Visual Assessment of Surface Fuel Loads Does Not Align with Destructively Sampled Surface Fuels
Fuel load and structure are fundamental drivers of fire behaviour. Accurate data is required for managers and researchers to better understand our ability to alter fire risk. While there are many ways to quantify fuel, visual assessment methods are generally considered the most efficient. Visual haz...
| Main Authors: | , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
MDPI AG
2017-10-01
|
| Series: | Forests |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://www.mdpi.com/1999-4907/8/11/408 |
| _version_ | 1811228394832003072 |
|---|---|
| author | Sarah C. McColl-Gausden Trent D. Penman |
| author_facet | Sarah C. McColl-Gausden Trent D. Penman |
| author_sort | Sarah C. McColl-Gausden |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Fuel load and structure are fundamental drivers of fire behaviour. Accurate data is required for managers and researchers to better understand our ability to alter fire risk. While there are many ways to quantify fuel, visual assessment methods are generally considered the most efficient. Visual hazard assessments are commonly used by managers, government agencies and consultants to provide a fuel hazard score or rating but not a quantity of fuel. Many systems attempt to convert the hazard score or rating to a fuel load for use in fire behaviour models. Here we investigate whether the conversion table in the widely used Overall Fuel Hazard Guide (OFHG) matches destructively sampled fuel loads from 116 sites across five forest types. We specifically examine whether there are quantifiable differences that can be attributed to forest type. We found there is overlap between the two methods for low, moderate and high hazard categories, however for the very high and extreme hazard categories, visual assessment overestimated fuel load in four of the five forest types. Using a commonly applied fire behaviour model, we found that the overestimation of fuel load in very high and extreme hazard categories leads to an overestimation of fire behavior in these hazard categories. |
| first_indexed | 2024-04-12T09:58:18Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-16225167504a4b5f98bab33b323d3ba4 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 1999-4907 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-04-12T09:58:18Z |
| publishDate | 2017-10-01 |
| publisher | MDPI AG |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Forests |
| spelling | doaj.art-16225167504a4b5f98bab33b323d3ba42022-12-22T03:37:38ZengMDPI AGForests1999-49072017-10-0181140810.3390/f8110408f8110408Visual Assessment of Surface Fuel Loads Does Not Align with Destructively Sampled Surface FuelsSarah C. McColl-Gausden0Trent D. Penman1School of Ecosystem and Forest Sciences, University of Melbourne, 4 Water Street, Creswick, VIC 3363, AustraliaSchool of Ecosystem and Forest Sciences, University of Melbourne, 4 Water Street, Creswick, VIC 3363, AustraliaFuel load and structure are fundamental drivers of fire behaviour. Accurate data is required for managers and researchers to better understand our ability to alter fire risk. While there are many ways to quantify fuel, visual assessment methods are generally considered the most efficient. Visual hazard assessments are commonly used by managers, government agencies and consultants to provide a fuel hazard score or rating but not a quantity of fuel. Many systems attempt to convert the hazard score or rating to a fuel load for use in fire behaviour models. Here we investigate whether the conversion table in the widely used Overall Fuel Hazard Guide (OFHG) matches destructively sampled fuel loads from 116 sites across five forest types. We specifically examine whether there are quantifiable differences that can be attributed to forest type. We found there is overlap between the two methods for low, moderate and high hazard categories, however for the very high and extreme hazard categories, visual assessment overestimated fuel load in four of the five forest types. Using a commonly applied fire behaviour model, we found that the overestimation of fuel load in very high and extreme hazard categories leads to an overestimation of fire behavior in these hazard categories.https://www.mdpi.com/1999-4907/8/11/408visual fuel assessmentsfuel load estimatesbushfirewildfirefire behaviourfire riskfine fuelfire management |
| spellingShingle | Sarah C. McColl-Gausden Trent D. Penman Visual Assessment of Surface Fuel Loads Does Not Align with Destructively Sampled Surface Fuels Forests visual fuel assessments fuel load estimates bushfire wildfire fire behaviour fire risk fine fuel fire management |
| title | Visual Assessment of Surface Fuel Loads Does Not Align with Destructively Sampled Surface Fuels |
| title_full | Visual Assessment of Surface Fuel Loads Does Not Align with Destructively Sampled Surface Fuels |
| title_fullStr | Visual Assessment of Surface Fuel Loads Does Not Align with Destructively Sampled Surface Fuels |
| title_full_unstemmed | Visual Assessment of Surface Fuel Loads Does Not Align with Destructively Sampled Surface Fuels |
| title_short | Visual Assessment of Surface Fuel Loads Does Not Align with Destructively Sampled Surface Fuels |
| title_sort | visual assessment of surface fuel loads does not align with destructively sampled surface fuels |
| topic | visual fuel assessments fuel load estimates bushfire wildfire fire behaviour fire risk fine fuel fire management |
| url | https://www.mdpi.com/1999-4907/8/11/408 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT sarahcmccollgausden visualassessmentofsurfacefuelloadsdoesnotalignwithdestructivelysampledsurfacefuels AT trentdpenman visualassessmentofsurfacefuelloadsdoesnotalignwithdestructivelysampledsurfacefuels |