| Literature DB >> 26465959 |
Zhihua Liu1, Michael C Wimberly1.
Abstract
An improved understanding of the relative influences of climatic and landscape controls on multiple fire regime components is needed to enhance our understanding of modern fire regimes and how they will respond to future environmental change. To address this need, we analyzed the spatio-temporal patterns of fire occurrence, size, and severity of large fires (> 405 ha) in the western United States from 1984-2010. We assessed the associations of these fire regime components with environmental variables, including short-term climate anomalies, vegetation type, topography, and human influences, using boosted regression tree analysis. Results showed that large fire occurrence, size, and severity each exhibited distinctive spatial and spatio-temporal patterns, which were controlled by different sets of climate and landscape factors. Antecedent climate anomalies had the strongest influences on fire occurrence, resulting in the highest spatial synchrony. In contrast, climatic variability had weaker influences on fire size and severity and vegetation types were the most important environmental determinants of these fire regime components. Topography had moderately strong effects on both fire occurrence and severity, and human influence variables were most strongly associated with fire size. These results suggest a potential for the emergence of novel fire regimes due to the responses of fire regime components to multiple drivers at different spatial and temporal scales. Next-generation approaches for projecting future fire regimes should incorporate indirect climate effects on vegetation type changes as well as other landscape effects on multiple components of fire regimes.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2015 PMID: 26465959 PMCID: PMC4605733 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0140839
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.752
Fig 1Conceptual model of major factors affecting fire occurrence, size, and severity.
Red lines: human influences; green lines: direct climate influences; black lines: indirect climate (vegetation) influences; blue lines: topographic influences. Bold text represents groups of variables included in the analysis. Non-bold text represents implicit relationships that were not directly analyzed.
Fig 2Spatial distributions of (a) smoothed density of large fires (fires per million ha per year), (b) smoothed mean fire size (ha), (c) smoothed mean high severity fire size (ha), and (d) smoothed percent of high severity burning (%) in the western US.
Non-burnable areas are displayed in white.
Fig 3Spline correlograms illustrating the non-parametric spatial covariance function and 95% confidence intervals (gray area) for (a) large fire occurrence; (b) fire size; and (c) percent of high severity burning.
Fig 4Relative influences of variables that explained greater than 5% of the variation and marginal effects (red trend lines within each bar) from boosted regression tree models for (a) large fire occurrence, (b) fire size, and (c) percent of high severity burning.
Values are specified for truncated bars. Abbreviations of predictor variables and their corresponding full names are described in Table 1.
Environmental variables summarized for each fire and used in the analysis.
| Variable | Description | Mean+s.d |
|---|---|---|
| TMx (degree) | Maximum temperature during fire spread | 32.36 +5.39 |
| PMn (mm) | Mean precipitation during fire spread | 0.799+1.203 |
| HMn (%) | Mean relative humidity during fire spread | 18.63+7.27 |
| WMx (m/s) | Maximum wind speed during fire spread | 3.94+1.39 |
| WMn (m/s) | Mean wind speed during fire spread | 3.24+0.80 |
| TAo (degree) | Maximum temperature anomaly during fire spread | 10.10 +5.16 |
| PAo (mm) | Precipitation anomaly during fire spread | -0.63 +1.13 |
| HAo (%) | Relative humidity anomaly during fire spread | -12.52+6.65 |
| T90Ao (degree) | Mean maximum temperature anomaly for 90 days preceding fire start date | 6.99 +4.55 |
| P90Ao (mm) | Mean precipitation anomaly for 90 days preceding fire start date | -0.45 +0.90 |
| H90Ao (%) | Relative humidity anomaly for 90 days preceding fire start date | -8.35+5.34 |
| TPAo (degree) | Previous year growing season temperature anomaly | -0.22+1.04 |
| PPAo (mm) | Previous year growing season precipitation anomaly | 10.14+51.53 |
| HPAo (%) | Previous year growing season relative humidity anomaly for each fire | 0.19+2.86 |
| TWAo (degree) | Previous winter temperature anomaly | 8.64+1.82 |
| PWAo (mm) | Previous winter precipitation anomaly | -0.59+0.98 |
| TP2GAo (degree) | Growing season temperature anomaly 2 years prior | -0.078+1.28 |
| PP2GAo (mm) | Growing season precipitation anomaly 2 years prior | -0.085+0.34 |
| PCDF (%) | Percent Pacific coast Douglas-fir forest | 0.717+6.75 |
| InDF (%) | Percent Interior Douglas-fir | 5.36+13.76 |
| PJW (%) | Percent Pinyon-Juniper Woodland | 4.81+10.87 |
| PIPO (%) | Percent Interior Ponderosa Pine | 6.17+16.25 |
| Salp (%) | Percent Subalpine forest | 6.89+19.62 |
| Mixd (%) | Percent Mixed conifer | 4.73+15.40 |
| Hdwd (%) | Percent Hardwood | 7.05+16.28 |
| CaCr (%) | Percent California Chararral | 7.84+20.26 |
| DeSc (%) | Percent Desert scrub | 10.70+24.41 |
| MMsh (%) | Percent Mesic Mountain Shrub | 1.05+4.57 |
| Sgbr (%) | Percent Sagebrush | 18.23+29.32 |
| Shsp (%) | Percent Shrub-steppe | 12.62+26.61 |
| Gras (%) | Percent Grass | 5.43+16.01 |
| Slop (in percent) | Mean slope | 14.33+10.26 |
| DEM (m) | Mean elevation | 1434+621 |
| RiverD (km*km-2) | Mean river density | 0.11503+0.036 |
| D2Rd (m) | Mean distance to nearest road | 11864+11240 |
| D2WUI (m) | Mean distance to Wildland Urban interface | 10432+9045 |
| PerPrv | Percent private land | 64+38 |
| PerPub | Percent public non-wilderness land | 25+34 |
| PerWdn | Percent wilderness land | 10+27 |
Mean and s.d. for environmental variables were calculated from all the fires.
Fig 5Simplified versions of the first tree of (a) fire occurrence model (b) fire size model, and (c) percent of high severity burning model computed with the boosted regression tree algorithm.
The first three splits of each tree are shown to illustrate the interactions between key variables. The splitting variable and its corresponding splitting value are shown in oval above the node (variable abbreviation and units are provided in Table 1). The values in the rectangles at the terminal nodes represent the mean prediction and number of the records in the terminal nodes (n). The total number of records in the terminal nodes equals 0.75 (the bag fraction of the BRT model) of the total number of fires. Abbreviations: P: relative probability of fire occurrence; MFS: mean fire size; PHS: percent of high severity burning.