Advertisement

Live fuel moisture content (LFMC) time series for multiple sites and species in the French Mediterranean area since 1996

  • N. Martin-StPaul
  • F. Pimont
  • J. L. Dupuy
  • E. Rigolot
  • J. Ruffault
  • H. Fargeon
  • E. Cabane
  • Y. Duché
  • R. Savazzi
  • M. Toutchkov
Open Access
Data Paper

Keywords

Mediterranean Fire danger Drought Fire weather 

1 Introduction

Live fuel moisture content (LFMC), the ratio of water mass to dry mass of living shoots, is a primary driver of wildfire activity (Chandler et al. 1983; Dennison and Moritz 2009; Nolan et al. 2016) and fuel flammability (Marino et al. 2012; Rossa et al. 2016; Fares et al. 2017 Ruffault et al. 2018). LFMC is an input variable in several fire behavior models (Sullivan 2009; Alexander and Cruz 2013) and is often implicitly accounted for in fire hazard indices in Mediterranean areas (e.g. Viegas et al. 1999; Ruffault and Mouillot 2017).

Despite the importance of LFMC for a wide range of wildfire research studies, its estimation at stand to landscape scales is still highly uncertain, because LFMC results from complex interactions between the antecedent and concurrent weather and several biological mechanisms that influence water content (i.e. plant water relations) and dry matter accumulation (i.e. carbon allocation at the leaf level) (Turner 1981; Jolly et al. 2014). There is therefore a need for robust and long-term LFMC datasets to improve our understanding of LFMC variations and refine our predictions.

In 1996, the French organization in charge of protection of the Mediterranean forest (DPFM1) initiated the systematic measurement of LFMC to improve its operational fire danger rating system during the fire season. Weekly measurements have been performed in various sites and shrub species over the fire-prone French Mediterranean. This operational network, called the “Reseau Hydrique” (what could be translated as “hydric network”) has been operated by the National Forest Service (Office National des Forêts (ONF)) since then. To date, the “Reseau Hydrique” produced a dataset that includes 584 “Sites × Years”, on 24 species, with 7 to 20 measurement dates per year. In addition, rainfall amounts during the fire season have been recorded since 2009 on some sites.

The raw dataset is currently available on demand via the Reseau Hydrique website2 but, in its current form, cannot be easily used for scientific purposes for several reasons: (i) the database is not referenced (i.e. does not have a DOI); (ii) information is in French only; (iii) the labels and names of sampling sites and species names are not always consistent; (iv) outliers, duplications and inconsistencies in LFMC data have not been corrected; (v) measurement uncertainties (confidence levels) are not provided.

Here, we describe a revised version of the “Reseau Hydrique” dataset. The database was cleaned up and robust estimations of LFMC uncertainties were computed. Metadata description and accessibility are also provided.

2 Methods

We document the raw LFMC dataset as well as a refactored version that satisfies scientific purposes. We describe protocols for data collection, the clean-up process and confidence interval estimators, as well as some preliminary assessments of data quality.

2.1 Site and species description

In each French administrative unit (called “départements”) of the fire-prone Mediterranean area, between one and three sampling sites were selected according to the climatic heterogeneity and the averaged levels of fire hazard observed in the surrounding areas (Fig. 1a, Table 1). Since 1996, measurements have been carried out over 50 sites among which 35 are geolocalized. There are currently 30 active measurement sites in the region (Fig. 1a, Table 1). All sites are located on a south-exposed slope and include a shrubby layer, possibly associated with a sparse tree layer. The site labels are “DmSn” where m is the “département” number and n, the site number within a “département”. In the refactored database presented below, site identifiers are unique and static (contrary to the operational database). Data from non-geolocalized (NG) sites are labelled “DmSNGn” with m the “département” index number and n the site index number within a “département”. The different sites cover a wide range of summer water availability (Fig. 1b), expressed as the yearly average ratio between rainfall and evapotranspiration during the fire season (June to September). We estimated both quantities with the SAFRAN climatic dataset, which provides daily climatic variables on an 8-km grid over France (Vidal et al. 2010). In the network, one to three shrub species are sampled in each site. They are selected among the dominant species. When species show both shrub and tree habits, only shrubby individuals are sampled.
Fig. 1

a Location of the currently active and closed geolocalized sites (Sx) within the sampling region. White numbers in the background are the French administrative units (“Départements”). b Boxplot (in black) and mean value (red dots) of the yearly climatic water availability (ratio of rainfall over ETP for the June to September period, R/ETP) for each site as computed by using SAFRAN climatic analysis. Sites are ranked in increasing order of water availability. Site codes on b provided are identifiers of the form “DmSn” where m is the “département” number (i.e. administrative county) and n, the site number within a “département”

Table 1

List of the geolocalized sites of the Reseau Hydrique available in the database. The site code provides an identifier of the form “DmSn” where m is the “département” number (i.e. administrative county) and n, the site number within a “département”

SiteCode

SiteName

X (°)

Y (°)

Species

Period

Available years

D04S1

Les Adrechs

5922

44,032

Rosmarinus officinalis

1996–2016

20

Genista cinerea

1996–2016

20

D04S2

Les Pailles

6501

43,982

Buxus sempervirens

1996–2016

20

Genista cinerea

1996–2016

20

D05S1

Bas Col

6161

44,484

Genista cinerea

1997–2016

19

Cytisus sessilifolium

1997–2016

19

D06S1

Lou Lambert

7343

43,834

Rosmarinus officinalis

1996–2016

20

Juniperus oxycedrus

1996–2016

20

D06S2

Barbossi

6902

43,539

Cistus monspeliensis

1996–2016

20

Acacia dealbata

1996–2016

20

D06S3

Les Canebiers

6944

43,619

Cistus albidus

1997–2016

19

Calycotomae spinosa

1997–2016

19

D07S1

Bois Sauvage

4463

44,447

Arbutus unedo

2011–2016

6

Buxus sempervirens

2011–2012

2

Coronilla emerus

2013–2016

4

D07S2

Le Bois Commun

4102

44,342

Erica scoparia

1996–2010

15

Arbutus unedo

1996–2010

15

D11S1

Col de Nouvelle

2798

42,911

Quercus coccifera

1996–2016

20

Rosmarinus officinalis

1996–2016

20

D11S2

Le Chemin des Bornes

2922

43,127

Erica scoparia

1996–2016

20

Cistus monspeliensis

1996–2016

20

D13S1

La Charlotte

5069

43,695

Quercus coccifera

1996–2016

20

Rosmarinus officinalis

1996–2016

20

D13S2

Le Romaron

5166

43,350

Quercus coccifera

1997–2016

19

Rosmarinus officinalis

1997–2016

19

D13S3

Lamanon

5063

43,711

Buxus sempervirens

2005–2007

3

Quercus ilex

2005–2007

3

D2AS1

Salario

8707

41,926

Cistus monspeliensis

1996–2016

20

Erica arborea

1996–2016

20

D2AS2

FD Valle Mala

9008

41,734

Arbutus unedo

2000–2016

16

Erica arborea

2000–2016

16

D2AS3

Lecci

9326

41,653

Cistus monspeliensis

2012–2016

4

Erica arborea

2012–2016

4

D2AS4

FD Ospédale Albarellu

9338

41,722

Arbutus unedo

2004–2011

8

Cistus salviifolius

2004–2011

8

D2BS1

Lancone B

9421

42,600

Cistus monspeliensis

2000–2016

16

Erica arborea

2000–2016

16

D2BS2

Quilico

9177

42,339

Cistus monspeliensis

2000–2016

16

Erica arborea

2000–2016

16

D2BS3

Bonifatu

8849

42,444

Cistus monspeliensis

1997–2016

19

Erica arborea

1997–2016

19

D26S1

Rocher rond

5224

44,275

Genista scorpius

1996–2016

20

Quercus pubescens

1996–2008

20

D30S1

Roc du Bajanet

4020

44,229

Erica cinerea

1996–2016

20

Erica scoparia

1996–2016

20

D30S2

Le Télégraphe

4424

43,885

Quercus ilex

1996–2016

20

Cistus albidus

1996–2016

20

D34S1

Le Bas de Courbezou

3204

43,613

Cytisus scoparius

1997–2016

19

Juniperus oxycedrus

1997–2016

19

D34S2

Le Puits de l’Aven

3716

43,578

Quercus coccifera

1999–2016

17

Cistus albidus

1999–2016

17

D48S1

Boussal

3947

44,431

Genista purgens

1997–2016

19

Calluna vulgaris

1997–2016

19

D66S1

Le Mas Péricot

2872

42,515

Erica arborea

1999–2016

17

Cistus monspeliensis

1999–2016

17

D66S2

Le Vigné

2479

42,644

Juniperus oxycedrus

1996–2016

20

Cistus monspeliensis

1996–2016

20

D83S1

Le Castellet

5802

43,241

Erica arborea

1996–2016

20

Cistus monspeliensis

1996–2016

20

D83S2

Le Haras du Rastéou

6483

43,477

Quercus ilex

1996–2016

20

Cistus albidus

1996–2016

20

D83S3

La Carrière du Juge

5999

43,424

Cistus albidus

1997–2016

19

Cistus monspeliensis

1997–2016

19

D83S4

Laquina D

6371

43,217

Arbutus unedo

2001–2007

7

Erica arborea

2001–2007

7

D83S5

Laquina B

6367

43,218

Arbutus unedo

2001–2007

7

Erica arborea

2001–2007

7

D84S1

Mur de la Peste

5141

43,903

Quercus coccifera

1996–2016

20

Quercus ilex

1996–2016

20

D84S2

Peyrasse

5619

43,740

Rosmarinus officinalis

1996–2016

20

Quercus ilex

1996–2016

20

2.2 LFMC and rainfall measurements

Apical and lateral shoots of branches fully exposed to the sun are sampled from different individuals of a given species within plots on the order of 1000 m2 representative of the surrounding landscape. Sampled individuals were chosen to be representative of the average status of each species. Samples were used to fill five 0.35 l-aluminium containers sealed with paper tape, corresponding to an overall fresh mass on the order of 50 to 75 g. Once at the laboratory, samples were weighed fresh, oven dried at 60 °C during 24 h and weighed dry. The sampling operations take place at ca. 12:00 UT. Fuel moisture content is computed and released on fresh mass basis by the ONF. In the refactored database, values are provided in dry mass (see supplementary S1 for conversion). At each sampling date, rainfall amount from manual gauges since the previous measurement is recorded (data available since 2009).

2.3 Measurement frequency

Sampling starts every year at the beginning of the fire season (generally in June) and ends in between August and October, depending on fire danger levels. Between 1996 and 2009, the sampling frequency was once or twice a week, depending on the uncertainty of the fire danger evolution. The sampling of the day was cancelled when a rainfall event had occurred less than 2 days before or was forecasted for the day.

2.4 Raw data processing, clean-up and robust estimators

Raw data were first converted to a dry weight basis, leading to samples of up to five individual measurements of LFMC. Because the sample size is small, the common estimators of mean and standard deviation are highly sensitive to outliers and thus are not appropriate. We therefore applied the following two-step procedure to filter the dataset and compute robust estimators of the mean and standard error.

2.4.1 Manual filtering of the data

The “manual filter” consisted in setting to NA (not available) doubtful or irrelevant values, for each individual measurement of LFMC as well as for the mean daily value computed by the ONF for operational purposes. Note that 1857 samples were already set to NA by the ONF during data collection. Each individual measurement was set to NA in two cases:
  1. (a)

    When the mean value was indicated as NA by the ONF (indicating uncertainties regarding the corresponding sample), all individual measurements were set to NA.

     
  2. (b)

    When values were outside of the classical biological range for LFMC (> 250 or < 20) and differed by more of 100% from other values collected at the same site, the same day for the same species.

     

All filtered values are identified in the third table (LFMC_raw_Table.csv) with a flag: (FlagVi = 1, when value i is manually filtered). The figure in supplementary S2 shows the distribution before and after processing the manual filtering.

2.4.2 Robust estimator for LFMC and LFMC confidence interval

The following method for robust estimation was held for a given Site×Species and was applied to obtain mean and error values at each date (t).

Robust estimations of LFMC

The common estimators of LFMC at each date t for a sample of i = 1 to n(t)≤ 5 individual measurements LFMCi(t) can either be the mean \( \overline{\mathrm{LFMC}}(t) \), or the median \( \overset{\sim }{\mathrm{LFMC}}(t) \) of the individual values. However a more robust estimator of LFMC, referred as robust mean \( \widehat{\mathrm{LFMC}}(t) \) can be obtained using a bisquare weight function of the median (Mosteller and Tukey, 1977):

$$ \widehat{\mathrm{LFMC}}(t)=\overset{\sim }{\mathrm{LFMC}}(t)+\frac{\sum \limits_{i\le n(t)}{W}_i\left({\mathrm{LFMC}}_i(t)-\overset{\sim }{\mathrm{LFMC}}(t)\right)}{\sum \limits_{i\le n(t)}{W}_i} $$
(1)
The weights Wi allow to correct the median for the scattering of the individual data and are defined by:
$$ {W}_i={\left(1-{R}_i\right)}^2,\mathrm{with}\ {R}_i=\min \left({\left(\frac{{\mathrm{LFMC}}_i(t)-\overset{\sim }{\mathrm{LFMC}}(t)}{4.685\ \overset{\sim }{\sigma }(t)}\right)}^2;1\right) $$
(2)
In Eq. (3), \( \overset{\sim }{\sigma }(t) \) is a robust estimator of standard deviation of samples at date t, based on the sample median absolute deviation (Mosteller and Tuckey 1977):
$$ \overset{\sim }{\sigma }(t)=\frac{\mathrm{median}\left(\left|{\mathrm{LFMC}}_i(t)-\overset{\sim }{\mathrm{LFMC}}(t)\right|\right)}{0.6745} $$
(3)

The constant 0.6745 makes the estimate unbiased assuming a normal distribution of residuals.

The standard deviation estimates, however, exhibit an unrealistic distribution because of the small size of the samples (see supplementary S4). We thus consider an alternative approach based on the computation of the standard deviation from all LFMC measurement values available for a given Site×Species (i.e. all dates). This approach assumes that the standard deviation of individual LFMC measurement is constant with time (year and day of the year) and in particular with the LFMC mean, which was acceptable in our case. Let N be the number of measurements of a given Site×Species. The standard deviation of individual measurements is expressed as follows:

$$ \widehat{\sigma}=\sqrt{\frac{1}{N-1}\sum \limits_{i,t}{\left({\mathrm{LFMC}}_i(t)-\widehat{\mathrm{LFMC}}(t)\right)}^2} $$
(4)

This standard deviation is properly estimated as it relies on hundreds of individual measurements (Nj). The corresponding value can be used instead of \( \overset{\sim }{\sigma }(t) \) within the robust estimation of LFMC described above in Eqs. (1)–(2). Such process can be iterated and converged after a few iterations for both \( \widehat{\mathrm{LFMC}}(t) \) and \( {\widehat{\sigma}}_j \). We illustrate the relationship between this robust mean and the median in supplementary S3.

Robust estimator of the standard error

At this stage, potential remaining outliers within individual measurements are identified and filtered by using the criteria of Thompson’s Tau at 5% computed for each Site×Species (Thompson 1985):

$$ \tau =\frac{t_s\bullet \kern0.5em \left(N-1\right)}{\sqrt{N\left(N-2+{t_s}^2\right)}} $$
(5)

with N as defined above, ts the student’s value based on α = 0.05 for a degree of freedom and df = N − 2. Residuals greater than \( \tau \widehat{\sigma} \) are considered as outliers. This leads to the identification of 3981 potential outliers that are identified within the raw data table (FlagVi = 2, when value i is identified as an outlier). The robust standard deviation estimate (Eq. 5) and the number of valid measurements \( \widehat{n}(t) \) (\( \widehat{n}(t)\le n(t)\le 5\Big) \) can be used to evaluate a robust standard error for each sample k:

$$ \widehat{\mathrm{SE}}(t)=\frac{\widehat{\sigma}}{\sqrt{\widehat{n}(t)}} $$
(6)
The 95% confidence interval for \( \widehat{\mathrm{LFMC}}\ (t) \) is:
$$ \pm 1.96\widehat{\ \mathrm{SE}\ }(t) $$
(7)
The distribution of robust standard errors is discussed and compared to the distribution obtained using the common median-based standard error in supplementary S4. The benefit of this approach is illustrated in Fig. 2, which exhibits much smoother confidence interval patterns than when computed with standard methods.
Fig. 2

Example of LFMC and rain series as reported in the database: a raw data and b robust estimates. Variations are reported here for the site “Le Télégraphe” (D13S2) for a seeder (Rosmarinus officinalis) and a resprouter (Quercus coccifera). Shaded areas indicate the 95% confidence limits. The site code is an identifier of the form “DmSn”, where m is the “département” number (i.e. administrative county) and n, the site number within a “département”

3 Access to data and metadata description

The dataset is available in Zenodo (Duché et al. 2017,  https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.162978). Associated metadata is available at https://agroenvgeo.data.inra.fr/geonetwork/srv/eng/catalog.search#/metadata/184ff098-eae2-44e1-9b8b-2e25a456c9a6. Zenodo is an open international research data repository created by the CERN and OpenAire that allows to store and share research datasets and provides digital object identifier. The whole dataset consists of four tables:
  1. 1.

    The first table (LFMC_final_Table.csv) contains the live fuel moisture content (LFMC). These are the robust estimates of LFMC and their associated standard errors which were both estimated from raw data with the method described above. Each row in the table describes the LFMC at a given date, for a given species and at a given site. The table has 11 columns. The first eight columns indicate the site identifier (SiteCode and SiteName), the species (Species), a unique identifier for a given species at a given site (Site×Species) and the date (date, year, month, day of year). The last three columns are respectively the robust LFMC mean \( \widehat{\mathrm{LFMC}} \) (labelled RobustLFMC), the standard error \( \widehat{\mathrm{SE}} \) (labelled RobustStandErrLFMC) and the number of valid measurements \( \widehat{n} \) (labelled RobustNval). RobustStandErrLFMC can be used to estimate confidence limits depending on the desired confidence rate.

     
  2. 2.

    The second table (RainTable.csv) contains site identifiers (SiteCode and SiteName) and rainfall measurements (rainfall), corresponding to rainfall occurring between the day of year of the previous measurement (labelled PreviousDoy) and the day of year when the measurement was performed (labelled Doy). The last column is a flag that enables to identify the doubtful measurements (RainFlag = 1), when the discharge of the gauge during the previous measurement was uncertain.

     
  3. 3.

    The third table contains raw data (LFMC_raw_Table.csv). The first 12 columns indicate site name, species name and date. The six following columns indicate individual LFMC values (LFMC1 to LFMC5) and the mean LFMC value (FFSLFMC) released by the French Forest Service. The last six columns correspond to flags identifying outliers (LFMC1Flag to LFMC5Flag). Missing values were represented by the symbol “NA” (not available).

     
  4. 4.

    The fourth table (InfoSite_ReseauHydrique.csv) contains a basic description of each site. It includes the identifier of the site (SiteCode and SiteName), the coordinates of the site in WGS84 (Longitude and Latitude), a flag indicating whether the site is still active (1 = active, 0 = inactive), the names of measured species (SpeciesName1 and up to SpeciesName3), the first and last year of measurement and the number of measurement available per year for each species (StartYear, EndYear, NbYears).

     

4 Technical validation

Figure 2 shows typical LFMC seasonal variations for two species at a given site and their 95% confidence limits (shaded area) before (Fig. 2a) and after (Fig. 2b) data processing. Rainfall series are also shown. LFMC raw data are altered by outliers and the small sample sizes (Fig 2a, e.g. first day of measurement for Quercus coccifera) and has an erratic and large standard error compared to the data corrected with robust estimators (Fig 2b). Figure 2 shows that LFMC generally decreases along the drying periods and increases after rainfalls. Some exceptions exist (Figure 2, Quercus coccifera after the rain event around Doy 210), suggesting that other processes, such as phenology or tissue ageing, might affect LFMC variations (Jolly et al. 2014).

As a basic analysis, we applied a linear model to predict the lowest annual values of LFMC (10th percentile) with different variables including (i) a linear effect of a drought index (rain/ETP from June to September) computed each year for each site with the French climate reanalysis SAFRAN (see Section 2), (ii) a regeneration strategy effect accounting if a species is a seeder or resprouter (this information was taken from the Brot database Paula et al. 2009) and (iii) a site effect. The global model leads to a R2 of 0.51. All parameters were significant (Table 2). The model coefficients are reported in supplementary S6 and indicate that (i) drought was associated with a decrease in lowest annual values of LFMC, that (ii) resprouters tend to have a higher minimum LFMC than seeders in agreement with physiological expectations (Vilagrosa et al. 2014) and that (iii) unidentified features related to sites (e.g. soil, leaf area index) contribute to determining LFMC. A graphical illustration of the three effects is given in supplementary S6.
Table 2

Analysis of variance of the linear model used to predict the minimum annual values of LFMC (10th percentile). Explanatory variables included a drought index (rain/ETP from June to September) computed for each site with the French climate reanalysis at 8-km resolution (SAFRAN, Vidal et al. 2010), the regeneration strategy of the species (seeder or resprouter) and a site effect. Because interactions were not significant, all terms were set additive in this model. The global R2 of the model is 0.51

Variable

Df

Sum of square

Mean square

F

Significance

Drought index

1

45,884

45,884

270.409

***

Regeneration strategy

1

34,565

34,565

203.704

***

Site

34

93,531

2751

16.212

***

Residuals

992

169,174

170

  

The robustness of rainfall measurements of geolocalized sites was also evaluated with SAFRAN. We found a significant relationship between both datasets (supplementary S5). The rainfall and LMFC peaks generally co-occur (e.g. Figure 2). This variable, however, should be used with caution as no wind shelter protected the rain gauge and as the minimum distance from the surrounding vegetation (normally equal to four times the height of the vegetation) was not always applied (due to vegetation growth and the need for protection of the rain gauge from potential robbery).

5 Discussion and conclusion

The dataset can be used for the following applications:
  • The study of the weather drivers of LFMC variations and its interactions with species and functional groups functioning (e.g. Viegas et al. 2001)

  • The calibration and validation of eco-physiological models of plant desiccation (Ruffault et al. 2013; Martin-StPaul et al. 2017) or fire behaviour (Zylstra et al. 2016).

  • The calibration and validation of meteorological drought proxies of LFMC (Viegas et al. 2001; Pellizzaro et al. 2007).

  • The calibration and validation of remote sensing products used to estimate LFMC (Yebra et al. 2013; Fan et al. 2018)

  • The generation of dynamic fuel models (Scott and Burgan 2005)

  • The analysis of relationship between LFMC and flammability of plants (Fares et al. 2017) and wildfire activity (Dennison and Moritz 2009; Chuvieco et al. 2009; Nolan et al. 2016)

Altogether, this database may help to improve live fuel moisture and fire danger modelling. If drought is a primary driver of LFMC, it also depends on phenology and tissue ageing (Jolly et al. 2014), which should be accounted for in LFMC modelling. Also, the spatial variability of LFMC may partly be explained by local soil and vegetation properties. Ongoing field measurements carried out by our group aim at consolidating sites descriptions, with additional information regarding soil, vegetation cover and structure, as well as site history (fire occurrence or fuel cut during the measurement period), and will be released as soon as possible. Such data are critical to better understand and model LFMCdynamics.

Footnotes

  1. 1.

    Délégation à la Protection de la Forêt Méditerranéenne

  2. 2.

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work is a contribution to the Labex OT-Med (ANR-11-LABEX-0061) funded by the “Investissements d’Avenir”, a program of the French National Research Agency (ANR) through the A*Midex project (ANR-11-IDEX- 0001-02).

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

Eric Rigolot has been an Associate Editor.

Supplementary material

13595_2018_729_MOESM1_ESM.docx (629 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 628 kb)
13595_2018_729_MOESM2_ESM.xlsx (28 kb)
ESM 2 (XLSX 27.6 kb)

References

  1. Alexander ME, Cruz MG (2013) Assessing the effect of foliar moisture content on the spread rate of crown fires. Int J Wildland Fire 22:415–427.  https://doi.org/10.1071/WF12008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Chandler, C., Cheney, P., Thomas, P., Trabaud, L., & Williams, D. (1983). Fire in forestry. Volume 1. Forest fire behavior and effects. (John Wiley & Sons, Ed.). New YorkGoogle Scholar
  3. Dennison PE, Moritz MA (2009) Critical live fuel moisture in chaparral ecosystems: a threshold for fire activity and its relationship to antecedent precipitation. Int J Wildland Fire 18(8):1021–1027.  https://doi.org/10.1071/WF08055 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Duché Y, Savazzi R, Toutchkov M, Cabanne E (2017) Multisite and multispecies live fuel moisture content (LFMC) series in the French Mediterranean since 1996 [data set]. Zenodo.  https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.162978
  5. Fan L, Wigneron JP, Xiao Q, Al-Yaari A, Wen J, Martin-St Paul N, Dupuy JL, Pimont F, Al Bitar A, Fernandez-Moran R, Kerr YH (2018) Evaluation of microwave remote sensing for monitoring live fuel moisture content in the Mediterranean region. Remote Sens Environ 205:210–223.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2017.11.020 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Fares S, Bajocco S, Salvati L, Camaretta N, Dupuy J-L, Xanthopoulos G, Guijarro M, Madrigal J, Hernando C, Corona P (2017) Characterizing potential wildland fire fuel in live vegetation in the Mediterranean region. Ann For Sci 74:1–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Jolly WM, Hadlow AM, Huguet K (2014) De-coupling seasonal changes in water content and dry matter to predict live conifer foliar moisture content. Int J Wildland Fire 23(4):480–489.  https://doi.org/10.1071/WF13127 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Marino E, Dupuy JL, Pimont F, Guijarro M, Hernando C, Linn R (2012) Fuel bulk density and fuel moisture content effect on fire rate of spread: a comparison between FIRETEC model predictions and experimental results in shrub fuels. J Fire Sci 30(4):277–299CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Martin-StPaul N, Delzon S, Cochard H (2017) Plant resistance to drought depends on timely stomatal closure. Ecol Lett 20:1–23.  https://doi.org/10.1111/ele.12851 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Mosteller F, Tukey J (1977) Data analysis and regression. Addison-Wesley, Upper Saddle River, NJGoogle Scholar
  11. Nolan RH, Boer MM, Resco de Dios V, Caccamo G, Bradstock RA (2016) Large-scale, dynamic transformations in fuel moisture drive wildfire activity across southeastern Australia. Geophys Res Lett 43(9):4229–4238.  https://doi.org/10.1002/2016GL068614 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Paula S, Arianoutsou M, Kazanis D, Tavşanoğlu Ç, Lloret F, Buhk C et al (2009) Fire-related traits for plant species of the Mediterranean Basin. Ecology 90(5):1420.  https://doi.org/10.1890/08-1309.1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Pellizzaro G, Cesaraccio C, Duce P, Ventura A, Zara P (2007) Relationships between seasonal patterns of live fuel moisture and meteorological drought indices for Mediterranean shrubland species. Int J Wildland Fire 16(2):232–241.  https://doi.org/10.1071/WF06081 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Rossa CG, Veloso R, Fernandes PM (2016) A laboratory-based quantification of the effect of live fuel moisture content on fire spread rate. Int J Wildland Fire 25:569–573CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ruffault J, Martin-StPaul NK, Rambal S, Mouillot F (2013) Differential regional responses in drought length, intensity and timing to recent climate changes in a Mediterranean forested ecosystem. Clim Chang 117(1–2):103–117.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-012-0559-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ruffault J, Mouillot F (2017) Contribution of human and biophysical factors to the spatial distribution of forest fire ignitions and large wildfires in a French Mediterranean region. Int J Wildland Fire 26(6):498–508.  https://doi.org/10.1071/WF16181 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Ruffault, J., Curt, T., Martin-StPaul, N. K., Moron, V., & Trigo, R. M. (2018). Extreme wildfire events are linked to global-change-type droughts in the northern Mediterranean. Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences, 18(3), 847–856.  https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-18-847-2018 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Scott, JH.; Burgan, RE. 2005. Standard fire behavior fuel models: a comprehensive set for use with Rothermel’s surface fire spread model. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-153. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. p. 72Google Scholar
  19. Sullivan AL (2009) Wildland surface fire spread modelling, 1990–2007. 1: physical and quasi-physical models. Int J Wildland Fire 18(4):349–368.  https://doi.org/10.1071/WF06144 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Thompson R (1985) A note on restricted maximum likelihood estimation with an alternative outlier model. J R Stat Soc Ser B Methodol 47(1):53–55Google Scholar
  21. Turner, N. C. (1981). Techniques and experimental approaches for the measurement of plant water status. In Plant and Soil (Vol. 58, pp. 339–366). ICARDA and Martinus Nijhoff/Dr. W. Junk Publishers. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02180062 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Vidal J-P, Martin E, Franchistéguy L, Baillon M, Soubeyroux J-M (2010) A 50-year high-resolution atmospheric reanalysis over France with the Safran system. Int J Climatol 30(11):1627–1644.  https://doi.org/10.1002/joc.2003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Viegas DX, Piñol J, Viegas MT, Ogaya R (2001) Estimating live fine fuels moisture content using meteorologically-based indices. Int J Wildland Fire 10(2):223–240.  https://doi.org/10.1071/WF01022 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Viegas DX, Bovio G, Ferreira A, Nosenzo A, Sol B (1999) Comparative study of various methods of fire danger evaluation in southern Europe. Int J Wildland Fire 9(4):235.  https://doi.org/10.1071/WF00015 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Vilagrosa A, Hernández EI, Luis VC, Cochard H, Pausas JG (2014) Physiological differences explain the co-existence of different regeneration strategies in Mediterranean ecosystems. New Phytol 201(4):1277–1288.  https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.12584 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Yebra M, Dennison PE, Chuvieco E, Riaño D, Zylstra P, Hunt ER et al (2013) A global review of remote sensing of live fuel moisture content for fire danger assessment: moving towards operational products. Remote Sens Environ 136:455–468.  https://doi.org/10.1016/jrse201305.029 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Zylstra P, Bradstock RA, Bedward M, Penman TD, Doherty MD, Weber RO, Gill AM, Cary GJ (2016) Biophysical mechanistic modelling quantifies the effects of plant traits on fire severity: species, not surface fuel loads, determine flame dimensions in eucalypt forests. PLoS One 11(8):1–24.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0160715 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018
corrected publication July/2018

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.URFMINRAAvignonFrance
  2. 2.DPFM, Délégation à la Protection de la Forêt MéditerranéenneMarseilleFrance
  3. 3.Mission Zonale DFCI, ONFAix en ProvenceFrance

Personalised recommendations