The national Fire and Fire Surrogate study: Effects of fuel treatments in the Western and Eastern United States after 20 years

被引:0
作者
Bernal, Alexis A. [1 ]
Stephens, Scott L. [1 ]
Callaham, Mac A. [2 ]
Collins, Brandon M. [1 ,3 ]
Crotteau, Justin S. [4 ]
Dickinson, Matthew B. [5 ]
Hagan, Donald L. [6 ]
Hedges, Rachelle [7 ]
Hood, Sharon M. [4 ]
Hutchinson, Todd F. [5 ]
Taylor, Melanie K. [2 ,8 ]
Coates, T. Adam [9 ]
机构
[1] Univ Calif Berkeley, Dept Environm Sci Policy & Management, Berkeley, CA 94720 USA
[2] USDA Forest Serv, Southern Res Stn, Athens, GA USA
[3] USDA Forest Serv, Pacific Southwest Reg, Vallejo, CA USA
[4] USDA Forest Serv, Rocky Mt Res Stn, Missoula, MT USA
[5] USDA Forest Serv, Northern Res Stn, Ohio, DE USA
[6] Clemson Univ, Dept Forestry & Environm Conservat, Clemson, SC USA
[7] Univ Calif Berkeley, Berkeley Forests, Berkeley, CA USA
[8] Univ Georgia, Odum Sch Ecol, Athens, GA USA
[9] Virginia Tech, Dept Forest Resources & Environm Conservat, Blacksburg, VA USA
关键词
fuels treatments; hardwood; mixed conifer; prescribed fire; restoration thinning; wildfire; MIXED-CONIFER FORESTS; CENTRAL SIERRA-NEVADA; PRESCRIBED FIRE; TREE MORTALITY; REDUCTION TREATMENTS; VEGETATION STRUCTURE; SPATIAL-PATTERNS; STAND STRUCTURE; RESTORATION; DIVERSITY;
D O I
10.1002/eap.70003
中图分类号
Q14 [生态学(生物生态学)];
学科分类号
071012 ; 0713 ;
摘要
The national Fire and Fire Surrogate (FFS) study was initiated more than two decades ago with the goal of evaluating the ecological impacts of mechanical treatments and prescribed fire in different ecosystems across the United States. Since then, 4 of the original 12 sites remain active in managing and monitoring the original FFS study which provides a unique opportunity to look at the long-term effects of these treatments in different regions. These sites include California (Blodgett Forest Research Station), Montana (Lubrecht Experimental Forest), North Carolina (Green River Game Land), and Ohio (Ohio Hills). Although regions differed in ecosystem type (e.g., conifer- vs. hardwood-dominated), the overall goals of the FFS study were to promote desirable, fire-adapted species, reduce fire hazard, and improve understory diversity. Our study uses multivariate techniques to compare how these desired outcomes were maintained over the last 20 years and discusses whether we would modify the original treatments given what we know now. Our findings indicate that mechanical treatments and prescribed fire can promote desired tree species, mitigate potential fire behavior by reducing fuels and retaining larger-sized trees, decrease tree mortality, and stimulate regeneration-effects that are still apparent even after 20 years. However, we also found that maintaining desired outcomes was regionally specific with western sites (California and Montana) showing more desirable characteristics under mechanical treatments, while the eastern sites (North Carolina and Ohio) showed more desirable characteristics after prescribed burning. The beneficial effects of treatment were also more apparent in the long term when sites followed up with repeated treatments, which can be adapted to meet new objectives and conditions. These findings highlight the FFS study as an invaluable resource for research and provide evidence for meeting long-term restoration goals if treatments can be adapted to ecosystem type, be maintained by repeated treatments, and accommodate new goals by adapting treatments to changing conditions.
引用
收藏
页数:19
相关论文
共 56 条
[1]  
Agee J.K., Skinner C.N., Basic Principles of Forest Fuel Reduction Treatments, Forest Ecology and Management, 211, pp. 83-96, (2005)
[2]  
Alexander H.D., Siegert C., Stephen Brewer J., Kreye J., Lashley M.A., McDaniel J.K., Paulson A.K., Renninger H.J., Morgan Varner J., Mesophication of Oak Landscapes: Evidence, Knowledge Gaps, and Future Research, BioScience, 71, pp. 531-542, (2021)
[3]  
Anderson H.E., Aids to Determining Fuel Models for Estimating Fire Behavior, (1982)
[4]  
Arthur M.A., Blankenship B.A., Schorgendorfer A., Loftis D.L., Alexander H.D., Changes in Stand Structure and Tree Vigor with Repeated Prescribed Fire in an Appalachian Hardwood Forest, Forest Ecology and Management, 340, pp. 46-61, (2015)
[5]  
Arthur M.A., Varner J.M., Lafon C.W., Alexander H.D., Dey D.C., Harper C.A., Horn S.P., Et al., Fire Ecology and Management in Eastern Broadleaf and Appalachian Forests, pp. 105-147, (2021)
[6]  
Bernal A.A., Stephens S.L., Callaham M.A., Collins B.M., Crotteau J.S., Dickinson M.B., Hagan D.L., Et al., “The National Fire and Fire Surrogate Study: Effects of Fuel Treatments in the Western and Eastern US after 20 years.”, (2024)
[7]  
Bernal A.A., Stephens S.L., Collins B.M., Battles J.J., Biomass Stocks in California's Fire-Prone Forests: Mismatch in Ecology and Policy, Environmental Research Letters, 17, (2022)
[8]  
Brodie E.G., Knapp E.E., Brooks W.R., Drury S.A., Ritchie M.W., Forest Thinning and Prescribed Burning Treatments Reduce Wildfire Severity and Buffer the Impacts of Severe Fire Weather, Fire Ecology, 20, pp. 1-20, (2024)
[9]  
Brose P.H., Dey D.C., Phillips R.J., Waldrop T.A., A Meta-Analysis of the Fire-Oak Hypothesis: Does Prescribed Burning Promote Oak Reproduction in Eastern North America?, Forest Science, 59, pp. 322-334, (2013)
[10]  
Brown J.K., Handbook for Inventorying Downed Woody Material, (1974)