Ecosystems

, Volume 11, Issue 1, pp 12–15 | Cite as

Fire Severity in the Sierra Nevada Revisited: Conclusions Robust to Further Analysis

Article

Abstract

In our previous article (Odion and Hanson, Ecosystems 9:1177–89, 2006), we reported that fire severity in the conifer forests of the Sierra Nevada mountains of California, contrary to prevailing assumptions, did not burn with predominately stand-replacing, high severity fire. The reply by Safford and others (Ecosystems, this issue) using a new mapping approach also found this pattern. Their methods identify more high severity fire; however, as we illustrate here, this may be attributed to the different mapping approaches used. We previously also found that condition class based upon fire return interval departure (FRID) was not an effective predictor of fire severity. Safford and others (this issue) concluded that there was a strong correlation between FRID-based condition class and fire severity based upon data from the McNally fire of 2002. The difference between these findings about McNally fire reflects the fact that they combined FRID categories whereas we kept the categories separate. Here, using their fire severity data to evaluate all three fires, we found that severity was not predicted by FRID. Developing a consensus definition of fire severity within the scientific community might help alleviate future contradictions regarding fire effects.

Keywords

BAER conifer forests condition class FRID fire severity mapping methods 

References

  1. Alexander JD, Seavy NE, Ralph CJ, Hogoboom B. 2006. Vegetation and topographical correlates of fire severity from two fires in the Klamath-Siskiyou region of Oregon and California. Int J Wildl Fire 15:237–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Azuma DL, Donnegan J, Gedney D. 2004. Southwest Oregon Biscuit fire: an analysis of forest resources and fire severity. USDA Forest Service Research Paper PNW-RP-560. Portland (OR): Pacific Northwest Research StationGoogle Scholar
  3. Collins BM, Kelly M, van Wagtendonk JW, Stephens SL. 2007. Spatial patterns of large natural fires in Sierra Nevada. Landsc Ecol 22:545–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Key CH, Benson NC. 2005. Landscape assessment (LA). Sampling and analysis methods. In: Lutes DC, Keane RE, Caratt 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
  5. Kokaly RF, Rockwell BW, Haire SL, King TVV. 2007. Characterization of post-fire surface cover, soils, and burn severity at the Cerro Grande Fire, New Mexico, using hyperspectral and multipsectral remote sensing. Rem Sens Environ 106:305–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Miller JD, Yool SR. 2002. Mapping forest post-fire canopy consumption in several overstory types using multi-temporal Landsat TM and ETM data. Rem Sens Environ 82:481–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 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 Environ 109:66–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Noss RF, Franklin JF, Baker WL, Schoennagel T, Moyle PB. 2006. Managing fire-prone forests in the western United States. Front Ecol Environ 4:481–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Odion DC, Hanson CT. 2006. Fire severity in conifer forests of the Sierra Nevada, California. Ecosystems 9:1177–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Parsons A. 2003. Draft burned area emergency rehabilitaton (BAER) soil burn severity definitions and mapping guidelines. Salt Lake City (UT): USDA-Forest Service, Remote Sensing Application CenterGoogle Scholar
  11. Parsons A, Orlemann A. 2002. BAER burn severity mapping methods and definitions. McNally Fire, Sequoia National Forest, July-August 2002. 3 page report on file with the Sequoia National Forest, Porterville, CA, USAGoogle Scholar
  12. Safford HD, Miller J, Schmidt D, Roath B, Parsons A. 2008. BAER soil burn severity maps do not measure fire effects to vegetation. A comment on Odion and Hanson (2006). Ecosystems 11Google Scholar
  13. Skinner CN, Chang C. 1996. Fire regimes, past and present. Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project, Final Report to Congress, Volume II. Davis (CA): University of California, Centers for Water and Wildland Resources. pp 1041–1069Google Scholar
  14. Stephens SL, Finney MA. 2002. Prescribed fire mortality of Sierra Nevada mixed conifer tree species: effects of crown damage and forest floor combustion. For Ecol Manage 162:261–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 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
  16. United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2004. Sierra Nevada forest plan amendment, final supplemental environmental impact statement. Vallejo (CA): USDA Forest ServiceGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute for Computational Earth Systems ScienceUniversity of CaliforniaSanta BarbaraUSA
  2. 2.Department of BiologySouthern Oregon UniversityAshlandUSA
  3. 3.Department of Plant SciencesUniversity of CaliforniaDavisUSA

Personalised recommendations