Extending methods for assessing fuel hazard in temperate Australia to enhance data quality and consistency

Bianca J. Pickering; Lauren T. Bennett; Jane G. Cawson

doi:10.1071/WF22219

RESEARCH ARTICLE (Open Access)

Previous Next Contents Vol 32(10)

Extending methods for assessing fuel hazard in temperate Australia to enhance data quality and consistency

Bianca J. Pickering

^A ^* , Lauren T. Bennett

^A and Jane G. Cawson

^A

+ Author Affiliations

- Author Affiliations

^A FLARE Wildfire Research, School of Agriculture, Food and Ecosystem Sciences, The University of Melbourne, Burnley, Vic., Australia.

^* Correspondence to: bee.pickering@unimelb.edu.au

International Journal of Wildland Fire 32(10) 1422-1437 https://doi.org/10.1071/WF22219
Submitted: 24 November 2022 Accepted: 30 August 2023 Published: 22 September 2023

© 2023 The Author(s) (or their employer(s)). Published by CSIRO Publishing on behalf of IAWF. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC-ND)

Abstract

Background

Assessments of fuel (vegetation) are needed to predict fire behaviour. Broad visual methods support quick in-field management decisions but can be too imprecise to detect variations in fuel for other purposes.

Aims

We evaluated the utility of integrating more comprehensive fuel measurement techniques into an existing visual fuel hazard assessment method.

Methods

We developed an extended method for measuring fuel hazard, including line-intercept measurements and clearer tables for assigning fuel hazard scores, and compared it with the existing Overall Fuel Hazard Assessment Guide fourth edition, which is often used in temperate Australia. Methods were tested across 69 eucalypt woodland plots of the same broad fuel type.

Key results

The existing method estimated higher near-surface and elevated cover compared with the extended method, but less surface cover. Assigned hazard scores changed markedly when using the clearer hazard tables. Over half the plots had differences of one or more in hazard score for surface, near-surface and elevated fuel between the existing and extended methods.

Conclusions

The extended method provided a more methodical and consistent approach for assessing fuel hazard, but was more time-consuming than the existing method.

Implications

The extended method provides an alternative method for monitoring and research purposes when data quality is important.

Keywords: bushfire, fire management, fuel assessment, fuel hazard, fuel structure, Overall Fuel Hazard Assessment Guide, vegetation cover, vegetation monitoring.

References

Benali A, Ervilha AR, Sá ACL, Fernandes PM, Pinto RMS, Trigo RM, Pereira JMC (2016) Deciphering the impact of uncertainty on the accuracy of large wildfire spread simulations. Science of the Total Environment 569–570, 73-85.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |

Bennett LT, Aponte C, Baker TG, Tolhurst KG (2014) Evaluating long-term effects of prescribed fire regimes on carbon stocks in a temperate eucalypt forest. Forest Ecology and Management 328, 219-228.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Bureau of Meteorology (2005) Climate classification of Australia. Available at http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/how/newproducts/images/zones.shtml [accessed 5 March]

Caratti JF (2006) Cover/Frequency (CF) - Sampling Method. In ‘FIREMON: fire effects monitoring and inventory system’. (Ed. DC Lutes) p. 151. (U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station)

Cheney NP, Gould JS, McCaw WL, Anderson WR (2012) Predicting fire behaviour in dry eucalypt forest in southern Australia. Forest Ecology and Management 280, 120-131.
| Google Scholar |

Cohen J (1968) Weighted kappa: Nominal scale agreement provision for scaled disagreement or partial credit. Psychological Bulletin 70, 213-220.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |

Cook CN, Wardell-Johnson G, Keatley M, Gowans SA, Gibson MS, Westbrooke ME, Marshall DJ (2010) Is what you see what you get? Visual vs. measured assessments of vegetation condition. Journal of Applied Ecology 47, 650-661.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Cruz M (2021) ‘The Vesta Mk 2 rate of fire spread model: a user’s guide.’ (CSIRO: Canberra, Australia)

Cruz MG, Sullivan AL, Leonard R, Malkin S, Matthews S, Gould JS, McCaw WL, Alexander ME (2014) ‘Fire behaviour knowledge in Australia: A synthesis of disciplinary and stakeholder knowledge on fire spread prediction capability and application.’ (Bushfire Cooperative Research Centre: East Melbourne, Vic.)

Cruz M, Gould J, Alexander M, McCaw L, Matthews S (2015) ‘A guide to rate of fire spread models for Australian vegetation.’ (Australasian Fire and Emergency Service Authorities Council Ltd and Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation: Melbourne, Australia)

Cruz M, Gould J, Hollis J, McCaw W (2018) A hierarchical classification of wildland fire fuels for Australian vegetation types. Fire 1, 13.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Cruz MG, Cheney NP, Gould JS, McCaw WL, Kilinc M, Sullivan AL (2021) An empirical-based model for predicting the forward spread rate of wildfires in eucalypt forests. International Journal of Wildland Fire 31, 81-95.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Department of Environment and Natural Resources (2012) ‘Overall fuel hazard guide for South Australia’, 2nd edn. (Department of Environment and Natural Resources: Adelaide, SA)

Department of Environment Land Water and Planning (2021) Bioregions and EVC benchmarks. Available at https://www.environment.vic.gov.au/biodiversity/bioregions-and-evc-benchmarks [accessed 13 September]

De Stefano A, Fowers B, Mealor BA (2021) Comparison of visual estimation and line-point intercept vegetation survey methods on annual grass-invaded rangelands of Wyoming. Invasive Plant Science and Management 14, 240-252.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Duff TJ, Bell TL, York A (2013) Predicting continuous variation in forest fuel load using biophysical models: a case study in south-eastern Australia. International Journal of Wildland Fire 22, 318-332.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Duff T, Keane R, Penman T, Tolhurst K (2017) Revisiting wildland fire fuel quantification methods: The challenge of understanding a dynamic, biotic entity. Forests 8, 351.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Elzinga CL (1998) ‘Measuring and monitoring plant populations’. pp. 112–113, 182. (U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, National Applied Resource Sciences Center: Denver, Colorado)

Fernandes PM, Botelho HS (2003) A review of prescribed burning effectiveness in fire hazard reduction. International Journal of Wildland Fire 12, 117-128.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Fick SE, Hijmans RJ (2017) WorldClim 2: new 1km spatial resolution climate surfaces for global land areas. International Journal of Climatology 37, 4302-4315.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Gallant J, Wilson N, Dowling T, Read A, Inskeep C (2011) SRTM-derived 1 second digital elevation models version 1.0. Available at http://pid.geoscience.gov.au/dataset/ga/72759 [accessed 3 January]

Gamer M, Lemon J, Fellows I, Singh P (2019) Various coefficients of interrater reliability and agreement. Available at https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=irr

Gazzard T, McLeod C, Medlin C, Baker M, Martin H, David Rourke D (2020) ‘Barwon South West bushfire management strategy 2020.’ (The State of Victoria Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning: Melbourne, Australia)

Giavarina D (2015) Understanding Bland Altman analysis. Biochemia Medica (Zagreb) 25, 141-51.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |

Godínez-Alvarez H, Herrick JE, Mattocks M, Toledo D, Van Zee J (2009) Comparison of three vegetation monitoring methods: Their relative utility for ecological assessment and monitoring. Ecological Indicators 9, 1001-1008.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Gould JS, McCaw WL, Cheney NP, Ellis PF, Matthews S (2009) ‘Field guide: Fire in dry eucalypt forest: Fuel assessment and fire behaviour prediction in dry eucalypt forest.’ (CSIRO Publishing: Vic., Australia)

Hamilton C, Stamey J (2007) Using Bland−Altman to assess agreement between two medical devices – don’t forget the confidence intervals! Journal of Clinical Monitoring and Computing 21, 331-333.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |

Hines F, Tolhurst KG, Wilson AA, McCarthy GJ (2010) ‘Overall fuel hazard assessment guide’, 4th edn. (Fire Management Branch, Dept of Natural Resources and Environment: East Melbourne, Vic.)

Keane RE (2015) ‘Wildland fuel fundamentals and applications.’ (Springer International: Switzerland)

Kelly AL, Franks AJ, Eyre TJ (2011) Assessing the assessors: Quantifying observer variation in vegetation and habitat assessment. Ecological Management and Restoration 12, 144-148.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Kington W, Tolhurst K (2019) ‘PHOENIX Rapidfire: Technical reference guide. A technical guide to the PHOENIX RapidFire bushfire characterisation model version 4.1.’ (Australasian Fire and Emergency Service Authorities Council: Melbouren, Australia)

Korhonen L, Korhonen KT, Rautiainen M, Stenberg P (2006) Estimation of forest canopy cover: a comparison of field measurement techniques. Silva Fennica 40, 577-588.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Lehnert B (2015) Plots (slightly extended) Bland-Altman plots. Available at https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/BlandAltmanLeh/BlandAltmanLeh.pdf

Lendon C, Lamacraft RR (1976) Standards for testing and assessing range condition in central Australia. The Rangeland Journal 1, 40-48.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Loudermilk EL, O’Brien JJ, Goodrick SL, Linn RR, Skowronski NS, Hiers JK (2022) Vegetation’s influence on fire behavior goes beyond just being fuel. Fire Ecology 18, 9.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Martorano CA, Kane JM, Engber EA, Gibson J (2021) Long term fuel and understorey vegetation response to fuel treatments in oak and chaparral stands of northern California. Applied Vegetation Science 24, e12551.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

McArthur AG (1967) ‘Fire behaviour in eucalypt forests.’ (Forestry and Timber Bureau Australia: Canberra)

McColl-Gausden SC, Penman TD (2017) Visual assessment of surface fuel loads does not align with destructively sampled surface fuels. Forests 8, 408.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Mileti DS, Peek L (2000) The social psychology of public response to warnings of a nuclear power plant accident. Journal of Hazardous Materials 75, 181-194.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |

Nyman P, Smith HG, Sherwin CB, Langhans C, Lane PNJ, Sheridan GJ (2015) Predicting sediment delivery from debris flows after wildfire. Geomorphology 250, 173-186.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Ottmar RD, Sandberg DV, Riccardi CL, Prichard SJ (2007) An overview of the Fuel Characteristic Classification System — Quantifying, classifying, and creating fuelbeds for resource planning. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 37, 2383-2393.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Pickering BJ, Duff TJ, Baillie C, Cawson JG (2021) Darker, cooler, wetter: forest understories influence surface fuel moisture. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 300, 108311.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Pickering BJ, Burton JE, Penman TD, Grant MA, Cawson JG (2022) Long-term response of fuel to mechanical mastication in south-eastern Australia. Fire 5, 76.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Prichard SJ, Andreu AG, Ottmar RD, Eberhardt E (2019) ‘Fuel characteristic classification system (FCCS) field sampling and fuelbed development guide.’ (USDA Forest Service No. 08874840)

Ripberger JT, Silva CL, Jenkins-Smith HC, Carlson DE, James M, Herron KG (2015) False alarms and missed events: The impact and origins of perceived inaccuracy in tornado warning systems. Risk Analysis 35, 44-56.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |

Rode EJ, Stengel CJ, Nekaris KA (2013) Habitat assessment and species niche modeling. In ‘Primate ecology and conservation: a handbook of techniques’. (Eds E Sterling, N Bynum, ME Blair) (Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK)

Rothermel RC (1972) ‘A mathematical model for predicting fire spread in wildland fuels.’ Research Paper INT‐115 (Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station: Ogden, Utah)

Scott JH, Burgan RE (2005) ‘Standard fire behavior fuel models: a comprehensive set for use with Rothermel’s surface fire spread model.’ (Dept. of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station Monograph: Fort Collins, USA)

Spits C, Wallace L, Reinke K (2017) Investigating surface and near-surface bushfire fuel attributes: A comparison between visual assessments and image-based point clouds. Sensors 17, 910.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |

Twomey PJ (2006) How to use difference plots in quantitative method comparison studies. Annals of Clinical Biochemistry 43, 124-129.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |

Unwin KI (1975) The relationship of observer and landscape in landscape evaluation. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 66, 130-134.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Volkova L, Sullivan AL, Roxburgh SH, Weston CJ (2016) Visual assessments of fuel loads are poorly related to destructively sampled fuel loads in eucalypt forests. International Journal of Wildland Fire 25, 1193-1201.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Wallace L, Hally B, Hillman S, Jones SD, Reinke K (2020) Terrestrial image-based point clouds for mapping near-ground vegetation structure: Potential and limitations. Fire 3, 59.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Wallace L, Hillman S, Hally B, Taneja R, White A, McGlade J (2022) Terrestrial laser scanning: An operational tool for fuel hazard mapping? Fire 5, 85.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Watson PJ, Penman SH, Bradstock RA (2012) A comparison of bushfire fuel hazard assessors and assessment methods in dry sclerophyll forest near Sydney, Australia. International Journal of Wildland Fire 21, 755-763.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Wickham H, Seidel D (2022) scales: Scale functions for visualization. Available at https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=scales

Wickham H, Averick M, Bryan J, Chang W, McGowan L, François R, Grolemund G, Hayes A, Henry L, Hester J, Kuhn M, Pedersen T, Miller E, Bache S, Müller K, Ooms J, Robinson D, Seidel D, Spinu V, Takahashi K, Vaughan D, Wilke C, Woo K, Yutani H (2019) Welcome to the Tidyverse. Journal of Open Source Software 4, 1686.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Wilke CO (2020) Streamlined plot theme and plot annotations for ggplot2. Available at https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=cowplot

Wright CS, Vihnanek RE (2014) Stereo photo series for quantifying natural fuels. Volume XIII: grasslands, shrublands, oak-bay woodlands, and eucalyptus forests in the East Bay of California. (U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station: Portland, USA)