Next Article in Journal
Impacts and Drivers of Summer Wildfires in the Cape Peninsula: A Remote Sensing Approach
Previous Article in Journal
Emissions and Fire Risk Assessment of Nitrocellulose as a Sustainable Alternative in Pyrotechnic Compositions
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Fire
Volume 7
Issue 8
10.3390/fire7080266
fire-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Current Status and Prospects of Plant Flammability Measurements

by
Minting Jian
1,2,3,†,
Yi Jian
4,5,†,
Hong Zeng
1,2,3,
Dongyu Cao
1,2,3 and
Xinglei Cui
1,2,3,*
1
National Forestry and Grassland Administration Engineering Research Centre for Southwest Forest and Grassland Fire Ecological Prevention, College of Forestry, Sichuan Agricultural University, Chengdu 611130, China
2
National Forestry and Grassland Administration Key Laboratory of Forest Resources Conservation and Ecological Safety on the Upper Reaches of the Yangtze River, Chengdu 611130, China
3
Forestry Ecological Engineering in the Upper Reaches of the Yangtze River Key Laboratory of Sichuan Province, Chengdu 611130, China
4
Ecological Restoration and Conservation for Forest and Wetland Key Laboratory of Sichuan Province, Sichuan Academy of Forestry, Chengdu 610081, China
5
Sichuan Longmenshan National Positioning Observation and Research Station for Forest Ecosystem, Mianyang 622550, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
†
These authors contributed equally to this work.
Fire 2024, 7(8), 266; https://doi.org/10.3390/fire7080266
Submission received: 28 May 2024 / Revised: 7 July 2024 / Accepted: 29 July 2024 / Published: 1 August 2024
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
In recent years, the frequency of wildfires worldwide has been gradually increasing, posing significant threats to global ecosystems and human society. Given that plants serve as the primary fuel in natural environments, accurately assessing the flammability of plants is crucial for wildfire management and fire ecology studies. Plant flammability is a multifaceted trait influenced by various physiological, physical, and chemical characteristics of plants. Currently, there is no universally accepted standard for quantifying plant flammability. By analyzing published research over the past few decades, this study found that 17.27% of studies assessed plant flammability by measuring flammability-related characteristics, such as moisture content, leaf size, bark thickness, oil content, and terpene content; a total of 34.55% of studies assessed plant flammability through burning experiments by measuring burning parameters, such as ignition time, duration of combustion, and flame spread rate. The remaining studies, approximately 50%, used a combination of burning experiments and flammability-related characteristic measurement to assess plant flammability. This study outlined the current status of plant flammability measurements, discussed the merits of each measurement method, and proposed suggestions for enhancing the assessment of plant flammability, with the aim of contributing to the standardization of plant flammability measurements.

1. Introduction

Wildfire is an important ecological factor that serves as a driving force for species diversity and plays a significant role in ecosystem stability [1,2]. For example, fire is likely to have greatly influenced the evolution and proliferation of angiosperms [3]. Under the influence of fire, plant species developed various fire adaptations, such as thicker bark, self-pruning, and serotiny, to adapt to specific fire regimes [4,5,6,7]. However, wildfires can develop into sudden, severe, and highly damaging natural disasters that are challenging to extinguish. Under changing climate conditions, the frequency of wildfires is increasing in many regions worldwide [8]. Wildfire has become a rising global problem, threatening public safety, biodiversity, and the stability of many ecosystems.
Plants serve as the primary fuel in nature, and their flammability characteristics directly influence the ease of fire ignition and fire behavior, such as fire spread speed and fire intensity [9,10]. Moreover, plant flammability is an important property that affects plant survival and reproduction in fire-prone environments [5,6,7,11]. Consequently, accurately assessing the flammability of various plant species is not only crucial for fire prevention, fire risk assessment, and fire behavior prediction, but is also an important aspect of fire ecology studies [12,13].
Plant flammability has four components—ignitability (the ease of ignition), combustibility (the strength of plant combustion), sustainability (the duration of plant burning), and consumption (the amount of plant burned) [14,15,16,17]. These flammability components vary substantially across different species [18,19,20] and are influenced by multiple plant traits, including plant physiological, morphological, and chemical characteristics [21,22,23,24]. For example, moisture content is one of the most frequently reported flammability-related traits that is directly related to flammability components. For both live and dead fuels, the moisture content is influenced by many factors, such as time, climate, and geographical location [25,26]. Litter with a moisture content exceeding 35% has been proven to be challenging to ignite, whereas ignition is facilitated when the moisture content is below 10% [27]. Chemical characteristics, such as phenol content, terpene content, lignin content, cellulose content, and tannin content, also affect plant flammability [28,29,30,31,32,33]. The content of lignin and tannin in leaves has been found to be positively correlated with the duration of burning [21,28,32,34]. Volatile organic compounds are highly correlated with the flammability of plants. Foliage structure and morphological characteristics, including leaf size, leaf curliness, and litter bulk density, are also important factors that affect plant flammability [35,36,37,38,39]. For instance, the size and shape of leaves may indirectly influence the burning intensity of litter through their impact on fuel bed-scale properties such as depth, bulk density, porosity, or permeability [34,40]. Smaller leaves typically exhibit a high propensity for burning due to the rapid evaporation of moisture, and species with highly curled leaves can accelerate the spread of fire on the fuel bed [41,42,43].
Currently, there is no universally accepted standard for quantifying plant flammability [12]. The accurate and comprehensive assessment of plant flammability remains a challenge. In this study, we compiled published research on plant flammability measurements and summarized the methods employed in these studies. Our objective was to present the current status of plant flammability measurements and to contribute to the standardization of these measurements.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Data Collection

We conducted searches on ‘Web of Science’ and ‘Google Scholar’ using keywords such as ‘plant flammability’, ‘vegetation flammability’, ‘fuel flammability’, ‘forest fuel’, and ‘plant combustibility’ to retrieve relevant articles. Information including the publication date, study area, methods, and variables used to assess plant flammability, as well as the experimental materials, was collected from these articles. We included articles containing experimental data on plant flammability, while excluded database and review articles. From each study, we further extracted details about the experimental method, country, research area, variables measured, material, and publication year. The methodology does entail certain limitations, as it is possible that a few pertinent articles may not incorporate these precise keywords, thereby potentially resulting in some exclusions. Nonetheless, this approach can still manage to capture the bulk of the relevant literature. This comprehensive data collection aimed to provide a thorough understanding of the current methods and variables used in plant flammability measurements, ultimately contributing to the standardization and improvement of these assessment techniques (Supplementary Materials File S1).

2.2. Data Analysis

The collected data were sorted and organized in Excel 2016 (Supplementary Materials File S1). The statistical quantities were classified according to various categories, including year of publication, study area, country, measurement method, material, measured flammability variables, and measured physiological, physical, and chemical indices of flammability. Charts were generated using Origin 2018 software, while the global distribution of studies on plant flammability measurements was mapped using the Terra (1-7.29) package within R software 4.3.1. This thorough classification and visualization of data aimed to provide a comprehensive overview of the research landscape and highlight key trends and gaps in the study of plant flammability.

3. Results

3.1. Overview of Articles on Plant Flammability Measurements

A total of 220 articles related to plant flammability measurements were retrieved from the Web of Science and Google Scholar databases (Supplementary Materials File S1) [14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,27,28,30,31,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,69,70,71,72,73,74,75,76,77,78,79,80,81,82,83,84,85,86,87,88,89,90,91,92,93,94,95,96,97,98,99,100,101,102,103,104,105,106,107,108,109,110,111,112,113,114,115,116,117,118,119,120,121,122,123,124,125,126,127,128,129,130,131,132,133,134,135,136,137,138,139,140,141,142,143,144,145,146,147,148,149,150,151,152,153,154,155,156,157,158,159,160,161,162,163,164,165,166,167,168,169,170,171,172,173,174,175,176,177,178,179,180,181,182,183,184,185,186,187,188,189,190,191,192,193,194,195,196,197,198,199,200,201,202,203,204,205,206,207,208,209,210,211,212,213,214,215,216,217,218,219,220,221,222,223,224,225,226,227,228,229,230]. The earliest research related to plant flammability measurement was published in 1964 [205]. By 1970, researchers began to focus on the relationship between plant functional traits and flammability [202]. Over the years, the number of published papers has steadily increased, with a significant surge after 2008 (Figure 1).
The research areas of these studies were mainly concentrated in the United States of America (28.19%), China (12.33%), and Australia (13.22%). Articles from these three countries collectively accounted for approximately half of the total worldwide publications. This was followed by France (6.61%), Spain (5.29%), Argentina (4.41%), and New Zealand (3.96%) (Figure 2 and Figure 3). Additionally, we examined articles originating from the Mediterranean climate (MTC) region. The Mediterranean climate region is characterized by strong seasonality, featuring hot, dry summers and mild, wet winters [95,122], which contributes to the frequent occurrence of wildfires in this region [48]. A total of 40 articles were found that were conducted in the Mediterranean climate region, accounting for 20.51% of worldwide studies (Figure 2).

3.2. Methods for Plant Flammability Measurements

Methods for plant flammability measurements can be broadly categorized into the following three types: (1) measuring flammability-related characteristics, (2) burning experiments, and (3) a combination of burning experiments with flammability-related characteristic measurements. The method that integrates burning experiments with flammability-related characteristic measurements is the most commonly used, comprising approximately 50% of the methods employed in these studies. Methods that assess flammability by measuring flammability-related characteristics account for 17.27%, while burning experiments make up 34.55% (Figure 4).

3.2.1. Burning Experiments

In burning experiments, leaves and litter are the most commonly used materials, accounting for 30.65% and 25.70%, respectively. These are followed by shoots (17.96%) [17,19,46,47,48,49], barks (4.02%) [18,20,62,104,152,189], and others (21.67%) [57,71,112,118,170,212,231,232] (Figure 5). Four flammability components, namely ignitability, combustibility, sustainability, and consumption, were measured in 6.36% of studies. More than 50% of the studies used two or three flammability components to evaluate plant flammability. Around 10% of studies only used one flammability component, either ignitability (7.27%), combustibility (4.55%), or sustainability (1.00%) (Figure 6).
Flammability components were evaluated by using different burning variables (Figure 7; Table 1). Ignition time and rate of spread are commonly used to assess ignitability [14,15,17]. Specifically, 65.13% of studies used ignition time, 20.41% used rate of spread, and 14.29% used both ignition time and rate of spread. Combustibility is typically assessed using maximum flame temperature, maximum flame height, and peak heat release rate [15,66,71]. In detail, 35.21% of studies used maximum flame height, 30.28% used maximum flame temperature, 15.49% used peak heat release rate, 11.27% used both maximum flame height and maximum flame temperature, 5.63% used both maximum flame temperature and peak heat release rate, and 2.11% used both maximum flame height and peak heat release rate. Sustainability is evaluated using the flame duration and effective heat of combustion. Among the studies, 87.13% used flame duration, 7.92% used the effective heat of combustion, and 4.95% used both flame duration and the effective heat of combustion. Consumability was reflected solely by the residual mass fraction.

3.2.2. Flammability-Related Characteristic Measurements

Assessing flammability through the measurement of plant physiological and physicochemical characteristics is feasible, as plant flammability is strongly correlated with these characteristics. Understanding these characteristics, such as moisture content, leaf size, oil content, etc., can provide valuable insights into plant flammability [28,36,91,156]. It is important to note that these flammability-related characteristics are associated with flammability, but do not establish a causal relationship.
More than half of the studies measured physiological characteristics, with 63.64% focusing on this aspect, and moisture content is the most commonly assessed trait. Physical characteristics were examined in half of the studies, with leaf size, leaf texture, and leaf thickness being the three most frequently measured traits. When evaluating the flammability of litter, packing density, packing ratio, leaf surface area-to-volume ratio, and fuel area-to-volume ratio were the most commonly used physical characteristics [41,82,83]. Approximately one-third of the studies utilized chemical compositions to assess plant flammability. These chemical compositions primarily included variables such as terpene content, lignin content, oil content, cellulose content, tannin concentration, carbon content, nitrogen content, phosphorus content, and other chemical elements (Figure 8) [28,54,60,70]. Among these, cellulose, oil, and terpene content were the most commonly measured chemical components (Supplementary Materials File S1).

4. Discussion

Evaluating plant flammability by measuring flammability-related characteristics is a common approach in previous studies. However, plant flammability is a complex property with multiple components, and these components are influenced by various plant traits, including physiological characteristics, morphological features, and chemical composition [43,205,223,226,227]. For example, Popović and Zorica [233] found that physical and chemical characteristics such as specific leaf area, leaf thickness, litter bulk density, and leaf terpenoid content have strong relationships with flammability components. Some characteristics may influence the flammability of different organs distinctly. For instance, plants with smaller leaves may produce densely packed litter, which could result in oxygen deficiency and subsequently reduce burning rates. Conversely, smaller leaves may enhance shoot-level flammability [41,42,43]. Physiological changes also affect plant flammability, such as characteristics related to the water and carbon cycles [234]. Moreover, the primary determinants of flammability may vary across species. Therefore, measuring specific plant characteristics for flammability assessment may not fully capture the true flammability of plants in natural settings.
Burning experiments represent another approach for assessing the flammability of plants. These experiments provide a more direct evaluation of plant flammability components compared to measuring flammability-related traits. Burning entire plants can offer a comprehensive reflection of their flammability, but this method is highly challenging and costly, especially for trees and large shrubs [13,228,235]. As a result, researchers often opt to assess plant flammability by burning different plant parts. For instance, leaves (30.13%) and litter (25.63%) (Figure 5) are the most frequently used materials in burning experiments, comprising half of the experiments (Figure 4). Leaves and litter are favored due to their ease of collection and suitability for burning in equipment like cone calorimeters, surface radiometers, or Muffle furnaces. However, the flammability characteristics of small plant parts may not accurately represent those of the entire plant, and significant variations in flammability can exist among different plant organs [37,92,228,236]. Therefore, it is crucial to select appropriate plant parts when conducting burning experiments. Woody litter and entire grasses/forbs are suitable for assessing plant flammability in surface fires, while woody branch material may be more appropriate for evaluating flammability during crown fires, as they serve as primary fuels for surface and crown fires, respectively [1,237,238,239].
However, there is currently no universally accepted standard method or instrument for conducting burning experiments. Although ignitability, combustibility, sustainability, and consumability are widely accepted as the main burning components [235,240], most studies did not utilize all the four components to assess plant flammability. The burning variables being used to reflect these flammability components also differ among studies. For example, ignition time, ignition frequency, and ignition point are commonly used to assess ignitability. The flaming time and effective heat of combustion are employed to gauge sustainability. However, the optimal variable to accurately measure each flammability component remains ambiguous. Furthermore, different experimental setups, such as varying ignition sources, can significantly influence experimental outcomes [241,242]. How samples are placed also plays a critical role in burning experiments. For instance, burning stacked shoots typically prolongs the ignition time compared to hanging them down, due to increased shoot density reduced the airflow [41,72,82,243]. The lack of standardization in burning experiments has led to disparate results among researchers, hindering advancements in plant flammability research [235,240,244].
Laboratory studies on plant flammability have limitations in capturing the complexity of factors present in natural conditions, which restricts our ability to accurately assess the flammability of a particular species in natural environments [240]. When measuring plant flammability, it is crucial to consider natural conditions such as wildfire conditions and macroclimate conditions [9,137,235,245]. Moreover, the sample collection time is also an important factor that needs to be considered. For instance, different collection times can significantly affect plants’ physiological characteristics, thus effecting plant flammability [235]. To ensure consistency, some researchers recommend measuring plant flammability during fire seasons. Additionally, the transportation and storage of experimental materials can result in the loss of moisture content. Consequently, conducting burning experiments effectively and scientifically remains a challenge and requires further studies. The standardization of plant flammability measurements may be the first step in better assessing plant flammability and predicting the likelihood of fires in a given area.
Plant flammability studies will inform wildfire management. Identification and plantation of low-flammability species can help mitigate fire risk and impede wildfire spread [246]. For example, the construction of green firebreaks is a promising approach to mitigate wildfires [28,31,64]. In high-risk areas, removing or reducing highly flammable species like those from the Pinus, Quercus, and certain Eucalyptus species can reduce the fire risk [162,247,248,249]. Investigation into the effect of moisture content on litter flammability can help counteract the effects of drought with timely and effective measures [250,251,252]. Using plant flammability research data, wildfire risks in specific species distribution areas can be better assessed, guiding fire preventive measures.

5. Conclusions

Accurately assessing the flammability of various plant species is crucial for wildfire management and fire ecology studies. The current mainstream methods for plant flammability measurements include (1) measuring flammability-related characteristics, (2) burning experiments, and (3) a combination of burning experiments with flammability-related characteristic measurements. However, the flammability-related characteristics and burning variables used differ across studies. Furthermore, it is uncertain whether assessing plant flammability solely based on flammability-related characteristics accurately reflects the real flammability of the plants. Burning experiments are likely to provide a better reflection of plant behavior during combustion, but the choice of plant parts and the burning equipment used are inconsistent across studies. These inconsistencies have resulted in incomparable results among different researchers, impeding progress in plant flammability research. Therefore, there is still much work to be conducted in relation to improving the assessment of plant flammability and standardizing measurement methods. Establishing universally accepted protocols and methodologies will be key to advancing our understanding of plant flammability and enhancing wildfire management strategies.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/fire7080266/s1, Supplementary Materials File S1.

Author Contributions

M.J.: Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Writing—original draft; Y.J.: Formal analysis and Methodology; H.Z.: Supervision and Writing—editing; D.C.: Writing—editing; X.C.: Conceptualization, Funding acquisition, Writing—review and editing, and Supervision. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This study is supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (grant numbers 32101532), and the Natural Science Foundation of Sichuan Province (grant number 2023NSFSC1278).

Data Availability Statement

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors on request.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Keeley, J.E. Ecology and Evolution of Pine Life Histories. Ann. For. Sci. 2012, 69, 445–453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. He, T.; Lamont, B.B. Baptism by Fire: The Pivotal Role of Ancient Conflagrations in Evolution of the Earth’s Flora. Natl. Sci. Rev. 2018, 5, 237–254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Bond, W.J.; Scott, A.C. Fire and the Spread of Flowering Plants in the Cretaceous. New Phytol. 2010, 188, 1137–1150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Archibald, S.; Lehmann, C.; Gomez-Dans, J.; Bradstock, R. Defining Pyromes and Global Syndromes of Fire Regimes. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2013, 110, 6442–6447. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Keeley, J.E.; Pausas, J.G.; Rundel, P.W.; Bond, W.J.; Bradstock, R.A. Fire as an Evolutionary Pressure Shaping Plant Traits. Trends Plant Sci. 2011, 16, 406–411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. He, T.; Pausas, J.G.; Belcher, C.M.; Schwilk, D.W.; Lamont, B.B. Fire-Adapted Traits of Pinus Arose in the Fiery Cretaceous. New Phytol. 2012, 194, 751–759. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Lamont, B.B.; Enright, N.J.; He, T. Fitness and Evolution of Resprouters in Relation to Fire. Plant Ecol. 2011, 212, 1945–1957. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Zamudio, D.A.C.; Guerra, B.R.; Vázquez, J.L.A.; Garnica, J.G.F.; Avilés, L.C.; Aguilar, R.T.; Cantú, D.H.N.; Bautista, A.A.; Hernandez, J.M.; Quiroz, D.C.; et al. Trends in Global and Mexico Research in Wildfires: A Bibliometric Perspective. Open J. For. 2023, 13, 182–199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Schwilk, D.W. Dimensions of Plant Flammability. New Phytol. 2015, 206, 486–488. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Bowman, D.; Balch, J.; Artaxo, P.; Bond, W.; Carlson, J.; Cochrane, M.; D’Antonio, C.; Defries, R.; Doyle, J.; Harrison, S.; et al. Fire in the Earth System. Science 2009, 324, 481–484. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Pausas, J.G.; Keeley, J.E.; Schwilk, D.W. Flammability as an Ecological and Evolutionary Driver. J. Ecol. 2017, 105, 289–297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Gill, A.M.; Zylstra, P. Flammability of Australian Forests. Aust. For. 2005, 68, 87–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. White, R.H.; Zipperer, W.C. Testing and Classification of Individual Plants for Fire Behaviour: Plant Selection for the Wildland–Urban Interface. Int. J. Wildland Fire 2010, 19, 213–227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Della Rocca, G.; Hernando, C.; Madrigal, J.; Danti, R.; Moya, J.; Guijarro, M.; Pecchioli, A.; Moya, B. Possible Land Management Uses of Common Cypress to Reduce Wildfire Initiation Risk: A Laboratory Study. J. Environ. Manag. 2015, 159, 68–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Della Rocca, G.; Danti, R.; Hernando, C.; Guijarro, M.; Madrigal, J. Flammability of Two Mediterranean Mixed Forests: Study of the Non-Additive Effect of Fuel Mixtures in Laboratory. Front. Plant Sci. 2018, 9, 825. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Prior, L.D.; Murphy, B.P.; Bowman, D.M.J.S. Conceptualizing Ecological Flammability: An Experimental Test of Three Frameworks Using Various Types and Loads of Surface Fuels. Fire 2018, 1, 14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Santana, V.M.; Marrs, R.H. Flammability Properties of British Heathland and Moorland Vegetation: Models for Predicting Fire Ignition. J. Environ. Manag. 2014, 139, 88–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Calitz, W.; Potts, A.J.; Cowling, R.M. Investigating Species-Level Flammability across Five Biomes in the Eastern Cape, South Africa. S. Afr. J. Bot. 2015, 101, 32–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Simpson, K.J.; Ripley, B.S.; Christin, P.-A.; Belcher, C.M.; Lehmann, C.E.R.; Thomas, G.H.; Osborne, C.P. Determinants of Flammability in Savanna Grass Species. J. Ecol. 2016, 104, 138–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Wyse, S.V.; Perry, G.L.W.; Curran, T.J. Shoot-Level Flammability of Species Mixtures Is Driven by the Most Flammable Species: Implications for Vegetation-Fire Feedbacks Favouring Invasive Species. Ecosystems 2018, 21, 886–900. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Blauw, L.G.; van Logtestijn, R.S.P.; Broekman, R.; Aerts, R.; Cornelissen, J.H.C. Tree Species Identity in High-Latitude Forests Determines Fire Spread through Fuel Ladders from Branches to Soil and Vice Versa. For. Ecol. Manag. 2017, 400, 475–484. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Jolly, W.M.; Hintz, J.; Linn, R.L.; Kropp, R.C.; Conrad, E.T.; Parsons, R.A.; Winterkamp, J. Seasonal Variations in Red Pine (Pinus resinosa) and Jack Pine (Pinus banksiana) Foliar Physio-Chemistry and Their Potential Influence on Stand-Scale Wildland Fire Behavior. For. Ecol. Manag. 2016, 373, 167–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Powell, J.R.; Riley, R.C.; Cornwell, W. Relationships between Mycorrhizal Type and Leaf Flammability in the Australian Flora. Pedobiologia 2017, 65, 43–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Zhao, W.; van Logtestijn, R.S.P.; van Hal, J.R.; Dong, M.; Cornelissen, J.H.C. Non-Additive Effects of Leaf and Twig Mixtures from Different Tree Species on Experimental Litter-Bed Flammability. Plant Soil 2019, 436, 311–324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Gary, H.L. Seasonal and Diurnal Changes in Moisture Contents and Water Deficits of Engelmann Spruce Needles. Bot. Gaz. 1971, 132, 327–332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Jolly, W.M.; Hadlow, A.M.; Huguet, K. De-Coupling Seasonal Changes in Water Content and Dry Matter to Predict Live Conifer Foliar Moisture Content. Int. J. Wildland Fire 2014, 23, 480–489. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Zhou, G.; Zhou, Y.; Yu, S.; Bai, S.; Lu, F. Schima Superba as a Fuelbreak: Litter Combustibility of Three Tree Species with Five Water Content Levels Using a Cone Calorimeter. Front. For. China 2009, 4, 178–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Grootemaat, S.; Wright, I.J.; van Bodegom, P.M.; Cornelissen, J.H.C.; Cornwell, W.K. Burn or Rot: Leaf Traits Explain Why Flammability and Decomposability Are Decoupled across Species. Funct. Ecol. 2015, 29, 1486–1497. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Dai, J.; Mumper, R.J. Plant Phenolics: Extraction, Analysis and Their Antioxidant and Anticancer Properties. Molecules 2010, 15, 7313–7352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Romero, B.; Fernandez, C.; Lecareux, C.; Ormeño, E.; Ganteaume, A. How Terpene Content Affects Fuel Flammability of Wildland–Urban Interface Vegetation. Int. J. Wildland Fire 2019, 28, 614–627. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Guerrero, F.; Hernández, C.; Toledo, M.; Espinoza, L.; Carrasco, Y.; Arriagada, A.; Muñoz, A.; Taborga, L.; Bergmann, J.; Carmona, C. Leaf Thermal and Chemical Properties as Natural Drivers of Plant Flammability of Native and Exotic Tree Species of the Valparaíso Region, Chile. Int. J. Env. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 7191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Barbehenn, R.V.; Peter Constabel, C. Tannins in Plant-Herbivore Interactions. Phytochemistry 2011, 72, 1551–1565. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Li, Y.; Hu, H.; Feng, Z. Flammability of Several Tree Species in the Maoer Mountain Area, northeastern China. J. Beijing For. Univ. 2010, 32, 22–25. [Google Scholar]
  34. Babl-Plauche, E.K.; Alexander, H.D.; Siegert, C.M.; Willis, J.L.; Berry, A.I. Mesophication of Upland Oak Forests: Implications of Species-Specific Differences in Leaf Litter Decomposition Rates and Fuelbed Composition. For. Ecol. Manag. 2022, 512, 120141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Feng, Z.; Wei, H.-B.; Ye, R.-H.; Sui, Q.; Gou, X.-D.; Guo, Y.; Liu, L.-J.; Yang, S.-L. Latest Permian Peltasperm Plant From Southwest China and Its Paleoenvironmental Implications. Front. Earth Sci. 2020, 8, 559430. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Murray, B.R.; Hardstaff, L.K.; Phillips, M.L. Differences in Leaf Flammability, Leaf Traits and Flammability-Trait Relationships between Native and Exotic Plant Species of Dry Sclerophyll Forest. PLoS ONE 2013, 8, e79205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Zhao, W.; Cornwell, W.K.; van Pomeren, M.; van Logtestijn, R.S.P.; Cornelissen, J.H.C. Species Mixture Effects on Flammability across Plant Phylogeny: The Importance of Litter Particle Size and the Special Role for Non-Pinus Pinaceae. Ecol. Evol. 2016, 6, 8223–8234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Curt, T.; Schaffhauser, A.; Borgniet, L.; Dumas, C.; Estève, R.; Ganteaume, A.; Jappiot, M.; Martin, W.; N’Diaye, A.; Poilvet, B. Litter Flammability in Oak Woodlands and Shrublands of Southeastern France. For. Ecol. Manag. 2011, 261, 2214–2222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Kane, J.M.; Varner, J.M.; Saunders, M.R. Resurrecting the Lost Flames of American Chestnut. Ecosystems 2019, 22, 995–1006. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Ganteaume, A.; Jappiot, M.; Curt, T.; Lampin, C.; Borgniet, L. Flammability of Litter Sampled According to Two Different Methods: Comparison of Results in Laboratory Experiments. Int. J. Wildland Fire 2014, 23, 1061–1075. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Scarff, F.R.; Westoby, M. Leaf Litter Flammability in Some Semi-Arid Australian Woodlands. Funct. Ecol. 2006, 20, 745–752. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Van Altena, C. Species Composition and Fire: Non-Additive Mixture Effects on Ground Fuel Flammability. Front. Plant Sci. 2012, 3, 63. [Google Scholar]
  43. de Magalhães, R.M.Q.; Schwilk, D.W. Leaf Traits and Litter Flammability: Evidence for Non-Additive Mixture Effects in a Temperate Forest. J. Ecol. 2012, 100, 1153–1163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Shan, Y.; Liu, N.; Shu, L. Flammability Ranking of Foliage Species by Factor Analysis of Physical and Chemical Pyric Properties. Fire Mater. 2008, 32, 371–382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Yang, W.; Bakar, B.H.A.; Mamat, H.; Gong, L.; Nursyamsi, N. A Laboratory-Scale Study of Selected Chinese Typical Flammable Wildland Timbers Ignition Formation Mechanism. Fire 2023, 6, 20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Wenjing, S.U.; Siyu, Z.; Cheng, H.E.; Qiuhua, W.; Shiyou, L.I. Combustion Characteristics of Live Leaves of 9 Lianas Species in Kunming, Yunnan Province. For. Resour. Wanagement 2017, 6, 120. [Google Scholar]
  47. Huang, Y.; Wang, K.; Deng, B.; Sun, X.; Zeng, D.H. Effects of Fire and Grazing on Above-Ground Biomass and Species Diversity in Recovering Grasslands in Northeast China. J. Veg. Sci. 2018, 29, 629–639. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Masinda, M.M.; Sun, L.; Wang, G.; Hu, T. Moisture Content Thresholds for Ignition and Rate of Fire Spread for Various Dead Fuels in Northeast Forest Ecosystems of China. J. For. Res. 2021, 32, 1147–1155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Lei, W.; Jiachen, X.; Pengfei, Z.; Jiayan, L.; Heng, Z. Physical and Chemical Properties and Combustibility of Predominant Landscape Tree Species in Hohhot, China. J. Nanjing For. Univ. 2020, 44, 74. [Google Scholar]
  50. Lei, W.; Jiachen, X.; Yaxing, Z.; Heng, Z. Pyrolysis Kinetics of Major Landscape Tree Species in Hohhot of Northern China Based on Thermogravimetric Analysis. J. Beijing For. Univ. 2020, 42, 87–95. [Google Scholar]
  51. Heng, Z.; Mengran, C.U.I.; Yanlong, S.; Fei, W. Study on Flammability of Herbaceous Fuel in Typical Grassland of China-Mongolia Border. J. Nanjing For. Univ. 2021, 45, 171. [Google Scholar]
  52. Gao, K.; Zhang, Z.; Zhu, T.; Tian, X.; Gao, Y.; Zhao, L.; Li, T. The Influence of Leaf Removal on Tuber Yield and Fuel Characteristics of Helianthus tuberosus L. in a Semi-Arid Area. Ind. Crops Prod. 2019, 131, 8–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Huichang, H.; Niu, H.; Ji, D.; Zeng, Y. Thermal Degradation Kinetics and Flammability Assessment of Forest Fuels. In Sustainable Energy Solutions for Changing the World. 2021, Volume 10. Available online: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Thermal-Degradation-Kinetics-and-Flammability-of-Niu-Ji/cf2a0953d99405fafbecb13d6445818e22523ea8 (accessed on 27 May 2024).
  54. Gao, C.; Cong, J.; Sun, Y.; Han, D.; Wang, G.; Gao, C.; Cong, J.; Sun, Y.; Han, D.; Wang, G. Variability in Pyrogenic Carbon Properties Generated by Different Burning Temperatures and Peatland Plant Litters: Implication for Identifying Fire Intensity and Fuel Types. Int. J. Wildland Fire 2022, 31, 395–408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Wang, X.; Xu, L.; Xu, J.; Wu, Z. Effects of Prescribed Fire on Plant Traits and Community Characteristics of Triarrhena Lutarioriparia in Poyang Lake, China. Wetlands 2019, 39, 161–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Zhao, F.; Shu, L.; Wang, Q.; Wang, M.; Tian, X. Emissions of Volatile Organic Compounds from Heated Needles and Twigs of Pinus Pumila. J. For. Res. 2011, 22, 243–248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Chen, F.; Si, L.; Zhao, F.; Wang, M. Volatile Oil in Pinus yunnanensis Potentially Contributes to Extreme Fire Behavior. Fire 2023, 6, 113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Zhao, F.-J.; Shu, L.-F.; Wang, Q.-H. Terpenoid Emissions from Heated Needles of Pinus Sylvestris and Their Potential Influences on Forest Fires. Acta Ecol. Sin. 2012, 32, 33–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Zhang, Z.; Zhang, H.; Zhou, D. Flammability Characterisation of Grassland Species of Songhua Jiang-Nen Jiang Plain (China) Using Thermal Analysis. Fire Saf. J. 2011, 46, 283–288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Wang, X.; Niu, S.; Kan, Z. Properties and Flammability of Major Tree Species in the Beijing Area. Front. For. China 2009, 4, 304–308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Liu, M.H.; Yi, L.T.; Yu, S.Q.; Zhou, G.M.; Jiang, H.; Li, X.P. Combustibility of Fresh Leaves of 26 Forest Species in China. J. Trop. For. Sci. 2013, 25, 528–536. [Google Scholar]
  62. Cui, X.; Dai, D.; Huang, C.; Wang, B.; Li, S.; You, C.; Paterson, A.M.; Perry, G.L.W.; Buckley, H.L.; Cubino, J.P.; et al. Climatic Conditions Affect Shoot Flammability by Influencing Flammability-related Functional Traits in Nonfire-prone Habitats. New Phytol. 2023, 240, 105–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  63. Meng, M.; Jie, D.; Gao, G.; Gao, T.; Xu, S.; Lian, Y.; Xu, H.; Li, T.; Wang, J.; Niu, H.; et al. Characteristics of Burned Phytolith from Representative Plants in Northeast China and Implications for Paleo-Fire Reconstruction. Rev. Palaeobot. Palynol. 2022, 300, 104628. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Yang, Y.S.; Guo, J.; Chen, G.; Xie, J.; Gao, R.; Li, Z.; Jin, Z. Carbon and Nitrogen Pools in Chinese Fir and Evergreen Broadleaved Forests and Changes Associated with Felling and Burning in Mid-Subtropical China. For. Ecol. Manag. 2005, 216, 216–226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Jia, J.; Huang, R.; Wang, Y. Study on the Combustion Characteristics of Mountain Forest Vegetation. Forests 2022, 13, 1443. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Weng, Y.; Yang, G.; Zhang, L.; Di, X.; Yu, H.; Ning, J.; Xue, Y.; Shu, Z.; Han, D. The Potential Effect of Pests on Forest Fire: Flammability of Mongolian Pine Bark with Resinosis on Boles. Forests 2021, 12, 365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Belcher, C.M. The Influence of Leaf Morphology on Litter Flammability and Its Utility for Interpreting Palaeofire. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 2016, 371, 20150163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  68. Bianchi, L.O.; Oddi, F.J.; Muñoz, M.; Defossé, G.E. Comparison of Leaf Moisture Content and Ignition Characteristics among Native Species and Exotic Conifers in Northwestern Patagonia, Argentina. For. Sci. 2019, 65, 375–386. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Cui, X.; Paterson, A.M.; Wyse, S.V.; Alam, M.A.; Maurin, K.J.L.; Pieper, R.; Padullés Cubino, J.; O’Connell, D.M.; Donkers, D.; Bréda, J.; et al. Shoot Flammability of Vascular Plants Is Phylogenetically Conserved and Related to Habitat Fire-Proneness and Growth Form. Nat. Plants 2020, 6, 355–359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  70. Dewhirst, R.A.; Smirnoff, N.; Belcher, C.M. Pine Species That Support Crown Fire Regimes Have Lower Leaf-Level Terpene Contents than Those Native to Surface Fire Regimes. Fire 2020, 3, 17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Frejaville, T.; Curt, T.; Carcaillet, C. Bark Flammability as a Fire-Response Trait for Subalpine Trees. Front. Plant Sci. 2013, 4, 466. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Grootemaat, S.; Wright, I.J.; van Bodegom, P.M.; Cornelissen, J.H.C. Scaling up Flammability from Individual Leaves to Fuel Beds. Oikos 2017, 126, 1428–1438. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Kreye, J.K.; Varner, J.M.; Hamby, G.W.; Kane, J.M. Mesophytic Litter Dampens FLammability in FIre-Excluded Pyrophytic Oak–Hickory Woodlands. Ecosphere 2018, 9, 10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Krix, D.W.; Murray, B.R. Landscape Variation in Plant Leaf Flammability Is Driven by Leaf Traits Responding to Environmental Gradients. Ecosphere 2018, 9, 13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Molina, J.R.; Lora, A.; Prades, C.; Rodríguez y Silva, F. Roadside Vegetation Planning and Conservation: New Approach to Prevent and Mitigate Wildfires Based on Fire Ignition Potential. For. Ecol. Manag. 2019, 444, 163–173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Molina, J.R.; Martín, T.; Rodríguez Y Silva, F.; Herrera, M.Á. The Ignition Index Based on Flammability of Vegetation Improves Planning in the Wildland-Urban Interface: A Case Study in Southern Spain. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2017, 158, 129–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Stevens, J.T.; Kling, M.M.; Schwilk, D.W.; Varner, J.M.; Kane, J.M. Biogeography of Fire Regimes in Western U.S. Conifer Forests: A Trait-based Approach. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 2020, 29, 944–955. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Parsons, A.L.; Balch, J.K.; de Andrade, R.B.; Brando, P.M. The Role of Leaf Traits in Determining Litter Flammability of South-Eastern Amazon Tree Species. Int. J. Wildland Fire 2015, 24, 1143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Santacruz-García, A.C.; Bravo, S.; del Corro, F.; Ojeda, F. A Comparative Assessment of Plant Flammability through a Functional Approach: The Case of Woody Species from Argentine Chaco Region: A Comparative Assessment of Plant Flammability. Austral Ecol. 2019, 44, 1416–1429. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Bianchi, L.O.; Defossé, G.E. Live Fuel Moisture Content and Leaf Ignition of Forest Species in Andean Patagonia, Argentina. Int. J. Wildland Fire 2015, 24, 340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Wyse, S.V.; Perry, G.L.W.; O’Connell, D.M.; Holland, P.S.; Wright, M.J.; Hosted, C.L.; Whitelock, S.L.; Geary, I.J.; Maurin, K.J.L.; Curran, T.J. A Quantitative Assessment of Shoot Flammability for 60 Tree and Shrub Species Supports Rankings Based on Expert Opinion. Int. J. Wildland Fire 2016, 25, 466–477. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Cornwell, W.K.; Elvira, A.; van Kempen, L.; van Logtestijn, R.S.P.; Aptroot, A.; Cornelissen, J.H.C. Flammability across the Gymnosperm Phylogeny: The Importance of Litter Particle Size. New Phytol. 2015, 206, 672–681. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  83. Ganteaume, A. Does Plant Flammability Differ between Leaf and Litter Bed Scale? Role of Fuel Characteristics and Consequences for Flammability Assessment. Int. J. Wildland Fire 2018, 27, 342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Kauf, Z.; Fangmeier, A.; Rosavec, R.; Španjol, Ž. Seasonal and Local Differences in Leaf Litter Flammability of Six Mediterranean Tree Species. Environ. Manag. 2015, 55, 687–701. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Merino, A.; Chávez-Vergara, B.; Salgado, J.; Fonturbel, M.T.; García-Oliva, F.; Vega, J.A. Variability in the Composition of Charred Litter Generated by Wildfire in Different Ecosystems. Catena 2015, 133, 52–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Ormeño, E.; Céspedes, B.; Sánchez, I.A.; Velasco-García, A.; Moreno, J.M.; Fernandez, C.; Baldy, V. The Relationship between Terpenes and Flammability of Leaf Litter. For. Ecol. Manag. 2008, 257, 471–482. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. De Lillis, M.; Bianco, P.M.; Loreto, F. The Influence of Leaf Water Content and Isoprenoids on Flammability of Some Mediterranean Woody Species. Int. J. Wildland Fire 2009, 18, 203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Dehane, B.; Hernando, C.; Guijarro, M.; Madrigal, J. Flammability of Some Companion Species in Cork Oak (Quercus suber L.) Forests. Ann. For. Sci. 2017, 74, 60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Della Rocca, G.; Madrigal, J.; Marchi, E.; Michelozzi, M.; Moya, B.; Danti, R. Relevance of Terpenoids on Flammability of Mediterranean Species: An Experimental Approach at a Low Radiant Heat Flux. iForest 2017, 10, 766–775. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Dickinson, K.J.M.; Kirkpatrick, J.B. The Flammability and Energy Content of Some Important Plant Species and Fuel Components in the Forests of Southeastern Tasmania. J. Biogeogr. 1985, 12, 121–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Engber, E.A.; Varner, J.M. Patterns of Flammability of the California Oaks: The Role of Leaf Traits. Can. J. For. Res. 2012, 42, 1965–1975. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Ganteaume, A.; Lampin-Maillet, C.; Guijarro, M.; Hernando, C.; Jappiot, M.; Fonturbel, T.; Pérez-Gorostiaga, P.; Vega, J.A. Spot Fires: Fuel Bed Flammability and Capability of Firebrands to Ignite Fuel Beds. Int. J. Wildland Fire 2009, 18, 951. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Haurie, L.; Giraldo, M.P.; Lacasta, A.M.; Montón, J.; Sonnier, R. Influence of Different Parameters in the Fire Behaviour of Seven Hardwood Species. Fire Saf. J. 2019, 107, 193–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Mola, J.M.; Varner, J.M.; Jules, E.S.; Spector, T. Altered Community Flammability in Florida’s Apalachicola Ravines and Implications for the Persistence of the Endangered Conifer Torreya Taxifolia. PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e103933. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  95. Molina, J.R.; Prades, C.; Lora, Á.; Rodríguez y Silva, F. Quercus suber Cork as a Keystone Trait for Fire Response: A Flammability Analysis Using Bench and Field Scales. For. Ecol. Manag. 2018, 429, 384–393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Rasooli, S.B. Fire Sensitivity of Broadleaf Tree Species in Plantations of Kurdistan, Iran. J. For. Res. 2021, 32, 1167–1176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Baker, S.J.; Dewhirst, R.A.; McElwain, J.C.; Haworth, M.; Belcher, C.M. CO2-Induced Biochemical Changes in Leaf Volatiles Decreased Fire-Intensity in the Run-up to the Triassic–Jurassic Boundary. New Phytol. 2022, 235, 1442–1454. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  98. Barnes, A.G.; Kane, J.M.; McKenzie, D.A.; Koerner, B.A. Invasion of a Non-native Forb Reduces Flammability in a Fire-dependent Ecosystem. Ecosphere 2022, 13, e3995. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Guerrero, F.; Carmona, C.; Hernández, C.; Toledo, M.; Arriagada, A.; Espinoza, L.; Bergmann, J.; Taborga, L.; Yañez, K.; Carrasco, Y.; et al. Drivers of Flammability of Eucalyptus Globulus Labill Leaves: Terpenes, Essential Oils, and Moisture Content. Forests 2022, 13, 908. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Kane, J.M.; Gallagher, M.R.; Varner, J.M.; Skowronski, N.S. Evidence of Local Adaptation in Litter Flammability of a Widespread Fire-Adaptive Pine. J. Ecol. 2022, 110, 1138–1148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Varner, J.M.; Shearman, T.M.; Kane, J.M.; Banwell, E.M.; Jules, E.S.; Stambaugh, M.C. Understanding Flammability and Bark Thickness in the Genus Pinus Using a Phylogenetic Approach. Sci. Rep. 2022, 12, 7384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Zhang, S.; Cornwell, W.K.; Zhao, W.; van Logtestijn, R.S.P.; Krab, E.J.; Aerts, R.; Cornelissen, J.H.C. Experimental Evidence That Leaf Litter Decomposability and Flammability Are Decoupled across Gymnosperm Species. J. Ecol. 2022, 111, 761–772. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Rosavec, R.; Barčić, D.; Španjol, Ž.; Oršanić, M.; Dubravac, T.; Antonović, A. Flammability and Combustibility of Two Mediterranean Species in Relation to Forest Fires in Croatia. Forests 2022, 13, 1266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Kraaij, T.; Msweli, S.T.; Potts, A.J. Fuel Trait Effects on Flammability of Native and Invasive Alien Shrubs in Coastal Fynbos and Thicket (Cape Floristic Region). PeerJ 2022, 10, e13765. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  105. Campos-Ruiz, R.; Parisien, M.-A.; Flannigan, M.D.; Campos-Ruiz, R.; Parisien, M.-A.; Flannigan, M.D. Physicochemical Characteristics Controlling the Flammability of Live Pinus Banksiana Needles in Central Alberta, Canada. Int. J. Wildland Fire 2022, 31, 857–870. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. White, R.H.; Weise, D.R.; Frommer, S. Preliminary evaluation of the flammability of native and ornamental plants with the cone calorimeter. In Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Fire Safety, Milbrae, CA, USA, 8–12 January1996. [Google Scholar]
  107. Potts, E.; Tng, D.; Apgaua, D.; Curran, T.J.; Engert, J.; Laurance, S.G. Growth Form and Functional Traits Influence the Shoot Flammability of Tropical Rainforest Species. For. Ecol. Manag. 2022, 522, 120485. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Ganteaume, A.; Jappiot, M.; Lampin, C. Assessing the Flammability of Surface Fuels beneath Ornamental Vegetation in Wildland-Urban Interfaces in Provence (South-Eastern France). Int. J. Wildland Fire 2012, 22, 333–342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Rahman, N.E.B.; Smith, S.W.; Lam, W.N.; Chong, K.Y.; Chua, M.S.E.; Teo, P.Y.; Lee, D.W.J.; Phua, S.Y.; Aw, C.Y.; Lee, J.S.H.; et al. Leaf Decomposition and Flammability Are Largely Decoupled across Species in a Tropical Swamp Forest despite Sharing Some Predictive Leaf Functional Traits. New Phytol. 2023, 238, 598–611. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  110. Krix, D.W.; Murray, B.R. A Predictive Model of Leaf Flammability Using Leaf Traits and Radiant Heat Flux for Plants of Fire-Prone Dry Sclerophyll Forest. Forests 2022, 13, 152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Michelaki, C.; Fyllas, N.M.; Galanidis, A.; Aloupi, M.; Evangelou, E.; Arianoutsou, M.; Dimitrakopoulos, P.G. Adaptive Flammability Syndromes in Thermo-Mediterranean Vegetation, Captured by Alternative Resource-Use Strategies. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 718, 137437. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Grootemaat, S.; Wright, I.J.; van Bodegom, P.M.; Cornelissen, J.H.C.; Shaw, V. Bark Traits, Decomposition and Flammability of Australian Forest Trees. Aust. J. Bot. 2017, 65, 327–338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Baeza, M.J.; Santana, V.M. Biological Significance of Dead Biomass Retention Trait in Mediterranean Basin Species: An Analysis between Different Successional Niches and Regeneration Strategies as Functional Groups. Plant Biol. 2015, 17, 1196–1202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  114. Mandal, S.; Kumar, G.V.P.; Bhattacharya, T.K.; Tanna, H.R.; Jena, P.C. Briquetting of Pine Needles (Pinus Roxburgii) and Their Physical, Handling and Combustion Properties. Waste Biomass Valorization 2019, 10, 2415–2424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Mancilla-Leyton, J.M.; Hernando, C.; Cambrolle, J.; Munoz-Valles, S.; Pino-Mejias, R.; Vicente, A.M. Can Shrub Flammability Be Affected by Goat Grazing? Flammability Parameters of Mediterranean Shrub Species under Grazing. Sustainability 2021, 13, 1555. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Franzese, J.; Raffaele, E.; Blackhall, M.; Rodriguez, J.; Soto, A.Y. Changes in Land Cover Resulting from the Introduction of Non-Native Pine Modifies Litter Traits of Temperate Forests in Patagonia. J. Veg. Sci. 2020, 31, 223–233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Cubino, J.P.; Buckley, H.L.; Day, N.J.; Pieper, R.; Curran, T.J. Community-Level Flammability Declines over 25years of Plant Invasion in Grasslands. J. Ecol. 2018, 106, 1582–1594. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Babl, E.; Alexander, H.D.; Siegert, C.M.; Willis, J.L. Could Canopy, Canopy, Bark, and Leaf Litter Traits of Encroaching Non-Oak Species Influence Future Flammability of Upland Oak Forests? For. Ecol. Manag. 2020, 458, 117731. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Bowman, D.M.J.S.; Haverkamp, C.; Rann, K.D.; Prior, L.D. Differential Demographic Filtering by Surface Fires: How Fuel Type and Fuel Load Affect Sapling Mortality of an Obligate Seeder Savanna Tree. J. Ecol. 2018, 106, 1010–1022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. Kauf, Z.; Damsohn, W.; Fangmeier, A. Do Relationships between Leaf Traits and Fire Behaviour of Leaf Litter Beds Persist in Time? PLoS ONE 2018, 13, e0209780. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  121. Prior, L.D.; Murphy, B.P.; Williamson, G.J.; Cochrane, M.A.; Jolly, W.M.; Bowman, D.M.J.S. Does Inherent Flammability of Grass and Litter Fuels Contribute to Continental Patterns of Landscape Fire Activity? J. Biogeogr. 2017, 44, 1225–1238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Romero, B.; Ganteaume, A. Does Recent Fire Activity Impact Fire-Related Traits of Pinus halepensis Mill. and Pinus sylvestris L. in the French Mediterranean Area? Ann. For. Sci. 2020, 77, 106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  123. Romero, B.; Ganteaume, A. Effect of Fire Frequency on the Flammability of Two Mediterranean Pines: Link with Needle Terpene Content. Plants 2021, 10, 2164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  124. Fidan, M.S.; Yasar, S.S.; Yasar, M.; Atar, M.; Alkan, E. Effect of Seasonal Changes on the Combustion Characteristics of Impregnated Cedar (Cedrus libani A. Rich.) Wood. Constr. Build. Mater. 2016, 106, 711–720. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  125. Blackhall, M.; Raffaele, E.; Paritsis, J.; Tiribelli, F.; Morales, J.M.; Kitzberger, T.; Gowda, J.H.; Veblen, T.T. Effects of Biological Legacies and Herbivory on Fuels and Flammability Traits: A Long-Term Experimental Study of Alternative Stable States. J. Ecol. 2017, 105, 1309–1322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  126. Emery, R.K.; Kleinman, J.S.; Goode, J.D.; Hart, J.L. Effects of Catastrophic Wind Disturbance, Salvage Logging, and Prescribed Fire on Fuel Loading and Composition in a Pinus palustris Woodland. For. Ecol. Manag. 2020, 478, 118515. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  127. Ripley, B.; Donald, G.; Osborne, C.P.; Abraham, T.; Martin, T. Experimental Investigation of Fire Ecology in the C-3 and C-4 Subspecies of Alloteropsis Semialata. J. Ecol. 2010, 98, 1196–1203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  128. Scarff, F.R.; Gray, B.F.; Westoby, M. Exploring Phosphate Effects on Leaf Flammability Using a Physical Chemistry Model. Int. J. Wildland Fire 2012, 21, 1042–1051. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  129. Cash, J.S.; Anderson, C.J. Feasibility of Igniting Prescribed Fires in Bottomland Hardwood Forests. J. For. 2020, 118, 555–560. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  130. dos Santos, P.; Matias, H.; Deus, E.; Aguas, A.; Silva, J.S. Fire Effects on Capsules and Encapsulated Seeds from Eucalyptus Globulus in Portugal. Plant Ecol. 2015, 216, 1611–1621. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  131. Mason, N.W.H.; Frazao, C.; Buxton, R.P.; Richardson, S.J. Fire Form and Function: Evidence for Exaptive Flammability in the New Zealand Flora. Plant Ecol. 2016, 217, 645–659. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  132. Gonzalez, S.; Aller, S.A.; Ghermandi, L. Fire Hazard Assessment at Different Scales in the Wildland-Urban Interface of Semiarid Areas of Northern Patagonia. Front. For. Glob. Change 2022, 5, 855790. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  133. Brennan, K.E.C.; Moir, M.L.; Wittkuhn, R.S. Fire Refugia: The Mechanism Governing Animal Survivorship within a Highly Flammable Plant. Austral Ecol. 2011, 36, 131–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  134. Dickinson, M.B.; Johnson, E.A.; Artiaga, R. Fire Spread Probabilities for Experimental Beds Composed of Mixedwood Boreal Forest Fuels. Can. J. For. Res.-Rev. Can. Rech. For. 2013, 43, 321–330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  135. Varner, J.M.; Kuljian, H.G.; Kreye, J.K. Fires without Tanoak: The Effects of a Non-Native Disease on Future Community Flammability. Biol. Invasions 2017, 19, 2307–2317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  136. Emery, R.K.; Hart, J.L. Flammability Characteristics of Surface Fuels in a Longleaf Pine (Pinus palustris Mill.) Woodland. Fire 2020, 3, 39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  137. Schwilk, D.W. Flammability Is a Niche Construction Trait: Canopy Architecture Affects Fire Intensity. Am. Nat. 2003, 162, 725–733. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  138. Blackhall, M.; Raffaele, E. Flammability of Patagonian Invaders and Natives: When Exotic Plant Species Affect Live Fine Fuel Ignitability in Wildland-Urban Interfaces. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2019, 189, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  139. Ganteaume, A.; Jappiot, M.; Lampin, C.; Guijarro, M.; Hernando, C. Flammability of Some Ornamental Species in Wildland–Urban Interfaces in Southeastern France: Laboratory Assessment at Particle Level. Environ. Manag. 2013, 52, 467–480. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  140. Fill, J.M.; Moule, B.M.; Varner, J.M.; Mousseau, T.A. Flammability of the Keystone Savanna Bunchgrass Aristida Stricta. Plant Ecol. 2016, 217, 331–342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  141. Burger, N.; Bond, W.J. Flammability Traits of Cape Shrubland Species with Different Post-Fire Recruitment Strategies. S. Afr. J. Bot. 2015, 101, 40–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  142. Wragg, P.D.; Mielke, T.; Tilman, D. Forbs, Grasses, and Grassland Fire Behaviour. J. Ecol. 2018, 106, 1983–2001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  143. Ghermandi, L.; Beletzky, N.A.; de Torres Curth, M.L.; Oddi, F.J. From Leaves to Landscape: A Multiscale Approach to Assess Fire Hazard in Wildland-Urban Interface Areas. J. Environ. Manag. 2016, 183, 925–937. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  144. Ellair, D.P.; Platt, W.J. Fuel Composition Influences Fire Characteristics and Understorey Hardwoods in Pine Savanna. J. Ecol. 2013, 101, 192–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  145. Santana, V.M.; Jaime Baeza, M.; Ramon Vallejo, V. Fuel Structural Traits Modulating Soil Temperatures in Different Species Patches of Mediterranean Basin Shrublands. Int. J. Wildland Fire 2011, 20, 668–677. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  146. Fraser, I.P.; Williams, R.J.; Murphy, B.P.; Camac, J.S.; Vesk, P.A. Fuels and Landscape Flammability in an Australian Alpine Environment. Austral Ecol. 2016, 41, 657–670. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  147. Gao, X.; Schwilk, D. Grass Canopy Architecture Influences Temperature Exposure at Soil Surface. Fire 2018, 1, 35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  148. Kauf, Z.; Damsohn, W.; Fangmeier, A. How Much Does Fire Behavior of Leaf Litter Beds Change within Two Months? Fire 2019, 2, 33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  149. Alessio, G.A.; Peñuelas, J.; De Lillis, M.; Llusià, J. Implications of Foliar Terpene Content and Hydration on Leaf Flammability of Quercus ilex and Pinus halepensis. Plant Biol. 2008, 10, 123–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  150. Ormeño, E.; Ruffault, J.; Gutigny, C.; Madrigal, J.; Guijarro, M.; Hernando, C.; Ballini, C. Increasing Cuticular Wax Concentrations in a Drier Climate Promote Litter Flammability. For. Ecol. Manag. 2020, 473, 118–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  151. Alessio, G.A.; Penuelas, J.; Llusia, J.; Ogaya, R.; Estiarte, M.; De Lillis, M. Influence of Water and Terpenes on Flammability in Some Dominant Mediterranean Species. Int. J. Wildland Fire 2008, 17, 274–286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  152. Cui, X. Intraspecific Variation in Shoot Flammability in Dracophyllum Rosmarinifolium Is Not Predicted by Habitat Environmental Conditions. For. Ecosyst. 2022, 9, 100017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  153. Blackhall, M.; Raffaele, E.; Veblen, T.T. Is Foliar Flammability of Woody Species Related to Time since Fire and Herbivory in Northwest Patagonia, Argentina? J. Veg. Sci. 2012, 23, 931–941. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  154. Ganteaume, A.; Guijarro, M.; Jappiot, M.; Hernando, C.; Lampin-Maillet, C.; Perez-Gorostiaga, P.; Vega, J.A. Laboratory Characterization of Firebrands Involved in Spot Fires. Ann. For. Sci. 2011, 68, 531–541. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  155. Dickinson, M.B.; Hutchinson, T.F.; Dietenberger, M.; Matt, F.; Peters, M.P. Litter Species Composition and Topographic Effects on Fuels and Modeled Fire Behavior in an Oak-Hickory Forest in the Eastern USA. PLoS ONE 2016, 11, e0159997. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  156. Kane, J.M.; Kreye, J.K.; Barajas-Ramirez, R.; Varner, J.M. Litter Trait Driven Dampening of Flammability Following Deciduous Forest Community Shifts in Eastern North America. For. Ecol. Manag. 2021, 489, 119100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  157. Terrei, L.; Lamorlette, A.; Ganteaume, A. Modelling the Fire Propagation from the Fuel Bed to the Lower Canopy of Ornamental Species Used in Wildland-Urban Interfaces. Int. J. Wildland Fire 2019, 28, 113–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  158. de Magalhaes, R.Q.; Schwilk, D.W. Moisture Absorption and Drying Alter Nonadditive Litter Flammability in a Mixed Conifer Forest. J. Ecol. 2021, 109, 234–245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  159. Balch, J.K.; Nepstad, D.C.; Brando, P.M.; Curran, L.M.; Portela, O.; de Carvalho, O.; Lefebvre, P. Negative Fire Feedback in a Transitional Forest of Southeastern Amazonia. Glob. Change Biol. 2008, 14, 2276–2287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  160. Whelan, A.W.; Bigelow, S.W.; O’Brien, J.J. Overstory Longleaf Pines and Hardwoods Create Diverse Patterns of Energy Release and Fire Effects During Prescribed Fire. Front. For. Glob. Change 2021, 4, 658491. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  161. McColl-Gausden, S.C.; Penman, T.D. Pathways of Change: Predicting the Effects of Fire on Flammability. J. Environ. Manag. 2019, 232, 243–253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  162. Tumino, B.J.; Duff, T.J.; Goodger, J.Q.D.; Cawson, J.G. Plant Traits Linked to Field-Scale Flammability Metrics in Prescribed Burns in Eucalyptus Forest. PLoS ONE 2019, 14, e0221403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  163. Platt, W.J.; Ellair, D.P.; Huffman, J.M.; Potts, S.E.; Beckage, B. Pyrogenic Fuels Produced by Savanna Trees Can Engineer Humid Savannas. Ecol. Monogr. 2016, 86, 352–372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  164. Burton, J.E.; Filkov, A.I.; Pickering, B.J.; Penman, T.D.; Cawson, J.G. Quantifying Litter Bed Ignitability: Comparison of a Laboratory and Field Method. Fire 2023, 6, 24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  165. Jolly, W.M.; Parsons, R.A.; Hadlow, A.M.; Cohn, G.M.; McAllister, S.S.; Popp, J.B.; Hubbard, R.M.; Negron, J.F. Relationships between Moisture, Chemistry, and Ignition of Pinus Contorta Needles during the Early Stages of Mountain Pine Beetle Attack. For. Ecol. Manag. 2012, 269, 52–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  166. Proenca, V.; Pereira, H.M.; Vicente, L. Resistance to Wildfire and Early Regeneration in Natural Broadleaved Forest and Pine Plantation. Acta Oecol.-Int. J. Ecol. 2010, 36, 626–633. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  167. Schwilk, D.W.; Caprio, A.C. Scaling from Leaf Traits to Fire Behaviour: Community Composition Predicts Fire Severity in a Temperate Forest. J. Ecol. 2011, 99, 970–980. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  168. Weir, J.R.; Limb, R.F. Seasonal Variation in Flammability Characteristics of Quercus Marilandica and Quercus Stellata Leaf Litter Burned in the Laboratory. Fire Ecol. 2013, 9, 80–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  169. Pellizzaro, G.; Duce, P.; Ventura, A.; Zara, P. Seasonal Variations of Live Moisture Content and Ignitability in Shrubs of the Mediterranean Basin. Int. J. Wildland Fire 2007, 16, 633–641. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  170. Pausas, J.G.; Alessio, G.A.; Moreira, B.; Segarra-Moragues, J.G. Secondary Compounds Enhance Flammability in a Mediterranean Plant. Oecologia 2016, 180, 103–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  171. Solofondranohatra, C.L.; Vorontsova, M.S.; Dewhirst, R.A.; Belcher, C.M.; Cable, S.; Jeannoda, V.; Lehmann, C.E.R. Shade Alters the Growth and Architecture of Tropical Grasses by Reducing Root Biomass. Biotropica 2021, 53, 1052–1062. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  172. McDaniel, J.K.; Alexander, H.D.; Siegert, C.M.; Lashley, M.A. Shifting Tree Species Composition of Upland Oak Forests Alters Leaf Litter Structure, Moisture, and Flammability. For. Ecol. Manag. 2021, 482, 118860. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  173. Alam, M.A.; Wyse, S.; Buckley, H.L.; Perry, G.L.W.; Sullivan, J.J.; Mason, N.W.H.; Buxton, R.; Richardson, S.J.; Curran, T.J. Shoot Flammability Is Decoupled from Leaf Flammability, but Controlled by Leaf Functional Traits. J. Ecol. 2020, 108, 641–653. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  174. Lyons-Tinsley, C.; Peterson, D.L. Surface Fuel Treatments in Young, Regenerating Stands Affect Wildfire Severity in a Mixed Conifer Forest, Eastside Cascade Range, Washington, USA. For. Ecol. Manag. 2012, 270, 117–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  175. Della Rocca, G.; Danti, R.; Hernando, C.; Guijarro, M.; Michelozzi, M.; Carrillo, C.; Madrigal, J. Terpenoid Cccumulation Links Plant Health and Flammability in the Cypress-Bark Canker Pathosystem. Forests 2020, 11, 651. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  176. Collins, L.; Hunter, A.; McColl-Gausden, S.; Penman, T.D.; Zylstra, P. The Effect of Antecedent Fire Severity on Reburn Severity and Fuel Structure in a Resprouting Eucalypt Forest in Victoria, Australia. Forests 2021, 12, 450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  177. Engber, E.A.; Varner, J.M.; Arguello, L.A.; Sugihara, N.G. The Effects of Conifer Encroachment and Overstory Structure on Fuels and Fire in an Oak Woodland Landscape. Fire Ecol. 2011, 7, 32–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  178. Possell, M.; Bell, T.L. The Influence of Fuel Moisture Content on the Combustion of Eucalyptus Foliage. Int. J. Wildland Fire 2013, 22, 343–352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  179. Scarff, F.R.; Westobly, M. The Influence of Tissue Phosphate on Plant Flammability: A Kinetic Study. Polym. Degrad. Stabil. 2008, 93, 1930–1934. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  180. Guerrero, F.; Toledo, M.; Ripoll, N.; Espinoza, L.; Morales, R.; Munoz, A.; Taborga, L.; Carrasco, Y. Thermo- and Physicochemical Properties of Native and Exotic Forest Species of Valparaiso, Chile, as Essential Information for Fire Risk Management. Int. J. Wildland Fire 2020, 29, 675–685. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  181. Kreye, J.K.; Varner, J.M.; Hiers, J.K.; Mola, J. Toward a Mechanism for Eastern North American Forest Mesophication: Differential Litter Drying across 17 Species. Ecol. Appl. 2013, 23, 1976–1986. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  182. Clarke, P.J.; Prior, L.D.; French, B.J.; Vincent, B.; Knox, K.J.E.; Bowman, D.M.J.S. Using a Rainforest-Flame Forest Mosaic to Test the Hypothesis That Leaf and Litter Fuel Flammability Is under Natural Selection. Oecologia 2014, 176, 1123–1133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  183. Leonard, S.; Kirkpatrick, J.; Marsden-Smedley, J. Variation in the Effects of Vertebrate Grazing on Fire Potential between Grassland Structural Types. J. Appl. Ecol. 2010, 47, 876–883. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  184. Güney, C.O.; Sarı, A.; Cekim, H.O.; Küçüksille, E.U.; Şentürk, Ö.; Gülsoy, S.; Özkan, K. An Advanced Approach for Leaf Flammability Index Estimation. Int. J. Wildland Fire 2022, 31, 277–290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  185. Gowda, J.H.; Blackhall, M.; Shipley, L.; Kitzberger, T.; Tiribelli, F. Are Digestibility and Flammability Related? Two Variables Shaping Landscape Dynamics of Northwestern Patagonian Forests. For. Ecol. Manag. 2022, 503, 119810. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  186. Gao, X.; Schwilk, D.W. Burn Hot or Tolerate Trees: Flammability Decreases with Shade Tolerance in Grasses. Oikos 2022, 2022, e08930. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  187. Pallozzi, E.; Lusini, I.; Cherubini, L.; Hajiaghayeva, R.A.; Ciccioli, P.; Calfapietra, C. Differences between a Deciduous and a Conifer Tree Species in Gaseous and Particulate Emissions from Biomass Burning. Environ. Pollut. 2018, 234, 457–467. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  188. Gormley, A.G. Effects of Sydney Coastal Dry Sclerophyll Forest Litter on Fuels and Fire Behaviour in Hornsby Shire; University of Sydney: Sydney, NSW, Australia, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  189. Pacheco, A.S.; Goodman, H.D.; Hankenson, L.; Fisk, J.J.; Ortiz, A.; Marinace, H.M.; Bischoff, E.A.; Holman, V.F.; Love, S.M.; Apgaua, D.M.G.; et al. Fighting Fire with Food: Assessing the Flammability of Crop Plant Species for Building Fire Resilient Agroforestry Systems. preprint 2022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  190. Ripley, B.; Visser, V.; Christin, P.-A.; Archibald, S.; Martin, T.; Osborne, C. Fire Ecology of C-3 and C-4 Grasses Depends on Evolutionary History and Frequency of Burning but Not Photosynthetic Type. Ecology 2015, 96, 2679–2691. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  191. Zanzarini, V.; Andersen, A.N.; Fidelis, A. Flammability in Tropical Savannas: Variation among Growth Forms and Seasons in Cerrado. Biotropica 2022, 54, 979–987. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  192. Santacruz-García, A.C.; Bravo, S.; del Corro, F.; García, E.M.; Molina-Terrén, D.M.; Nazareno, M.A. How Do Plants Respond Biochemically to Fire? The Role of Photosynthetic Pigments and Secondary Metabolites in the Post-Fire Resprouting Response. Forests 2021, 12, 56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  193. Souza, M.A.d.; Vale, A.T.d. Levantamento de Plantas de Baixa Inflamabilidade Em Áreas Queimadas de Cerrado No Distrito Federal e Análise Das Suas Propriedades Físicas. Ciênc. Florest. 2019, 29, 181–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  194. Belcher, C.; Mander, L.; Rein, G.; Jervis, F.; Haworth, M.; Hesselbo, S.; Glasspool, I.; Mcelwain, J. Increased Fire Activity at the Triassic/Jurassic Boundary in Greenland Due to Climate-Driven Floral Change. Nat. Geosci. 2010, 3, 426–429. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  195. Fuentes-Ramirez, A.; Veldman, J.W.; Holzapfel, C.; Moloney, K.A. Spreaders, Igniters, and Burning Shrubs: Plant Flammability Explains Novel Fire Dynamics in Grass-Invaded Deserts. Ecol. Appl. 2016, 26, 2311–2322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  196. MacDermott, H.J.; Fensham, R.J.; Hua, Q.; Bowman, D.M.J.S. Vegetation, Fire and Soil Feedbacks of Dynamic Boundaries between Rainforest, Savanna and Grassland. Austral Ecol. 2017, 42, 154–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  197. Manea, A.; Grootemaat, S.; Leishman, M.R. Leaf Flammability and Fuel Load Increase under Elevated CO2 Levels in a Model Grassland. Int. J. Wildland Fire 2015, 24, 819. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  198. Bragg, T.B. Seasonal Variations in Fuel and Fuel Consumption by Fires in a Bluestem Prairie. Ecology 1982, 63, 7–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  199. Bunting, S.C.; Wright, H.A.; Wallace, W.H. Seasonal Variation in the Ignition Time of Redberry Juniper in West Texas. J. Range Manag. 1983, 36, 169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  200. Fonda, R.W. Burning Characteristics of Needles from Eight Pine Species. For. Sci. 2001, 47, 390–396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  201. White, A.S. The Effects of Thirteen Years of Annual Prescribed Burning on a Quercus Ellipsoidalis Community in Minnesota. Ecology 1983, 64, 1081–1085. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  202. Mutch, R.W. Wildland Fires and Ecosystems-a Hypothesis. Ecology 1970, 51, 1046–1051. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  203. Mutch, R.W. Cheatgrass Coloration: A Key to Flammability? J. Range Manag. 1967, 20, 259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  204. Montgomery, K.R.; Cheo, P.C. Moisture and Salt Effects on Fire Retardance in Plants. Am. J. Bot. 1969, 56, 1028–1032. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  205. Mutch, R.W. Ignition Delay of Ponderosa Pine Needles and Sphagnum Moss. J. Appl. Chem. 1964, 14, 271–275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  206. Ulok, G. Fuel Characteristics of Selected Plant Species Regrow on Burn Area in Raja Musa Forest Reserve; School of Graduate Studies, Universiti Putra Malaysia: Selangor, Malaysia, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  207. Christensen, N.L. Fire and Soil-Plant Nutrient Relations in a Pine-Wiregrass Savanna on the Coastal Plain of North Carolina. Oecologia 1977, 31, 27–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  208. Debano, L.F.; Conrad, C.E. The Effect of Fire on Nutrients in a Chaparral Ecosystem. Ecology 1978, 59, 489–497. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  209. Wright, H.A. Why Squirreltail is More Tolerant to Burning than Needle-and-Thread. Rangel. Ecol. Manag./J. Range Manag. Arch. 1971, 24, 277–284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  210. Rennick, R.B. Effects of Prescribed Burning on Mixed Prairie Vegetation in Southeastern Montana. Ph.D. Thesis, Montana State University-Bozeman, College of Agriculture, Bozeman, MT, USA, 1981. [Google Scholar]
  211. Kauffman, J.B.; Uhl, C.; Cummings, D.L. Fire in the Venezuelan Amazon 1: Fuel Biomass and Fire Chemistry in the Evergreen Rainforest of Venezuela. Oikos 1988, 53, 167–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  212. Papió, C.; Trabaud, L. Structural Characteristics of Fuel Components of Five Meditarranean Shrubs. For. Ecol. Manag. 1990, 35, 249–259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  213. van Wilgen, B.W.; Higgins, K.B.; Bellstedt, D.U. The Role of Vegetation Structure and Fuel Chemistry in Excluding Fire From Forest Patches in the Fire-Prone Fynbos Shrublands of South Africa. J. Ecol. 1990, 78, 210–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  214. Kauffman, J.B.; Cummings, D.L.; Ward, D.E. Relationships of Fire, Biomass and Nutrient Dynamics along a Vegetation Gradient in the Brazilian Cerrado. J. Ecol. 1994, 82, 519–531. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  215. Conard, S.G.; Regelbrugge, J.C. On Estimating Fuel Characteristics in California Chaparral; Society of American Foresters: Boston, MA, USA, 1994. [Google Scholar]
  216. Burrows, N.; Ward, B.; Robinson, A. Fire Behaviour in Spinifex Fuels on the Gibson Desert Nature Reserve, Western Australia. J. Arid Environ. 1991, 20, 189–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  217. Massari, G.; Leopaldi, A. Leaf Flammability in Mediterranean Species. Plant Biosyst. Int. J. Deal. All Asp. Plant Biol. 1998, 132, 29–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  218. Saharjo, B.H.; Watanabe, H. The Flammability of Shrubs and Trees in anAcacia Mangium Plantation Based on Silica-Free Ash Content. J. Res. 1999, 4, 57–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  219. Larsson, M.; Lundquist, M. Preliminary Study on the Role of Moisture and Extractives of Ornamental Plants on the Flammability; Lund University: Lund, Sweden, 1997. [Google Scholar]
  220. Valette, J.-C. Inflammabilities of mediterranean species. EUR 1997, 16719, 51–64. [Google Scholar]
  221. Senelwa, K.; Sims, R.E.H. Fuel Characteristics of Short Rotation Forest Biomass. Biomass Bioenergy 1999, 17, 127–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  222. Santoni, P.A.; Bartoli, P.; Simeoni, A.; Torero, J.L. Bulk and Particle Properties of Pine Needle Fuel Beds—Influence on Combustion. Int. J. Wildland Fire 2014, 23, 1076. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  223. Blauw, L.G.; Wensink, N.; Bakker, L.; van Logtestijn, R.S.P.; Aerts, R.; Soudzilovskaia, N.A.; Cornelissen, J.H.C. Fuel Moisture Content Enhances Nonadditive Effects of Plant Mixtures on Flammability and Fire Behavior. Ecol. Evol. 2015, 5, 3830–3841. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  224. Newberry, B.M.; Power, C.R.; Abreu, R.C.R.; Durigan, G.; Rossatto, D.R.; Hoffmann, W.A. Flammability Thresholds or Flammability Gradients? Determinants of Fire across Savanna–Forest Transitions. New Phytol. 2020, 228, 910–921. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  225. Sun, L.; Zhou, X.; Mahalingam, S.; Weise, D.R. Comparison of Burning Characteristics of Live and Dead Chaparral Fuels. Combust. Flame 2006, 144, 349–359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  226. Page, W.G.; Jenkins, M.J.; Runyon, J.B. Mountain Pine Beetle Attack Alters the Chemistry and Flammability of Lodgepole Pine Foliage. Can. J. For. Res. 2012, 42, 1631–1647. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  227. Pickett, B.M.; Isackson, C.; Wunder, R.; Fletcher, T.H.; Butler, B.W.; Weise, D.R. Flame Interactions and Burning Characteristics of Two Live Leaf Samples. Int. J. Wildland Fire 2009, 18, 865. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  228. Gill, A.M.; Moore, P.H.R. Ignitibility of Leaves of Australian Plants; CSIRO: Canberra, Australia, 1996. [Google Scholar]
  229. Bowman, D.M.J.S.; Wilson, B.A. Fuel Characteristics of Coastal Monsoon Forests, Northern Territory, Australia. J. Biogeogr. 1988, 15, 807–817. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  230. Weise, D.; White, R.; Beall, F.; Etlinger, M. Use of the Cone Calorimeter to Detect Seasonal Differences in Selected Combustion Characteristics of Ornamental Vegetation. Int. J. Wildland Fire 2005, 14, 321–338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  231. Belcher, C.M.; Mander, L.; Rein, G.; Jervis, F.X.; Haworth, M.; Hesselbo, S.P.; Glasspool, I.J.; McElwain, J.C. Application of Fire Calorimetry to Understand Factors Affecting Flammability of Cellulosic Material: Pine Needles, Tree Leaves and Chipboard. Nat. Geosci. 2010, 3, 426–429. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  232. Zhao, W.; van Logtestijn, R.S.P.; van der Werf, G.R.; van Hal, J.R.; Cornelissen, J.H.C. Disentangling Effects of Key Coarse Woody Debris Fuel Properties on Its Combustion, Consumption and Carbon Gas Emissions during Experimental Laboratory Fire. For. Ecol. Manag. 2018, 427, 275–288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  233. Popović, Z. Tree Species Flammability Based on Plant Traits: A Synthesis. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 800, 149625. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  234. Jolly, W.M.; Johnson, D.M. Pyro-Ecophysiology: Shifting the Paradigm of Live Wildland Fuel Research. Fire 2018, 1, 8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  235. Jaureguiberry, P.; Bertone, G.; Diaz, S. Device for the Standard Measurement of Shoot Flammability in the Field. Austral Ecol. 2011, 36, 821–829. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  236. Fogarty, L.G. A Flammability Guide for Some Common New Zealand Native Tree and Shrub Species; New Zealand Forest Research Institute: Rotorua, New Zealand, 2002. [Google Scholar]
  237. Keeley, J.; Fotheringham, C. History and Management of Crown-Fire Ecosystems: A Summary and Response. Conserv. Biol. 2002, 15, 1561–1567. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  238. Pyne, S.J.; Andrews, P.L.; Laven, R.D. Introduction to Wildland Fire; John Wiley and Sons: New York, NY, USA, 1996. [Google Scholar]
  239. van Wagtendonk, J.W.; Moore, P.E. Fuel Deposition Rates of Montane and Subalpine Conifers in the Central Sierra Nevada, California, USA. For. Ecol. Manag. 2010, 259, 2122–2132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  240. Fernandes, P.M.; Cruz, M.G. Plant Flammability Experiments Offer Limited Insight into Vegetation-Fire Dynamics Interactions. New Phytol. 2012, 194, 606–609. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  241. Schroeder, M.J. Ignition Probability|Fire Research and Management Exchange System; USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountains Research Station: Fort Collins, CO, USA, 1969; p. Office Report 2106-1. [Google Scholar]
  242. Blackmarr, W.H. Moisture Content Influences Ignitability of Slash Pine Litter; USDA Forest Service, Southeastern Forest Experiment Station: Asheville, NC, USA, 1972; p. Research Note SE-173. [Google Scholar]
  243. Cawson, J.G.; Burton, J.E.; Pickering, B.J.; Demetriou, V.; Filkov, A.I. Quantifying the Flammability of Living Plants at the Branch Scale: Which Metrics to Use? Int. J. Wildland Fire 2023, 32, 1404–1421. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  244. Plucinski, M.; Anderson, W. Laboratory Determination of Factors Influencing Successful Point Ignition in the Litter Layer of Shrubland Vegetation. Int. J. Wildland Fire 2008, 17, 628–637. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  245. Papió, C.; Trabaud, L. Comparative Study of the Aerial Structure of Five Shrubs of Mediterranean Shrublands. For. Sci. 1991, 37, 146–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  246. Cui, X. Green Firebreaks as a Management Tool for Wildfires—Lessons from China. J. Environ. Manag. 2019, 233, 329–336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  247. Franzese, J.; Raffaele, E.; Chiuffo, M.C.; Blackhall, M. The Legacy of Pine Introduction Threatens the Fuel Traits of Patagonian Native Forests. Biol. Conserv. 2022, 267, 109472. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  248. Nolan, R.; Blackman, C. Linking Forest Flammability and Plant Vulnerability to Drought. Forests 2020, 11, 779. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  249. Toy-Opazo, O.; Fuentes-Ramirez, A.; Palma-Soto, V.; Garcia, R.A.; Moloney, K.A.; Demarco, R.; Fuentes-Castillo, A. Flammability Features of Native and Non-Native Woody Species from the Southernmost Ecosystems: A Review. Fire Ecol. 2024, 20, 21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  250. Morton, D. Changes in Amazon Forest Structure from Land-Use Fires: Integrating Satellite Remote Sensing and Ecosystem Modeling; University of Maryland, College Park: Washington, DC, USA, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  251. Fairman, T.; Nitschke, C.; Bennett, L. Too Much, Too Soon? A Review of the Effects of Increasing Wildfire Frequency on Tree Mortality and Regeneration in Temperate Eucalypt Forests. Int. J. Wildland Fire 2016, 25, 831–848. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  252. Moreno, J.; Vallejo, R.; Chuvieco, E. Current Fire Regimes, Impacts and the Likely Changes-VI: Euro Mediterranean. In Vegetation Fires and Global Change: Challenges for Concerted International Action; Kessel: Lenting, Germany, 2013; pp. 115–131. [Google Scholar]
Fire 07 00266 g001
Figure 1. The number of public articles in recent decades on the plant flammability measurements (1964–2022).
Figure 1. The number of public articles in recent decades on the plant flammability measurements (1964–2022).
Fire 07 00266 g001
Fire 07 00266 g002
Figure 2. Distribution of public papers related to plant flammability measurements. The red dots represent the study sites of plant flammability measurements; the blue area represents the Mediterranean climate region.
Figure 2. Distribution of public papers related to plant flammability measurements. The red dots represent the study sites of plant flammability measurements; the blue area represents the Mediterranean climate region.
Fire 07 00266 g002
Fire 07 00266 g003
Figure 3. Percentage of countries where articles on plant flammability measurements have been published.
Figure 3. Percentage of countries where articles on plant flammability measurements have been published.
Fire 07 00266 g003
Fire 07 00266 g004
Figure 4. Percentage of different methods used for plant flammability measurements.
Figure 4. Percentage of different methods used for plant flammability measurements.
Fire 07 00266 g004
Fire 07 00266 g005
Figure 5. Percentage of tested materials for plant flammability measurements.
Figure 5. Percentage of tested materials for plant flammability measurements.
Fire 07 00266 g005
Fire 07 00266 g006
Figure 6. Percentage of flammability components used in published papers for plant flammability measurements.
Figure 6. Percentage of flammability components used in published papers for plant flammability measurements.
Fire 07 00266 g006
Fire 07 00266 g007
Figure 7. Percentage of burning variables for plant flammability components measurements (IT is defined as ignition time; ROS is defined as rate of spread; HRR is defined as peak heat release rate; MT is defined as flame temperature; MH is defined as flame height; FD is defined as flaming duration; EHC is defined as effective heat of combustion; RMF is defined as residual mass fraction).
Figure 7. Percentage of burning variables for plant flammability components measurements (IT is defined as ignition time; ROS is defined as rate of spread; HRR is defined as peak heat release rate; MT is defined as flame temperature; MH is defined as flame height; FD is defined as flaming duration; EHC is defined as effective heat of combustion; RMF is defined as residual mass fraction).
Fire 07 00266 g007
Fire 07 00266 g008
Figure 8. Percentage of physiological and physicochemical characteristics used for plant flammability measurements.
Figure 8. Percentage of physiological and physicochemical characteristics used for plant flammability measurements.
Fire 07 00266 g008
Table 1. Description of the main indexes for determination of flammability components of plants.
Table 1. Description of the main indexes for determination of flammability components of plants.
Flammability ComponentsMeasured VariablesUnitDescription
Ignitability
(46.82%)		Ignition time (TTI)sThe time elapsed from the application of the ignition source to the appearance of the flame
Rate of spread (ROS)mm min−1Speed of flame spread during combustion
Combustibility
(50.00%)		Flame height (FH)cmThe maximum height of the flame when burning
Flame temperature (FT)°CThe maximum temperature at which a fuel burns
Peak heat release rate (HRR)kW/m−2The maximum value of the velocity of energy release
Sustainability
(44.45%)		Flaming duration (FD)sThe duration of the flame when burning
Effective heat of combustion (EHC)MJ/kgThe amount of energy released at a pointed time, normalized by the initial sample mass k
Consumability
(20.45%)		Residual mass fraction (RMF)%The percentage of fuel remaining after combustion
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Jian, M.; Jian, Y.; Zeng, H.; Cao, D.; Cui, X. Current Status and Prospects of Plant Flammability Measurements. Fire 2024, 7, 266. https://doi.org/10.3390/fire7080266

AMA Style

Jian M, Jian Y, Zeng H, Cao D, Cui X. Current Status and Prospects of Plant Flammability Measurements. Fire. 2024; 7(8):266. https://doi.org/10.3390/fire7080266

Chicago/Turabian Style

Jian, Minting, Yi Jian, Hong Zeng, Dongyu Cao, and Xinglei Cui. 2024. "Current Status and Prospects of Plant Flammability Measurements" Fire 7, no. 8: 266. https://doi.org/10.3390/fire7080266

APA Style

Jian, M., Jian, Y., Zeng, H., Cao, D., & Cui, X. (2024). Current Status and Prospects of Plant Flammability Measurements. Fire, 7(8), 266. https://doi.org/10.3390/fire7080266

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop