Visual Assessment of Surface Fuel Loads Does Not Align with Destructively Sampled Surface Fuels
AbstractFuel 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. View Full-Text
Externally hosted supplementary file 1
Description: Field data associated with "visual assessment of surface fuel loads does not align with destructively sampled surface fuels."
Scifeed alert for new publicationsNever miss any articles matching your research from any publisher
- Get alerts for new papers matching your research
- Find out the new papers from selected authors
- Updated daily for 49'000+ journals and 6000+ publishers
- Define your Scifeed now
McColl-Gausden, S.C.; Penman, T.D. Visual Assessment of Surface Fuel Loads Does Not Align with Destructively Sampled Surface Fuels. Forests 2017, 8, 408.
McColl-Gausden SC, Penman TD. Visual Assessment of Surface Fuel Loads Does Not Align with Destructively Sampled Surface Fuels. Forests. 2017; 8(11):408.Chicago/Turabian Style
McColl-Gausden, Sarah C.; Penman, Trent D. 2017. "Visual Assessment of Surface Fuel Loads Does Not Align with Destructively Sampled Surface Fuels." Forests 8, no. 11: 408.
Note that from the first issue of 2016, MDPI journals use article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.