Advertisement

Ecosystems

, Volume 13, Issue 6, pp 828–840 | Cite as

Effect of Climate on Wildfire Size: A Cross-Scale Analysis

  • Matthew G. SlocumEmail author
  • Brian Beckage
  • William J. Platt
  • Steve L. Orzell
  • Wayne Taylor
Article

Abstract

Theory predicts that wildfires will encounter spatial thresholds where different drivers may become the dominant influence on continued fire spread. Studying these thresholds, however, is limited by a lack of sufficiently detailed data sets. To address this problem, we searched for scale thresholds in data describing wildfire size at the Avon Park Air Force Range, south-central Florida. We used power-law statistics to describe the “heavy-tail” of the fire size distribution, and quantile regression to determine how the edges of data distributions of fire size were related to climate. Power-law statistics revealed a heavy-tail, a pattern consistent with scale threshold theory, which predicts that large fires will be rare because only fires that cross all thresholds will become large. Results from quantile regression suggested that different climate conditions served as critical thresholds, influencing wildfire size at different spatial scales. Modeling at higher quantiles (≥75th) implicated drought as driving the spread of larger fires, whereas modeling at lower quantiles (≤25th) implicated that wind governed the spread of smaller fires. Fires of intermediate size were negatively associated with relative humidity. Our results are consistent with the idea that fire spread involves scale thresholds, with the small-scale drivers allowing fires to spread after ignition, but with further spread only being possible when large-scale drivers are favorable. These results suggest that other data sets that have heavy-tailed distributions may contain patterns generated by scale thresholds, and that these patterns may be revealed using quantile regression.

Keywords

wildfire size cross-scale interactions scale thresholds quantile regression power-law statistics climate 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank the Avon Park Air Force Range (Department of Defense, USA) for funding, and Samuel Van Hook and Brent Bonner for help collecting data. We thank Paul Ebersbach (Chief of the Environmental Flight at the range) for his continued interest and support of fire research. For help with understanding patterns in climate and fire we thank Andrew Wood (University of Washington, Experimental Surface Water Monitor), Paul Trimble (South Florida Water Management District) and Michael Crimmins (Department of Soil, Water and Environmental Science, University of Arizona). We thank Brian Cade (U. S. Geological Survey, Fort Collins Science Center) for help with quantile regression, and Mark Newman (Department of Physics and Center for the Study of Complex Systems, University of Michigan) for help with power-law statistics. Finally, we thank Edwin Bridges and Mindy McCallum for helpful comments and suggestions on the writing of the manuscript.

References

  1. Allen CD. 2007. Interactions across spatial scales among forest dieback, fire, and erosion in northern New Mexico landscapes. Ecosystems 10:797–808.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson DR, Burnham KP, Thompson WL. 2000. Null hypothesis testing: Problems, prevalence, and an alternative. J Wildl Manag 64:912–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Beckage B, Platt WJ, Slocum MG, Panko B. 2003. Influence of the El Niño-Southern Oscillation on the fire regimes of the Florida Everglades. Ecology 84:3124–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Beckage B, Joseph L, Belisle P, Wolfson DB, Platt WJ. 2007. Bayesian change-point analyses in ecology. New Phytol 174:456–67.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Brenner J. 1991. Southern oscillation anomalies and their relation to Florida wildfire. Fire Manag Notes 52:28–32.Google Scholar
  6. Burnham KP, Anderson DR. 2002. Model selection and multimodel inference: a practical information-theoretic approach. New York: Springer. p 488.Google Scholar
  7. Byram GM. 1954. Atmospheric conditions related to blowup fires. US Department of Agriculture. Asheville (NC): Forest Service, Southeastern Forest Experiment Station. p 34.Google Scholar
  8. Cade BS, Noon BR. 2003. A gentle introduction to quantile regression for ecologists. Front Ecol Environ 1:412–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cade BS, Terrell JW, Schroeder RL. 1999. Estimating effects of limiting factors with regression quantiles. Ecology 80:311–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chen E, Gerber JF. 1990. Climate. In: Myers RL, Ewel JJ, Eds. Ecosystems of Florida. Orlando, FL: University of Central Florida Press. pp 11–35.Google Scholar
  11. Clauset A, Shalizi CR, Newman MEJ. 2009. Power-law distributions in empirical data. Soc Ind Appl Math Rev 51:661–703.Google Scholar
  12. Crimmins MA. 2006. Synoptic climatology of extreme fire-weather conditions across the southwest United States. Int J Climatol 26:1001–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dunham JB, Cade BS, Terrell JW. 2002. Influences of spatial and temporal variation on fish-habitat relationships defined by regression quantiles. Trans Am Fish Soc 131:86–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Falk DA, Miller C, McKenzie D, Black AE. 2007. Cross-scale analysis of fire regimes. Ecosystems 10:809–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Finney MA, McHugh CW, Bartlette R, Close K, Langowski P. 2003. Part 2: description and interpretations of fire behavior. In: Graham RT, Ed. Hayman fire case study. Rocky Mountain Research Station, Ogden, UT: United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service, General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-114. pp 60–95.Google Scholar
  16. Gill AM, Allan G. 2008. Large fires, fire effects and the fire-regime concept. Int J Wildl Fire 17:688–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hobbs NT, Hilborn R. 2006. Alternatives to statistical hypothesis testing in ecology: a guide to self teaching. Ecol Appl 16:5–19.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Keeley JE, Safford H, Fotheringham CJ, Franklin J, Moritz M. 2009. The 2007 Southern California wildfires: lessons in complexity. J For 107:287–96.Google Scholar
  19. Malamud BD, Millington JDA, Perry GLW. 2005. Characterizing wildfire regimes in the United States. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 102:4694–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Miller NL, Schlegel NJ. 2006. Climate change projected fire weather sensitivity: California Santa Ana wind occurrence. Geophys Res Lett 33. doi: L15711-10.1029/2006gl025808.
  21. Moritz MA, Morais ME, Summerell LA, Carlson JM, Doyle J. 2005. Wildfires, complexity, and highly optimized tolerance. Proc Natl Acad Sci 102:17912–17.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Murray K, Conner MM. 2009. Methods to quantify variable importance: implications for the analysis of noisy ecological data. Ecology 90:348–55.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Newman MEJ. 2005. Power laws, pareto distributions and Zipf’s law. Contemp Phys 46:323–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Orzell SL, Bridges E. 2006a. Floristic composition and species richness of subtropical seasonally wet Muhlenbergia sericea prairies in portions of central and south Florida. In: Noss RF, Ed. Land of fire and water: the Florida dry prairie ecosystem, proceedings of the Florida dry prairie conference. DeLeon Springs, Florida: Painter. pp 136–175.Google Scholar
  25. Orzell SL, Bridges E. 2006b. Species composition and environmental characteristics of Florida dry prairies from the Kissimmee River region of south-central Florida. In: Noss RF, Ed. Land of fire and water: the Florida dry prairie ecosystem, proceedings of the Florida dry prairie conference. DeLeon Springs, Florida: Painter. pp 100–135.Google Scholar
  26. Peters DPC, Pielke RA, Bestelmeyer BT, Allen CD, Munson-McGee S, Havstad KM. 2004. Cross-scale interactions, nonlinearities, and forecasting catastrophic events. Proc Natl Acad USA 101:15130–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Peters DPC, Bestelmeyer BT, Turner MG. 2007. Cross-scale interactions and changing pattern-process relationships: consequences for system dynamics. Ecosystems 10:790–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Platt WJ, Huffman JM, Slocum MG, Beckage B. 2006. Fire regimes and trees in Florida dry prairie landscapes. In: Noss RF, Ed. Land of fire and water: the Florida dry prairie ecosystem, proceedings of the Florida dry prairie conference. DeLeon Springs, Florida: Painter. pp 3–13.Google Scholar
  29. Rothermel RC. 1972. A mathematical model for predicting fire spread in wildland fuels. Ogden (UT): Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. p 40.Google Scholar
  30. Scheffer M, Carpenter SR. 2003. Catastrophic regime shifts in ecosystems: linking theory to observation. Trends Ecol Evol 18:648–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Schoenberg FP, Peng R, Huang ZJ, Rundel P. 2003. Detection of non-linearities in the dependence of burn area on fuel age and climatic variables. Int J Wildl Fire 12:1–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Slocum MG, Platt WJ, Cooley HC. 2003. Effects of differences in prescribed fire regimes on patchiness and intensity of fires in subtropical savannas of Everglades National Park, Florida. Restor Ecol 11:91–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Slocum MG, Platt WJ, Beckage B, Panko B, Lushine JB. 2007. Decoupling natural and anthropogenic fire regimes: a case study in Everglades National Park, Florida. Nat Areas J 27:41–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Synder JR. 1991. Fire regimes in subtropical south Florida. Proc Tall Timbers Fire Ecol Conf 17:303–19.Google Scholar
  35. Wade DD, Ward DE. 1973. An analysis of the Air Force Bomb Range Fire. Asheville (NC): USDA Forest Service, Southeastern Forest Experiment Station. p 38.Google Scholar
  36. Wood AW. 2008. The University of Washington surface water monitor: an experimental platform for national hydrologic assessment and prediction. American Meteorology Society annual meeting, 22nd conference on hydrology, New Orleans. p 13.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Matthew G. Slocum
    • 1
    Email author
  • Brian Beckage
    • 2
  • William J. Platt
    • 1
  • Steve L. Orzell
    • 3
  • Wayne Taylor
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Biological SciencesLouisiana State UniversityBaton RougeUSA
  2. 2.Department of Plant BiologyUniversity of VermontBurlingtonUSA
  3. 3.Avon Park Air Force RangeAvon Park AFRUSA

Personalised recommendations