensel LC (1966) Aspect transformation in site productivity research. Journal of Forestry  64, 691–692.
Brown JK (1974) Handbook for inventorying downed woody material. USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, General Technical Report INT-16. (Ogden, UT)

Brudnak LA, Waldrop TA, Rideout-Hanzak S (2006) A comparison of three methods for classifying fuel loads in the southern Appalachian Mountains. In ‘Thirteenth Biennial Southern Silvicultural Research Conference: Conference Proceedings’. (Ed. K Connor) USDA Forest Service, General Technical Report SRS-49, pp. 514–517. (Asheville, NC)

Carter RE, Myers NJ, Shelburne VB , Jones SM (2000) Ecological land classification in the high rainfall belt of the southern Appalachian Mountains. Castanea  64, 258–272.
Harmon ME, Franklin JF, Swanson FJ, Sollins P, Gregory SV, Lattin JD, Anderson NH, Cline SP, Aumen NG, Sedell JR, Lienkaemper GW, Cromack K Jr, Cummins KW (1986) Ecology of coarse woody debris in temperate ecosystems. In ‘Advances in Ecological Research’. (Eds A MacFadyen, ED Ford) pp. 133–302. (Academic Press: New York)

Hutto CJ, Shelburne VB , Jones SM (1999) Preliminary ecological land classification of the Chauga Ridges Region of South Carolina. Forest Ecology and Management  114, 385–393.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | Pyne SJ, Andrews PL, Laven RD (1996) ‘Introduction to Wildland Fire.’ 2nd edn. (Wiley: New York)

Rothermel RC (1972) A mathematical model for fire spread predictions in wildland fuels. USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Research Paper INT-115. (Ogden, UT)

Rubino DL , McCarthy BC (2003) Evaluation of coarse woody debris and forest vegetation across topographic gradients in a southern Ohio forest. Forest Ecology and Management  183, 221–238.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | Scott JH, Burgan RE (2005) Standard fire behavior fuel models: a comprehensive set for use with Rothermel’s Surface Fire Spread Model. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, General Technical Report RMRS-153. (Fort Collins, CO)

Spies TA, Franklin JF , Thomas TB (1988) Coarse woody debris in Douglas-fir forests of western Oregon and Washington. Ecology  69, 1689–1702.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | Stottlemyer AD, Shelburne VB, Waldrop TA, Rideout-Hanzak S, Bridges WC (2006) Preliminary fuel characterization of the Chauga Ridges Region of the southern Appalachian Mountains. In ‘Thirteenth Biennial Southern Silvicultural Research Conference: Conference Proceedings’. (Ed. K Connor) USDA Forest Service, General Technical Report SRS-49, pp. 510–513. (Asheville, NC)

Stottlemyer AD, Wang GG, Brose PH, Waldrop TA, Energy content in dried leaf litter of some oaks and mixed-mesophytic species that replace oaks. In ‘Fourteenth Biennial Southern Silvicultural Research Conference: Conference Proceedings’. (Ed. L Breland) USDA Forest Service, Southern Research Station. (Asheville, NC), in press.

Tobe JD, Fairey JE , Gaddy LL (1992) Vascular flora of the Chauga River Gorge Oconee County, South Carolina. Castanea  57(2), 77–109.


Vandermast DB , Van Lear DH (2002) Riparian vegetation in the southern Appalachian Mountains (USA) following chestnut blight. Forest Ecology and Management  155, 97–106.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |

Waldrop TA , Brose PH (1999) A comparison of fire intensity levels for stand replacement of table mountain pine (Pinus pungens Lamb.). Forest Ecology and Management  113, 155–166.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |

Waldrop TA, Brudnak LA , Rideout-Hanzak S (2007) Fuels on disturbed and undisturbed sites in the southern Appalachian Mountains, USA. Canadian Journal of Forest Research  37, 1134–1141.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |

Whittaker RH (1956) Vegetation of the Great Smoky Mountains. Ecological Monographs  26, 1–80.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |