Evaluating the performance and mapping of three fuel classification systems using Forest Inventory and Analysis surface fuel measurements
Evaluating the performance and mapping of three fuel classification systems using Forest Inventory and Analysis surface fuel measurements
复制标题
使用森林清查和分析地表燃料测量来评估三种燃料分类系统的性能和绘图
DOI：
10.1016/j.foreco.2013.06.001
复制
发表时间：
2013
影响因子：
3.7
通讯作者：
R. Ottmar
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
R. Keane;J. Herynk;Chris Toney;S. Urbanski;Duncan C. Lutes;R. Ottmar
燃料装载模型 (FLM) 和燃料特性分类系统 (FCCS) 燃料床在整个荒地火灾科学和管理中使用，以简化火灾行为和影响模型中的燃料输入，但尚未使用现场数据进行彻底评估。在本研究中，我们使用了森林库存和分析 (FIA) 地表燃料估算的大型数据集 (n= 13,138)，根据 FIA 森林类型组创建了一个名为燃料类型组 (FTG) 的新燃料分类，然后根据燃料负载和林分条件为每个 FIA 图键入 FLM、FCCS 和 FTG 类别。然后，我们将 FIA 采样负载与四种表面燃料成分（粗粒、枯枝落叶、细木本碎片、粗木本碎片）的关键类负载值以及空间燃料产品映射的 FLM、FCCS 和 FTG 类负载值进行比较。我们发现所有三个类别中大多数燃料成分负载的性能都很差（R2 < 0.30），这反过来又导致绘图精度较差。性能不佳的主要原因是分类类别内四种燃料成分负载的高度可变性，并且这种可变性的固有比例似乎与 FIA 测量比例或 LANDFIRE 制图比例不匹配。
Fuel Loading Models (FLMs) and Fuel Characteristic Classification System (FCCSs) fuelbeds are used throughout wildland fire science and management to simplify fuel inputs into fire behavior and effects models, but they have yet to be thoroughly evaluated with field data. In this study, we used a large dataset of Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) surface fuel estimates (n= 13,138) to create a new fuel classification called Fuel Type Groups (FTGs) from FIA forest type groups, and then keyed an FLM, FCCS, and FTG class to each FIA plot based on fuel loadings and stand conditions. We then compared FIA sampled loadings to the keyed class loading values for four surface fuel components (duff, litter, fine woody debris, coarse woody debris) and to mapped FLM, FCCS, and FTG class loading values from spatial fuel products. We found poor performances (R2< 0.30) for most fuel component loadings in all three classifications that, in turn, contributed to poor mapping accuracies. The main reason for the poor performances is the high variability of the four fuel component loadings within classification categories and the inherent scale of this variability does not seem to match the FIA measurement scale or LANDFIRE mapping scale.