Ecosystems

, Volume 20, Issue 4, pp 717–732 | Cite as

Managed Wildfire Effects on Forest Resilience and Water in the Sierra Nevada

  • Gabrielle Boisramé
  • Sally Thompson
  • Brandon Collins
  • Scott Stephens
Article

Abstract

Fire suppression in many dry forest types has left a legacy of dense, homogeneous forests. Such landscapes have high water demands and fuel loads, and when burned can result in catastrophically large fires. These characteristics are undesirable in the face of projected warming and drying in the western US. Alternative forest and fire treatments based on managed wildfire—a regime in which fires are allowed to burn naturally and only suppressed under defined management conditions—offer a potential strategy to ameliorate the effects of fire suppression. Understanding the long-term effects of this strategy on vegetation, water, and forest resilience is increasingly important as the use of managed wildfire becomes more widely accepted. The Illilouette Creek Basin in Yosemite National Park has experienced 40 years of managed wildfire, reducing forest cover by 22%, and increasing meadow areas by 200% and shrublands by 24%. Statistical upscaling of 3300 soil moisture observations made since 2013 suggests that large increases in wetness occurred in sites where fire caused transitions from forests to dense meadows. The runoff ratio (ratio of annual runoff to precipitation) from the basin appears to be increasing or stable since 1973, compared to declines in runoff ratio for nearby, unburned watersheds. Managed wildfire appears to increase landscape heterogeneity, and likely improves resilience to disturbances, such as fire and drought, although more detailed analysis of fire effects on basin-scale hydrology is needed.

Keywords

forest structure montane hydrology mixed conifer meadow wildfire resilience soil moisture fire ecology wildland fire use 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors specially thank Kate Wilkin for her field expertise, and all of this project’s field crew members and volunteers: Miguel Naranjo, Andy Wong, Perth Silvers, Jeremy Balch, Seth Bergeson, Amanda Atkinson, Tom Bruton, Diane Taylor, Madeleine Jensen, Isabel Schroeter, Katy Abbott, Bryce King, Zubair Dar, Katherine Eve, Sally McConchie, Karen Klonsky, and Yves Boisramé. The vegetation maps were created by GIS technicians Julia Cavalli, Miguel Naranjo, and Melissa Ferriter, with guidance from Professor Maggi Kelly. We thank Jan van Wagtendonk and John Battles for discussions related to this project. Thanks to financial support from Joint Fire Science Grant # 14-1-06-22, Sigma Xi Grants in Aid of Research, the UC Berkeley SMART program, Hellman Fellows Program, and the UC Berkeley Philomathia Graduate Fellowship in Environmental Sciences. The authors thank Yosemite National Park for permitting us to conduct research in wilderness areas.

Supplementary material

10021_2016_48_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (608 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (PDF 608 kb)

References

  1. Agee JK, Skinner CN. 2005. Basic principles of forest fuel reduction treatments. Forest Ecology and Management 211(1):83–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Allen CD, Macalady AK, Chenchouni H, Bachelet D, McDowell N, Vennetier M, Kitzberger T, Rigling A, Breshears DD, Hogg ET et al. 2010. A global overview of drought and heat-induced tree mortality reveals emerging climate change risks for forests. Forest ecology and management 259(4):660–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Alvarez O, Guo Q, Klinger RC, Li W, Doherty P. 2014. Comparison of elevation and remote sensing derived products as auxiliary data for climate surface interpolation. International Journal of Climatology 34(7):2258–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Araya YN, Silvertown J, Gowing DJ, McConway KJ, Peter Linder H, Midgley G. 2011. A fundamental, eco-hydrological basis for niche segregation in plant communities. New Phytologist 189(1):253–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Bales RC, Hopmans JW, O’Geen AT, Meadows M, Hartsough PC, Kirchner P, Hunsaker CT, Beaudette D. 2011. Soil moisture response to snowmelt and rainfall in a Sierra Nevada mixed- conifer forest. Vadose Zone Journal 10(3):786–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Barnett T, Malone R, Pennell W, Stammer D, Semtner B, Washington W. 2004. The effects of climate change on water resources in the west: Introduction and overview. Climatic Change 62(1):1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brown AE, Zhang L, McMahon TA, Western AW, Vertessy RA. 2005. A review of paired catchment studies for determining changes in water yield resulting from alterations in vegetation. Journal of Hydrology 310(1):28–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Californian Department of Water Resources (2008) Managing an uncertain future: Climate change adaptation strategies for California’s water. Technical report Californian Department of Water Resources.Google Scholar
  9. Campbell Scientific (2015) HS2. http://www.campbellsci.com/hs2.
  10. Caridade C, Marcal AR, Mendonca T. 2008. The use of texture for image classification of black & white air photographs. International Journal of Remote Sensing 29(2):593–607.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Coleman, TW, Heath, Z, Cluck, D, Flowers, R, Hanavan, R, Graves, G. 2015. Multiregional accuracy assessment of aerial detection survey data. Technical report USDA Forest Service, Forest Health and Protection, available from http://foresthealth.fs.usda.gov/portal.
  12. Collins B, Everett R, Stephens S. 2011. Impacts of fire exclusion and recent managed fire on forest structure in old growth Sierra Nevada mixed-conifer forests. Ecosphere 2(4):1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Collins B, Kelly M, van Wagtendonk J, Stephens S. 2007. Spatial patterns of large natural fires in Sierra Nevada wilderness areas. Landscape Ecology 22(4):545–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Collins B, Lydersen J, Fry D, Wilkin K, Moody T, Stephens S. 2016. Variability in vegetation and surface fuels across mixed-conifer-dominated landscapes with over 40 years of natural fire. Forest Ecology and Management 381:74–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Collins B, Miller J, Thode A, Kelly M, van Wagtendonk J, Stephens S. 2009. Interactions among wildland fires in a long-established Sierra Nevada natural fire area. Ecosystems 12:114–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Collins, B, Skinner, C. 2014. Fire and Fuels in Science synthesis to promote resilience of social- economic systems in the Sierra Nevada and southern Cascade range. General Technical Report PSW-GTR-247. Technical report United States Forest Service.Google Scholar
  17. Collins B, Stephens S. 2007. Managing natural fires in Sierra Nevada wilderness areas. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 5:523–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Collins B, Stephens S. 2010. Stand-replacing patches within a ‘mixed severity’ fire regime: Quantitative characterization using recent fires in a long-established natural fire area. Landscape Ecology 25(6):927–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Congalton RG, Green K. 2008. Assessing the accuracy of remotely sensed data: principles and practices. Boca Raton (FL): CRC Press. p 192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Dettinger, MD, Anderson, ML. 2015. Storage in California’s reservoirs and snowpack in this time of drought. San Francisco Estuary and Watershed Science 13(2).Google Scholar
  21. Fernandes PM, Botelho HS. 2003. A review of prescribed burning effectiveness in fire hazard reduction. International Journal of Wildland Fire 12(2):117–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Finney MA, McHugh CW, Grenfell IC, Riley KL, Short KC. 2011. A simulation of probabilistic wildfire risk components for the continental United States. Stochastic Environmental Research and Risk Assessment 25:973–1000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Goulden, M, Anderson, R, Bales, R, Kelly, A, Meadows, M, Winston, G. 2012. Evapotranspiration along an elevation gradient in California’s Sierra Nevada. Journal of Geophysical Research: Biogeosciences 117(G3).Google Scholar
  24. Goulden ML, Bales RC. 2014. Mountain runoff vulnerability to increased evapotranspiration with vegetation expansion. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 111(39):14071–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Grant GE, Tague CL, Allen CD. 2013. Watering the forest for the trees: an emerging priority for managing water in forest landscapes. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 11(6):314–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Grömping U. 2009. Variable importance assessment in regression: Linear regression versus random forest. The American Statistician 63(4):308–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Gunderson, LH. 2000. Ecological resilience–in theory and application. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 425–439.Google Scholar
  28. Hessburg PF, Agee JK, Franklin JF. 2005. Dry forests and wildland fires of the inland Northwest USA: Contrasting the landscape ecology of the pre-settlement and modern eras. Forest Ecology and Management 211:117–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hessburg PF, Churchill DJ, Larson AJ, Haugo RD, Miller C, Spies TA, North MP et al. 2015. Restoring fire-prone inland pacific landscapes: Seven core principles. Landscape Ecology 30(10):1805–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Holling C, Meffe GK. 1996. Command and control and the pathology of natural resource man- agement; comando-y-control y la patolog´ıa del manejo de los recursos naturales. Conservation Biology 10(2):328–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Holling CS. 2001. Understanding the complexity of economic, ecological, and social systems. Ecosystems 4(5):390–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kane VR, Lutz JA, Alina Cansler C, Povak NA, Churchill DJ, Smith DF, Kane JT, North MP. 2015. Water balance and topography predict fire and forest structure patterns. Forest Ecology and Management 338:1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kane VR, North MP, Lutz JA, Churchill DJ, Roberts SL, Smith DF, McGaughey RJ, Kane JT, Brooks ML. 2014. Assessing fire effects on forest spatial structure using a fusion of Landsat and airborne LiDAR data in Yosemite National Park. Remote Sensing of Environment 151:89–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. LANDFIRE. 2012a. Biophysical setting layer, LANDFIRE 1.3.0. LANDFIRE. 2012b. Existing vegetation type layer, LANDFIRE 1.3.0.Google Scholar
  35. Lauvaux CA, Skinner CN, Taylor AH. 2016. High severity fire and mixed conifer forest-chaparral dynamics in the southern cascade range, USA. Forest Ecology and Management 363:74–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Liaw, A, Wiener, M. 2015. Breiman and Cutler’s random forests for classification and regression. R Package RandomForest.Google Scholar
  37. Loheide SP, Gorelick SM. 2005. A local-scale, high-resolution evapotranspiration mapping algorithm (ETMA) with hydroecological applications at riparian meadow restoration sites. Remote Sensing of Environment 98(2):182–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Ma S, Concilio A, Oakley B, North M, Chen J. 2010. Spatial variability in microclimate in a mixed-conifer forest before and after thinning and burning treatments. Forest Ecology and Management 259(5):904–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. McGarigal, K, Cushman, S, Ene, E. 2012. FRAGSTATS v4: Spatial pattern analysis program for categorical and continuous maps. computer software program produced by the authors at the University of Massachusetts, amherst. http://www.umass.edu/landeco/research/fragstats/fragstats.html.
  40. Millar CI, Stephenson NL, Stephens SL. 2007. Climate change and forests of the future: managing in the face of uncertainty. Ecological Applications 17(8):2145–51.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Milledge DG, Warburton J, Lane SN, Stevens CJ. 2013. Testing the influence of topography and material properties on catchment-scale soil moisture patterns using remotely sensed vegetation patterns in a humid temperate catchment, northern Britain. Hydrological Processes 27(8):1223–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Miller J, Collins B, Lutz J, Stephens S, van Wagtendonk J, Yasuda D. 2012. Differences in wildfires among ecoregions and land management agencies in the Sierra Nevada region. Ecosphere 3(9):1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Miller J, Safford H. 2012. Trends in wildfire severity 1984–2010 in the Sierra Nevada, Modoc Plateau and southern Cascades, California, USA. Fire Ecology 8:41–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Miller J, Safford H, Crimmins M, Thode A. 2009. Quantitative evidence for increasing forest fire severity in the Sierra Nevada and southern Cascade Mountains, California and Nevada, USA. Ecosystems 12:16–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Miller JD, Thode AE. 2007. Quantifying burn severity in a heterogeneous landscape with a relative version of the delta normalized burn ratio (dNBR). Remote Sensing of Environment 109(1):66–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Moore J. 2015. Aerial detection survey - April 15th-17th, 2015. Forest Service: Technical report United States Department of Agriculture.Google Scholar
  47. Morgan P, Hardy CC, Swetnam TW, Rollins MG, Long DG. 2001. Mapping fire regimes across time and space: understanding coarse and fine-scale fire patterns. International Journal of Wildland Fire 10(4):329–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Mountford J, Chapman J. 1993. Water regime requirements of British wetland vegetation: Using the moisture classification of Ellenberg and Londo. Journal of Environmental Management 38(4):275–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Neary D, Ryan KC, DeBano LF. 2005. Wildland fire in ecosystems: Effects of fire on soil and water. Forest Service: Technical report United States Department of Agriculture.Google Scholar
  50. Norman SP, Taylor AH. 2005. Pine forest expansion along a forest-meadow ecotone in northeastern California, USA. Forest Ecology and Management 215(1):51–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. North MP, Stephens SL, Collins BM, Agee JK, Aplet GH, Franklin JF, Fule PZ. 2015. Reform forest fire management. Science 349:1280–1.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. Oregon State University. 2004. PRISM Climate Group. http://prism.oregonstate.edu.
  53. Parks SA, Miller C, Nelson CR, Holden ZA. 2014. Previous fires moderate burn severity of subsequent wildland fires in two large western us wilderness areas. Ecosystems 17:29–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Ponisio LC, Wilkin K, M’Gonigle LK, Kulhanek K, Cook L, Thorp R, Griswold T, Kremen C. 2016. Pyrodiversity begets plant–pollinator community diversity. Global Change Biology 22:1794–808.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. Rambo T, North M. 2009. Canopy microclimate response to pattern and density of thinning in a Sierra Nevada forest. Forest Ecology and Management 257(2):435–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Rollins MG. 2009. LANDFIRE: a nationally consistent vegetation, wildland fire, and fuel assess- ment. International Journal of Wildland Fire 18(3):235–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Royce, EB, Barbour, MG. 2001. Mediterranean climate effects. i. conifer water use across a Sierra Nevada ecotone. American Journal of Botany 88(5): 911–918.Google Scholar
  58. Scholl AE, Taylor AH. 2010. Fire regimes, forest change, and self-organization in an old-growth mixed-conifer forest, Yosemite National Park. USA. Ecological Applications 20(2):362–80.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. Soulard, CE. 2015. Sierra Nevada ecoregion summary. http://landcovertrends.usgs.gov/west/eco5Report.html.
  60. Stephens SL, Lydersen JM, Collins BM, Fry DL, Meyer MD. 2015. Historical and current landscape-scale ponderosa pine and mixed-conifer forest structure in the Southern Sierra Nevada. Ecosphere 6(5):79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Stephens SL, Moghaddas JJ. 2005. Experimental fuel treatment impacts on forest structure, potential fire behavior, and predicted tree mortality in a California mixed conifer forest. Forest Ecology and Management 215(1):21–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Stephens SL, Moghaddas JJ, Edminster C, Fiedler CE, Haase S, Harrington M, Keeley JE, Knapp EE, McIver JD, Metlen K et al. 2009. Fire treatment effects on vegetation structure, fuels, and potential fire severity in western US forests. Ecological Applications 19(2):305–20.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. Taylor AH, Vandervlugt AM, Maxwell RS, Beaty RM, Airey C, Skinner CN. 2014. Changes in forest structure, fuels and potential fire behaviour since 1873 in the Lake Tahoe Basin, USA. Applied Vegetation Science 17:17–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Thode, A. 2005. Quantifying the fire regime attributes of severity and spatial complexity using field and imagery data. PhD thesis Davis, CA: University of California.Google Scholar
  65. University of Montana. 2015. Wilderness.net. http://www.wilderness.net/index.cfm?fuse=NWPS&sec=geography.
  66. USDA Farm Service Agency. 2015. NAIP imagery. http://www.fsa.usda.gov/programs-and- services/aerial-photography/imagery-programs/naip-imagery/index.
  67. USDA-FS. 2011. Region five ecological restoration: Leadership intent. March 2011. U.S. Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region.Google Scholar
  68. USGS. 2015. The national map: 3D elevation program (3DEP) http://nationalmap.gov/3DEP/index.html.
  69. van Mantgem PJ, Caprio AC, Stephenson NL, Das AJ. 2016. Does prescribed fire promote resistance to drought in low elevation forests of the Sierra Nevada, California, USA? Fire Ecology 12(1):13–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. van Wagtendonk J, van Wagtendonk K, Thode A. 2012. Factors associated with the severity of intersecting fires in Yosemite National Park, California, USA. Fire Ecology 8:11–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. van Wagtendonk, JW. 2007. The history and evolution of wildland fire use. Fire Ecology 3: 3–17. Weiss, A. 2001. Topographic position and landforms analysis. In Poster presentation, ESRI User Conference, San Diego, CA pages 200–200.Google Scholar
  72. Westerling A, Bryant B. 2008. Climate change and wildfire in California. Climatic Change 87(1):231–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Zhang L, Dawes WR, Walker GR. 2001. Response of mean annual evapotranspiration to vegetation changes at catchment scale. Water Resources Research 37(3):701–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gabrielle Boisramé
    • 1
  • Sally Thompson
    • 1
  • Brandon Collins
    • 2
    • 3
  • Scott Stephens
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of Civil and Environmental EngineeringUniversity of California BerkeleyBerkeleyUSA
  2. 2.Center for Fire Research and OutreachUniversity of California BerkeleyBerkeleyUSA
  3. 3.US Forest Service PSW Research StationDavisUSA
  4. 4.Department of Environmental SciencePolicy and Management, University of California BerkeleyBerkeleyUSA

Personalised recommendations