Ecosystems

, Volume 11, Issue 1, pp 1–11 | Cite as

BAER Soil Burn Severity Maps Do Not Measure Fire Effects to Vegetation: A Comment on Odion and Hanson (2006)

  • Hugh D. Safford
  • Jay Miller
  • David Schmidt
  • Brent Roath
  • Annette Parsons
Article
First Online:
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:

Abstract

We comment on a recent Ecosystem paper by Odion and Hanson (Ecosystems 9:1177–1189, 2006), in which the authors claim that high severity fire is rare in the Sierra Nevada under current conditions. Odion and Hanson’s results are predicated on BAER soil burn severity maps, which are based primarily on fire effects to soil, not vegetation. Odion and Hanson, and we fear others as well, are misinformed as to the nature of the BAER severity mapping process, and proper applications of BAER soil burn severity maps. By comparing the BAER soil burn severity maps to a true vegetation burn severity measure (RdNBR) calibrated by field data, we show that the area in the high soil burn severity class for the three fires analyzed by Odion and Hanson is substantially less than the area of stand-replacing fire, and that BAER maps—especially hand-derived maps such as those from two of the three fires—also greatly underestimate the heterogeneity in vegetation burn severity on burned landscapes. We also show that, contrary to Odion and Hanson’s claims, Fire Return Interval Departure (FRID) is strongly correlated with fire severity in conifer stands within the perimeter of the McNally Fire.

Keywords

BAER mapping BARC maps fire return interval fire severity Manter Fire McNally Fire mixed conifer forests RdNBR Sierra Nevada Spatial heterogeneity Storrie Fire 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgments

This paper benefited from conversations with and/or reviews by the following USFS-BAER team leaders and members: S. Anderson, T. Bettinger, T. Ellsworth, A. Gallegos, F. Linton, T. Kaplan-Henry, C. Kennedy, A. Orlemann, and B. Rust. Thanks also to the following for review and advice: B. Bahro, T. Caprio, J. Clark, J. Keeley, M. Keifer, E. Knapp, J. Moghaddas, and B. Schwind. We also gratefully acknowledge the constructive comments of two anonymous reviewers.

References

  1. Agee JK. 1993. Fire ecology of Pacific Northwest forests. Washington (DC): Island PressGoogle Scholar
  2. Bobbe T, Finco MV, Quayle B, Lannom K, Sohlberg R, Parsons A. 2001. Field measurements for the training and validation of burn severity maps from spaceborne, remotely sensed imagery. Final project report, Joint Fire Sciences Program 2001–2Google Scholar
  3. Bond WJ, van Wilgen BW. 1996. Fire and plants. London: Chapman and HallGoogle Scholar
  4. Caprio A, Conover C, Keifer M, Lineback P. 2002. Fire management and GIS: a framework for identifying and prioritizing fire planning needs. Assoc Fire Ecol Misc Pub No. 1:102–13Google Scholar
  5. Cissel JH, Swanson FJ, Weisberg PJ. 1999. Landscape management using historical fire regimes: Blue River, Oregon. Ecol Appl 9:1217–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Elvidge CD. 1990. Visible and near infrared reflectance characteristics of dry plant materials. Int J Rem Sens 11:1775–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. FRCC. 2005. Interagency fire regime condition class guidebook. Version 1.2. Available at: http://www.frcc.gov
  8. Hann WJ, Strohm DJ. 2003. Fire regime condition class and associated data for fire and fuels planning: methods and applications. In: Omi PN, Joyce LA, Eds. Fire, fuel treatments and ecological restoration: conference proceedings. Proceedings RMRS-P-29. Fort Collins (CO): USDA-Forest Service. pp 397–433Google Scholar
  9. Hardwick P, Lachowski H, Griffith R, Parsons A. 2002. Burned Area Emergency Rehabilitation (BAER): use of remote sensing and GIS. Assoc Fire Ecol Misc Pub No. 1:147–52Google Scholar
  10. James A, Bryant L, Schroder E, Loadholt S. 2000. Manter Fire soils report. 6 p, on file with the Sequoia National Forest, Porterville, CA, USAGoogle Scholar
  11. Keifer M, Caprio A, Lineback P, Folger K. 2000. Incorporating a GIS model of ecological need into fire management planning. In: Neuenschwander LF, Ryan KC, Eds. Proceedings—crossing the millennium integrating spatial technologies and ecological principals for a new age in fire management. Moscow (ID): University of IdahoGoogle Scholar
  12. Key CH, Benson NC. 2005. Landscape assessment (LA). Sampling and analysis methods. In: Lutes DC, Keane RE, Caratti JF, et al. Eds. FIREMON: fire effects monitoring and inventory system. General Technical Report, RMRS-GTR-164. Ogden (UT): USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. p 55Google Scholar
  13. Kokaly RF, Rockwell BW, Hiare SL, King TVV. 2007. Characterization of post-fire surface cover, soils, and burn severity at the Cerro Grande Fire, New Mexico, using hyperspectral and multispectral remote sensing. Rem Sens Environ 106:305–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Miller JD, Thode AE. 2007. Quantifying burn severity in a heterogeneous landscape with a relative version of the delta normalized burn ratio (dNBR). Rem Sens Env (in press)Google Scholar
  15. Morrison P, Swanson FJ. 1990. Fire history and pattern in a Cascade Range landscape. USDA-Forest Service General Technical Report PNW-GTR-254. Portland (OR): Pacific Northwest Research StationGoogle Scholar
  16. Odion DC, Hanson CT. 2006. Fire severity in conifer forests of the Sierra Nevada, California. Ecosystems 9:1177–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Parsons A. 2002. Burn severity mapping. McNally Fire BAER Team, GIS and remote sensing information. 5 p, on file with the Sequoia National Forest, Porterville, CA, USAGoogle Scholar
  18. Parsons A. 2003. Draft Burned Area Emergency Rehabilitation (BAER) soil burn severity definitions and mapping guidelines. Salt Lake City (UT): USDA-Forest Service, Remote Sensing Application CenterGoogle Scholar
  19. Parsons A, Orlemann A. 2002. BAER burn severity mapping methods and definitions. McNally Fire, Sequioa National Forest, July–August 2002. 3 page report on file with the Sequoia National Forest, Porterville, CA, USAGoogle Scholar
  20. FRCC. 2005. Interagency fire regime condition class guidebook, version 1.2. Available at: http://www.frcc.gov
  21. Swetnam TW, Betancourt JL. 1998. Mesoscale disturbance and ecological response to decadal variability in the American Southwest. J Climatol 11: 3128–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Taylor AH, Beaty RM. 2005. Climatic influences on fire regimes in the northern Sierra Nevada mountains, Lake Tahoe Basin, Nevada, USA. J Biogeogr 32: 425–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Thode AE. 2005. Quantifying the fire regime attributes of severity and spatial complexity using field and imagery data. PhD Dissertation. Davis (CA): University of CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  24. USFS. 1995. Burned Area Emergency Rehabilitation handbook. Forest Service Handbook 2509.13, Amendment No. 2509.13-95-7. Washington (DC): USDA-Forest ServiceGoogle Scholar
  25. USFS. 2004. Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment. Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement. Record of Decision. Publication R5-MB-046. Vallejo (CA): USDA-Forest Service, Pacific Southwest RegionGoogle Scholar
  26. Van Wagtendonk JW, Fites-Kaufman J. 2006. Sierra Nevada bioregion. In: Sugihara NG, van Wagtendonk JW, Shaffer KE, Fites-Kaufman J, Thode AE, Eds. Fire in California’s ecosystems. Berkeley: University of California Press. pp 264–94Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hugh D. Safford
    • 1
    • 2
  • Jay Miller
    • 3
  • David Schmidt
    • 4
  • Brent Roath
    • 1
  • Annette Parsons
    • 5
  1. 1.Pacific Southwest RegionUSDA-Forest ServiceVallejoUSA
  2. 2.Department of Environmental Science and PolicyUniversity of CaliforniaDavisUSA
  3. 3.Pacific Southwest RegionUSDA-Forest ServiceMcClellanUSA
  4. 4.The Nature Conservancy, 3125 Wickson HallUniversity of CaliforniaDavisUSA
  5. 5.RSAC/BAER LiaisonRemote Sensing Applications Center, USDA-Forest ServiceSalt Lake CityUSA

Personalised recommendations