Fire Ecology

Pete FuléNorthern Arizona University

1)Fire regimes

2)Fire history methods

a) Fire scarsb) Comparison to records

3)Fire and climate

4)Effects of forest restoration on fire behavior

5)Future fires: drought & beetles

Overview

Frequency

High frequency Low frequencyIntensity High intensity High intensity

(e.g., FL Everglades) (e.g., boreal, subalpine, lodgepole)

High frequency Low frequencyLow intensity Low intensity(e.g., ponderosa pine) (some deserts?)

Fire Regimes

Fire History Methods

Fire scars — common technique in surface-fire ecosystems.

Advantages: exact dates (even seasons of fires), locations of scarred trees.

Disadvantages: can’t map fire perimeter, absence of scars ≠ absence of fire.

Stand age — common technique in stand-replacing ecosystems.

Advantages: map perimeter/area of fire.

Disadvantages: imprecise fire date, newer fires obliterate evidence of older ones.

How good are fire scar methods? Critiqued by Baker & Ehle (2001, Can. J. Forest Research 31:1205-1226)

Comparison to Fire Records

• Across western North America, we usually find sites with good records but no fires (USA), or many fires but limited records (Mexico).

Comparison to Fire Records

• Across western North America, we usually find sites with good records but no fires (USA), or many fires but limited records (Mexico).

• Grand Canyon has both: earliest recorded fire is the 1924 “Powell” fire.

Comparison to Fire Records

• Across western North America, we usually find sites with good records but no fires (USA), or many fires but limited records (Mexico).

• Grand Canyon has both: earliest recorded fire is the 1924 “Powell” fire.

• Independent fire scar analysis found each of the 13 recorded fires > 20 acres since 1924 on the Powell, Rainbow, & Fire Pt. study sites (total of 1700 acres).

Fulé, P.Z., T.A. Heinlein, W.W. Covington, and M.M. Moore. 2003. Assessing fire regimes on Grand Canyon landscapes with fire scar and fire record data. International Journal of Wildland Fire 12(2):129-145.

August 10-24, 1993

Final size: 138 ha

Stars indicate six samples thatrecorded the fire

Six additional samples did notrecord the fire

Emerald Prescribed Natural Fire

Fire History 1700 to 1997All Fires

Fires scarring 25%or more of the samples

Fire History 1700 to 1997All Fires

Fires scarring 25%or more of the samples

Fulé, P.Z., T.A. Heinlein, W.W. Covington, and M.M. Moore. 2000. Continuing fire regimes in remote forests of Grand Canyon National Park. USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-15-VOL-5: 242-248.

Powell Plateau, Grand Canyon National Park

Mixed Conifer

Mid elevation site (2500 m):

Swamp RidgeNorthwest III

Fire frequency:6-9 years

Last fire 1879

Forest: mixed conifer, formerly ponderosa pine

Swamp Ridge, Grand Canyon N.P.

High elevation sites (2550-2800 m):

Little Park

Fire frequency:complex patterns, MFI25%= 31 yrMFIPoint= 32 yrWt avg of fire-initiated stands = 22 yrs

Last fire 1879

Forest: aspen, mixed conifer, spruce-fir

Current Forest

Structure(circa 2000)

Simulate 1880-2040

1880 Forest Structure

CrownBiomass

CrowningIndex

FVS

Dendro

Intersecting evidence:• Lang & Stewart survey (1910)• Historical photos & data• Rasmussen (1941)

Compared to measured data in 2000, +/- 20%

Tested procedures

Forest Simulation and Fire Behavior Modeling

Add regen

Compared to observed fire behavior (NWIII fire & Outlet fire)

Landscape Maps 1880-2040

Forest Plan

Fire PlanSmoke

Wildlife Biomass equations

Nexus

Fire weather

Site data

Crown biomass changes in Grand Canyon forests, 1880-2040

Crown Biomass Changes 1880-2040

0

6000

12000

18000

1880 1900 1920 1940 1960 1980 2000 2020 2040

Decade

Cro

wn

Bio

mas

s (k

g/ha)

FP

RP

PP

SR

BS

LP

Percent Mesic Species

1880:

30% @ 2500 m65% @ 2650 m86% @ 2700 m

2040:

60% @ 2500 m86% @ 2650 m96% @ 2700 m

Fulé, P.Z., J.E. Crouse, A.E. Cocke, M.M. Moore, and W.W. Covington. 2003. Changes in canopy fuels and potential fire behavior 1880-2040: Grand Canyon, Arizona. Final Report to the Joint Fire Science Program, CA-1200-99-009-NAU 04 (Part 2).

Kaibab National Forest

Grand Canyon National Park

Site Elev. Veg. MFI*

1) Powell Plateau

2296 Pine 4.5

2) Fire Point 2338 Pine 4.9

3) Rainbow Plateau

2320 Pine 5.3

4) Galahad Point

2350 Pine 4.0

5) Swamp Ridge

2482 Mix Con 7.1

6) Big Spring 2650 Aspen,Spruce

31

7) Little Park 2724 Aspen,Spruce

31

12

3

4

5 6 7

* Mean Fire Interval (10%-scarred < 2,500 m)

Fulé, P.Z., T.A. Heinlein, W.W. Covington, and M.M. Moore. 2003. Assessing fire regimes on Grand Canyon landscapes with fire scar and fire record data. International Journal of Wildland Fire 12(2).

Fulé, P.Z., J.E. Crouse, T.A. Heinlein, M.M. Moore, W.W. Covington, and G. Verkamp. 2003. Mixed-Severity Fire Regime in a High-Elevation Forest: Grand Canyon, Arizona. Landscape Ecology 18:465-486.

Kaibab Plateau, Arizona

Fire and Climate

• Climate is the major factor influencing distribution of ecosystems and occurrence of “fire weather”.

• Southwest has frequent fires because climate is dry, hot, and windy nearly every summer.

• Climate causes synchrony in burning across landscapes, mountain ranges, states.

• Drought affects likelihood of fire.

• El Niño/Southern Oscillation affects likelihood of fire.

Swetnam, T.W., and C.H. Baisan. 2003. Tree-ring reconstructions of fire and climate history in the Sierra Nevada and southwestern United States. In: T.T. Veblen, W.L. Baker, G. Montenegro, and T.W. Swetnam (Editors), Fire and Climatic Change in Temperate Ecosystems of the Western Americas, Springer, New York, pp. 158-195.

Synchrony of Major Fire Years in the Southwest

Fire-ENSO Relationship Across the Southwest

Swetnam, T.W., and C.H. Baisan. 2003. Tree-ring reconstructions of fire and climate history in the Sierra Nevada and southwestern United States. In: T.T. Veblen, W.L. Baker, G. Montenegro, and T.W. Swetnam (Editors), Fire and Climatic Change in Temperate Ecosystems of the Western Americas, Springer, New York, pp. 158-195.

Pumpkin Fire (2000)15,779 acres

(/

(/

.-,

.-,

.-,

(/

Kendrick Fire (1980)185 acres

Slate Fire (1996)379 acres

Horseshoe Fire (1996)8,650 acres

Curley Fire (1980)2,708 acres

Kelly Fire (1971)2,732 acres

Wild Bill Fire (1973)7,814 acres

Kelly Fire (1954)4,582 acres

Burnt Fire (1973)7,316 acres

Hostetter Fire (1950) 1,077 acres(1968) 225 acres

Bear Jaw Fire (1995)780 acres

Hochderffer Fire (1996)16,400 acres

Kendrick Fire (1956)292 acres

Trick Fire (1993)344 acres

White Horse Fire (1967)865 acres

Ft. Valley Fire (1948)2,068 acres

Leroux Fire (2001)1,113 acres

Radio Fire (1977)4,600 acres

Side Fire (1996)320 acres

Power Fire (2000)1,527 acres

Pipe Fire (2000)664 acres

Belle Fire (1951)1,128 acres

A-1 Fire (1950)1,002 acres

Wallace Fire (1979)327 acres

Joe Crouse, Andy Meador, Coconino NF data

NASA Visible EarthCredit:Jacques Descloitres, MODIS Land Rapid Response Team, NASA/GSFCSatellite:TerraSensor:MODISData Start Date:06-30-2002

Arizona 2002

Scar of the Rodeo-Chediski fire

468,638 acres

Does forest structure make a difference?

This is the Trick Fire, 1993, burning near the San Francisco Peaks, AZ

Effects of forest restoration on fire behavior: Grand Canyon, Arizona

Restoration Techniques

• Overstory trees: thinning, species composition, spatial pattern, old-growth.

• Understory herbs and shrubs: natural regeneration, seeding, planting.

• Fuels: accumulated fuels, canopy fuels, dead biomass as nutrient sources and habitat.

• Fire: re-introducing fire, unique initial burn conditions, smoke.

• Monitoring and adapting: evaluating results and making changes.

Covington, W.W., P.Z. Fulé, M.M. Moore, S.C. Hart, T.E. Kolb, J.N. Mast, S.S. Sackett, and M.R. Wagner. 1997. Restoration of ecosystem health in southwestern ponderosa pine forests. Journal of Forestry 95(4):23-29.

Project Progress

• Goal is to reduce uncharacteristically severe wildfire hazard, restore forest structure and dynamics.

• Three experimental blocks measured 1997 (in the snow!)

• Grand Canyon NP: draft EA 1998, protests of “logging in canyon,” no action taken.

• New environmental process completed in 2002 with 5” diameter cap. Thinning completed by Northern Arizona Conservation Corps.

Northern Arizona Conservation Corps members thinning and piling slash with hand tools on Grand Canyon’s North Rim, October, 2002

Experimental Design

• Kaibab National Forest: EA part of “Scott,” thinned 1999, burned fall 1999, remeasured 2000.

• Control: continued fire exclusion.• Three restoration alternatives.• Full restoration: thinning (1.5/3 Rx), fuel

treatment, rx fire.• Minimal thinning: thinning around old-growth

trees, fuels, rx fire.• Burn-only: no fuel treatment, rx fire --

represents current management practice.

Full Restoration

Burn Only

Minimal Thinning

Burned October 1999

Fulé, P.Z., W.W. Covington, H.B. Smith, J.D. Springer, T.A. Heinlein, K.D. Huisinga, and M.M. Moore. 2002. Testing ecological restoration alternatives: Grand Canyon, Arizona. Forest Ecology and Management 170:19-41.

Forest structure influences fire behavior

Crown bulk density

Canopy base height

Fuel model 9 or 10

Fuel model 2 or 9

PRE-Treatment: torching at 21 mph, crowning at 33-40 mph.POST-Treatment (FULL): torching at 35 mph, crowning at 75 mph.

Comparison to reference (1887) fire behavior: torching 42 mph, crowning 55-80 mph

PRE-Treatment Torching and Crowning Indices

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Control Full Min Burn

Win

ds

pee

d (

mp

h)

Torching IndexCrowning Index

POST-Treatment Torching and Crowning Indices

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Control Full Min Burn

Win

ds

pe

ed

(m

ph

)

Torching IndexCrowning Index

Treated stand, low density/low fuel

Untreated stand, high density/high fuel

Do model results hold up in real fires?

Rodeo-Chediski fire 2002: White Mountain Apache lands

No treatment, killed by fire

Tree thinning and prescribed burning,survived fire

Rodeo-Chediski Fire, 2002

Treatments 1991-2001, forest above 6,560’, ≤ 45% slope

76% of untreated area burned moderate or high severity

Only 4% (~1000 acres) of cut + burn had high severity

Effects of Treatments

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Cut and Burned Burn Only No Treatment

Per

cen

t o

f F

ire

Are

a

Low

Moderate

High

Future Fires

• Increasing in size, intensity, and severity.

• Increasing fire suppression costs and loss of life.

• Firefighting priorities require focus on urban interface (lives & property) sacrificing wildlands.

• Interaction with climate change: drought & beetles.

Great Basin Incident Mgt Team (above)

forestfire.nau.edu/beetles.htm

Arizona Public Service

University of Arizona

Fuel hazards associated with bark beetle-caused tree mortality in the Southwest.

“The most destructive fire … was fed by more than a million mature pine trees killed over the past year by a bark beetle infestation and drought. The fire front in the national forest was nearly 40 miles long … “John M. Broder, NY Times, October 27, 2003

“Even before the winds came, the risk of fire in Southern California was considered extremely high because several years of drought had left trees vulnerable to the bark beetle and other pests and diseases. Hundreds of thousands of trees are estimated to have died, making them easy to burn.”Andrew Pollack, NY Times, October 27, 2003

Forest Acres Ponderosa

Acres Beetle Attack

Percent Affected

Apache-Sitgreaves

729,306 129,895 18%

Coconino 714,864 60,425 8%

Coronado 6,916 10,255 * 100% +

Kaibab 432,023 6,010 1%

Prescott 50,650 75,580 * 100% +

Tonto 140,128 66,585 48%

* Much of the “piñon/juniper type” forest includes some ponderosa pine. Figures for 2003 from FS Forest Health Protection program.

Pine Bark Beetle Attack