A Hierarchical Classification of Wildland Fire Fuels for Australian Vegetation Types
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. An Overview of the Bushfire Fuel Classification
2.1. The Tier System—A Hierarchical Approach to Classifying Fuels
- (1)
- Incipient—Incipient fuel development, where low fuel quantity and poor continuity constrain fire propagation, leading to low rates of fire spread and flame heights, or intensity, even under extreme burning conditions. Fuel structural features are likely to be below their 15th percentile.
- (2)
- Moderate—A fuel complex state where its structure is in a moderately flammable condition, with the most significant fuel characteristics, such as fuel quantity and depth, still evolving at a rapid rate. In fire-prone environments, this fuel structure sustains high-intensity fire behaviour under extreme burning conditions. Fuel structural features are assumed to be represented by the 33rd percentile.
- (3)
- Developed—This class describes the typical, or most common, fuel complex arrangement observed in the mid-tier fuel type. Fuel structural features are likely to be between 50th and the 66th percentile.
- (4)
- Abundant—This class describes the upper range of the observed fuel hazard in the fuel type. Fuel structural features are above the 80th percentile.
2.2. The Fuel Characteristics Database—Describing the Fuel within the Fuel Types
2.3. BFC Coding Convention
- Standardised descriptive names;
- Upper and lower alphanumeric characters to indicate the top and mid-tiers;
- A numeric code to describe the bottom tier.
3. The Top Tier—A Broad National View of Bushfire Fuels
4. Description of Top- and Mid-Tier Fuel Types
4.1. Herbaceous Fuels
4.1.1. Hummock Grasslands
Sparse Hummock Grasslands (HG1)
Hummock Grasslands (HG2)
Dense Hummock Grasslands (HG3)
4.1.2. Grasslands
Sparse Grassland (G1)
Open Grassland (G2)
Grassland (G3)
Closed Grassland (G4)
4.2. Shrublands
4.2.1. Low Sparse Shrublands (SL1)
4.2.2. Low Open Shrublands (SL2)
4.2.3. Low Shrublands (SL3)
4.2.4. Low Closed Shrublands (SL4)
4.2.5. Open Shrubland (SM2)
4.2.6. Shrublands (SM3)
4.2.7. Closed Shrubland (SM4)
4.2.8. Tall Open Shrubland (ST2)
4.2.9. Tall Shrubland (ST3)
4.2.10. Tall Closed Shrubland (ST4)
4.3. Woodlands
- Low woodland (height 5–10 m);
- Woodland (height 10–30 m); and
- Tall woodland (height > 30 m).
4.3.1. Low Woodlands (WL2)
4.3.2. Woodlands (WM2)
4.3.3. Tall Woodlands (WT2)
4.4. Open Forests
- Low open forest (height between 5 and 10 m);
- Open forest (height between 10 and 30 m); and
- Tall open forest (height > 30 m).
4.4.1. Low Open Forest (FL3)
4.4.2. Open Forest (FM3)
4.4.3. Tall Open Forest (FT3)
4.5. Closed Forest
- Low closed forest (FL4) with a top height between 5 and 10 m;
- Closed forest (FM4) with an overstorey height of between 10 and 30 m; and
- Tall closed forest (FT4) with tree heights higher than 30 m.
4.5.1. Low Closed Forest (FL4)
4.5.2. Closed Forest (FM4)
4.5.3. Tall Closed Forest (FT4)
4.6. Industrial Forest Plantations
4.6.1. Conifer Plantations (PC)
4.6.2. Broadleaf Plantation (PB)
4.7. Wildland–Urban Interface Zone
- WUI1—isolated rural dwellings, <0.1 house per ha (Figure S31);
- WUI2—small rural town, between 0.1–1 house per ha; and
- WUI3—urban–bushland fringe, >1 house per ha.
4.8. Horticultural Complex
4.9. Wetlands (Flammable)
4.10. Other Fuel Types
4.11. Nonburnable Vegetation/Areas
5. Management Implications
Supplementary Materials
Acknowledgements
Author Contributions
Conflicts of Interest
Abbreviations
ACT | Australian Capital Territory |
AFAC | Australasian Fire and Emergency Service Authorities Council |
CSIRO | Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation |
EVC | Ecological Vegetation Class |
FFMG | Forest Fire Management Group |
MVG | Major Vegetation Group |
MVS | Major Vegetation Subgroup |
NSW | New South Wales |
NT | Northern Territory |
NVIS | National Vegetation Information System |
QLD | Queensland |
SA | South Australia |
TAS | Tasmania |
VIC | Victoria |
WA | Western Australia |
WUI | Wildland–Urban Interface |
Appendix A
MVG Code | Description |
---|---|
1 | Rainforests and vine thickets |
2 | Eucalypt tall open forests |
3 | Eucalypt open forests |
4 | Eucalypt low open forests |
5 | Eucalypt woodlands |
6 | Acacia forests and woodlands |
7 | Callitris forests and woodlands |
8 | Casuarina forests and woodlands |
9 | Melaleuca forests and woodlands |
10 | Other forests and woodlands |
11 | Eucalypt open woodlands |
12 | Tropical eucalypt woodlands/grasslands |
13 | Acacia open woodlands |
14 | Mallee woodlands and shrublands |
15 | Low closed forests and tall closed shrublands |
16 | Acacia shrublands |
17 | Other shrublands |
18 | Heathlands |
19 | Tussock grasslands |
20 | Hummock grasslands |
21 | Other grasslands, herblands, sedgelands, and rushlands |
22 | Chenopod shrublands, samphire shrublands, and forblands |
23 | Mangroves |
MVS Code | Description |
---|---|
1 | Cool temperate rainforest |
2 | Tropical or subtropical rainforest |
3 | Eucalyptus tall open forest with a dense broad-leaved understorey (wet sclerophyll) |
4 | Eucalyptus open forests with a shrubby understorey |
5 | Eucalyptus open forests with a grassy understorey |
7 | Tropical Eucalyptus forest and woodlands with a tall annual grassy understorey |
8 | Eucalyptus woodlands with a shrubby understorey |
9 | Eucalyptus woodlands with a grassy understorey |
11 | Tropical mixed spp forests and woodlands |
12 | Callitris forests and woodlands |
13 | Brigalow (Acacia harpophylla) forests and woodlands |
14 | Other Acacia forests and woodlands |
15 | Melaleuca open forests and woodlands |
16 | Other forests and woodlands |
17 | Boulders/rock with algae, lichen, or scattered plants, or alpine fjaeldmarks |
18 | Eucalyptus low open woodlands with hummock grass |
19 | Eucalyptus low open woodlands with tussock grass |
20 | Mulga (Acacia aneura) woodlands with tussock grass |
21 | Other Acacia tall open shrublands and shrublands |
22 | Arid and semi-arid acacia low open woodlands and shrublands with chenopods |
23 | Arid and semi-arid acacia low open woodlands and shrublands with hummock grass |
24 | Arid and semi-arid acacia low open woodlands and shrublands with tussock grass |
26 | Casuarina and Allocasuarina forests and woodlands |
27 | Mallee with hummock grass |
28 | Low closed forest or tall closed shrublands (including Acacia, Melaleuca, and Banksia) |
29 | Mallee with a dense shrubby understorey |
30 | Heath |
31 | Saltbush and Bluebush shrublands |
32 | Other shrublands |
33 | Hummock grasslands |
34 | Mitchell grass (Astrebla) tussock grasslands |
35 | Blue grass (Dicanthium) and tall bunch grass (Chrysopogon) tussock grasslands |
36 | Temperate tussock grasslands |
37 | Other tussock grasslands |
38 | Wet tussock grassland with herbs, sedges, or rushes, herblands or ferns |
39 | Mixed chenopod, samphire ± forbs |
40 | Mangroves |
41 | Saline or brackish sedgelands or grasslands |
42 | Naturally bare, sand, rock, claypan, mudflat |
43 | Salt lakes and lagoons |
44 | Freshwater, dams, lakes, lagoons, or aquatic plants |
46 | Sea, estuaries (includes seagrass) |
47 | Eucalyptus open woodlands with shrubby understorey |
48 | Eucalyptus open woodlands with a grassy understorey |
49 | Melaleuca shrublands and open shrublands |
50 | Banksia woodlands |
51 | Mulga (Acacia aneura) woodlands and shrublands with hummock grass |
52 | Allocasuarina woodland and open woodland with hummock grass |
53 | Eucalyptus low open woodlands with a shrubby understorey |
54 | Eucalyptus tall open forest with a fine-leaved shrubby understorey |
55 | Mallee with an open shrubby understorey |
56 | Eucalyptus low open woodlands with a chenopod or samphire understorey |
57 | Lignum shrublands and wetlands |
58 | Leptospermum forests |
59 | Eucalyptus woodlands with ferns, herbs, sedges, rushes, or wet tussock grassland |
60 | Eucalyptus tall open forests and open forests with ferns, herbs, sedges, rushes, or wet tussock grasses |
61 | Mallee with a tussock grass understorey |
62 | Dry rainforest or vine thickets |
63 | Sedgelands, rushes, or reeds |
64 | Other grasslands |
90 | Regrowth or modified forests and woodlands |
91 | Regrowth or modified shrublands |
92 | Regrowth or modified graminoids |
93 | Regrowth or modified chenopod shrublands, samphire, or forblands |
97 | Unclassified native vegetation |
98 | Cleared, non-native vegetation, buildings |
99 | Unknown/No data |
References
- Weise, D.R.; Wright, C.S. Wildland fire emissions, carbon and climate: Characterizing wildland fuels. For. Ecol. Manag. 2014, 317, 26–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Scott, A.C.; Bowman, D.M.J.S.; Bond, W.J.; Pyne, S.J.; Alexander, M.E. Fire on Earth: An Introduction; Wiley-Blackwell: Chichester, UK, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Bowman, D.M.J.S.; Williamson, G.J.; Abatzoglou, J.T.; Kolden, C.A.; Cochrane, M.A.; Smith, A.M.S. Human exposure and sensitivity to globally extreme wildfire events. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 2017, 1, 0058. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Attiwill, P.M.; Adams, M.A. Mega-fires, inquiries and politics in the eucalypt forests of victoria, South-Eastern Australia. For. Ecol. Manag. 2013, 294, 45–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tedim, F.; Leone, V.; Amraoui, M.; Bouillon, C.; Coughlan, M.; Delogu, G.; Fernandes, P.; Ferreira, C.; McCaffrey, S.; McGee, T.; et al. Defining extreme wildfire events: Difficulties, challenges, and impacts. Fire 2018, 1, 9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Countryman, C.M. The Fire Environment Concept; USDA Forest Service: Berkeley, CA, USA, 1972; p. 15.
- Stephens, S.L.; Burrows, N.; Buyantuyev, A.; Gray, R.W.; Keane, R.E.; Kubian, R.; Liu, S.R.; Seijo, F.; Shu, L.F.; Tolhurst, K.G.; et al. Temperate and boreal forest mega-fires: Characteristics and challenges. Front. Ecol. Environ. 2014, 12, 115–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gill, A.M.; Stephens, S.L.; Cary, G.J. The worldwide “wildfire” problem. Ecol. Appl. 2013, 23, 438–454. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Deeming, J.E.; Burgan, R.E.; Cohen, J.D. The National Fire Danger Rating System—1978; INT-39; USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experimental Station: Odgen, UT, USA, 1977; p. 63.
- Harris, S.; Mills, G.; Brown, T. Variability and drivers of extreme fire weather in fire-prone areas of South-Eastern Australia. Int. J. Wildland Fire 2017, 26, 177–190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brown, A.A.; Davis, K.P. Forest Fire Control and Use, 2nd ed.; McGraw Hill: New York, NY, USA, 1973. [Google Scholar]
- Andrews, P.; Finney, M.; Fischetti, M. Predicting wildfires. Sci. Am. 2007, 297, 46–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Slijepcevic, A.; Tolhurst, K.; Fogarty, L. Fire behaviour analyst roles and responsibilities in bushfire management-how to make the best use of these skills. In Australian Fire and Emergency Services Authorities Council Conference; AFAC: Adelaide, Australia, 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Gibos, K. A Quick Operational Guide to Bushfire Behaviour Predictive Services and Products 2013/2014 Fire Danger Period; Country Fire Authority: Melbourne, Australia, 2013; p. 17.
- Vaillant, N.M.; Fites-Kaufman, J.A.; Stephens, S.L. Effectiveness of prescribed fire as a fuel treatment in californian coniferous forests. Int. J. Wildland Fire 2009, 18, 165–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Agee, J.K.; Skinner, C.N. Basic principles of forest fuel reduction treatments. For. Ecol. Manag. 2005, 211, 83–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Marsden-Smedley, J.B. Planned Burning in Tasmania: Operational Guidelines and Review of Current Knowledge; Tasmania Parks and Wildlife Service, Tasmania Fire Service, Forestry Tasmania: Hobart, Australia, 2009; p. 93.
- Ager, A.A.; Valliant, N.M.; Finney, M.A. A comparison of landscape fuel treatment strategies to mitigate wildland fire risk in the urban interface and preserve old forest structure. For. Ecol. Manag. 2010, 259, 1556–1570. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Johnson, E.A.; Miyanishi, K. The need for consideration of fire behavior and effects in prescribed burning. Restor. Ecol. 1995, 3, 271–278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Reinhardt, E.D.; Keane, R.E.; Brown, J.K. Modelling fire effects. Int. J. Wildland Fire 2001, 10, 373–380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Groves, R.H. Australian Vegetation; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1981; p. 562. [Google Scholar]
- Keane, R.E. Wildland Fuel Fundamentals and Applications; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Hines, F.; Tolhurst, K.G.; Wilson, A.A.G.; McCarthy, G.J. Overall Fuel Hazard Assessment Guide; Department of Sustainability and Environment: Melbourne, Australia, 2010; p. 41.
- Gould, J.S.; McCaw, W.L.; Cheney, N.P.; Ellis, P.F.; Knight, I.K.; Sullivan, A.L. Project Vesta: Fire in Dry Eucalypt Forest: Fuel Structure, Fuel Dynamics and Fire Behaviour; Ensis-CSIRO, Canberra ACT, and Department of Environment and Conservation: Perth, Australia, 2007.
- Watson, P.J.; Penman, S.H.; Bradstock, R.A. A comparison of bushfire fuel hazard assessors and assessment methods in dry sclerophyll forest near sydney, australia. Int. J. Wildland Fire 2012, 21, 755–763. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Volkova, L.; Sullivan, A.L.; Roxburgh, S.H.; Weston, C.J. Visual assessments of fuel loads are poorly related to destructively sampled fuel loads in eucalypt forests. Int. J. Wildland Fire 2016, 25, 1193–1201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cheney, N.P.; Gould, J.S.; McCaw, W.L.; Anderson, W.R. Predicting fire behaviour in dry eucalypt forest in southern Australia. For. Ecol. Manag. 2012, 280, 120–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pimont, F.; Parsons, R.; Rigolot, E.; de Coligny, F.; Dupuy, J.L.; Dreyfus, P.; Linn, R.R. Modeling fuels and fire effects in 3d: Model description and applications. Environ. Model. Softw. 2016, 80, 225–244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hollis, J.J.; Gould, J.S.; Cruz, M.G.; McCaw, W.L. Framework for an australian fuel classification to support bushfire management. Aus. For. 2015, 78, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cruz, M.G.; Gould, J.S.; Alexander, M.E.; Sullivan, A.L.; McCaw, W.L.; Matthews, S. Empirical-based models for predicting head-fire rate of spread in Australian fuel types. Aus. For. 2015, 78, 118–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Linn, R.; Reisner, J.; Colman, J.J.; Winterkamp, J. Studying wildfire behavior using firetec. Int. J. Wildland Fire 2002, 11, 233–246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Morvan, D. Physical phenomena and length scales governing the behaviour of wildfires: A case for physical modelling. Fire Technol. 2011, 47, 437–460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hilton, J.E.; Miller, C.; Sullivan, A.L.; Rucinski, C. Effects of spatial and temporal variation in environmental conditions on simulation of wildfire spread. Environ. Model. Softw. 2015, 67, 118–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pyne, S.J. Introduction to Wildland Fire, Fire Management in the United States; John Wiley and Sons: New York, NY, USA, 1984; p. 455. [Google Scholar]
- Merrill, D.F.; Alexander, M.E. Glossary of Forest Fire Management Terms, 4th ed.; National Research Council of Canada, Canadian Committee on Forest Fire Management: Ottawa, ON, Canada, 1987; p. 91.
- Anderson, H.E. Appraising Forest Fuels: A Concept; Research Note INT-187; US Dept. of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station: Ogden, UT, USA, 1974.
- Cheney, N.P.; Bary, G.A.V. The Propagation of Mass Conflagrations in a Standing Eucalypt Forest by the Spotting Process. In In Proceedings of the Mass Fire Symposium, Canberra, Australia, 10–12 February 1969. [Google Scholar]
- Ellis, P.F.M. Fuelbed ignition potential and bark morphology explain the notoriety of the eucalypt messmate ‘stringybark’ for intense spotting. Int. J. Wildland Fire 2011, 20, 897–907. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hodgson, A. Control burning in eucalypt forests in Victoria, Australia. J. For. 1968, 66, 601–605. [Google Scholar]
- McArthur, A. The Fire Control Problem and Fire Research in Australia. In Proceedings of the 1966 Sixth World Forestry Congress, Madrid, Spain, 6–18 June 1966; pp. 1986–1991. [Google Scholar]
- Cruz, M.G.; Sullivan, A.L.; Gould, J.S.; Sims, N.C.; Bannister, A.J.; Hollis, J.J.; Hurley, R.J. Anatomy of a catastrophic wildfire: The black saturday kilmore east fire in Victoria, Australia. For. Ecol. Manag. 2012, 284, 269–285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hollis, J.J.; Anderson, W.R.; McCaw, W.L.; Cruz, M.G.; Burrows, N.D.; Ward, B.; Tolhurst, K.G.; Gould, J.S. The effect of fireline intensity on woody fuel consumption in Southern Australian eucalypt forest fires. Aus. For. 2011, 74, 81–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sandberg, D.V.; Ottmar, R.D.; Cushon, G.H. Characterizing fuels in the 21st century. Int. J. Wildland Fire 2001, 10, 381–387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Specht, R.L. Vegetation. In The Australian Environment, 4th ed.; Leeper, G.W., Ed.; CSIRO/Melbourne University Press: Melbourne, Australia, 1970; pp. 44–67. [Google Scholar]
- Gould, J.S.; McCaw, W.L.; Cheney, N.P. Quantifying fine fuel dynamics and structure in dry eucalypt forest (Eucalyptus marginata) in western australia for fire management. For. Ecol. Manag. 2011, 262, 531–546. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Walker, J. Fuel dynamics in australian vegetation. In Fire and the Australian Biota; Gill, A.M., Groves, R.H., Noble, I.R., Eds.; Australian Academy of Science: Canberra, Australia, 1981; pp. 101–128. [Google Scholar]
- Burrows, N.; Ward, B.; Robinson, A. Fire behaviour in spinifex fuels on the gibson desert nature reserve, western Australia. J. Arid Environ. 1991, 20, 189–204. [Google Scholar]
- Anderson, W.R.; Cruz, M.G.; Fernandes, P.M.; McCaw, L.; Vega, J.A.; Bradstock, R.A.; Fogarty, L.; Gould, J.; McCarthy, G.; Marsden-Smedley, J.B.; et al. A generic, empirical-based model for predicting rate of fire spread in shrublands. Int. J. Wildland Fire 2015, 24, 443–460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Specht, R.L.; Specht, A. Australian Plant Communities: Dynamics of Structure, Growth and Diversity; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 1999; p. 256. [Google Scholar]
- Paysen, T.E.; Derby, J.A.; Bleich, V.C.; Mincks, J.W. A Vegetation Classification System Applied to Southern California; Gen. Tech. Report PSW-45; USDA Forest Service, Facific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station: Berkeley, CA, USA, 1980; p. 33.
- Carnahan, J.A. Natural Vegetation; Australian Department of National Resources, Division of National Mapping: Canberra, Australia, 1976.
- UNESCO. International Classification Mapping of Vegetation; United Nations: Paris, France, 1973. [Google Scholar]
- Carnahan, J.A. Australia: Present Vegetation (Map). In Atlas of Australian Resources; Canberra, Australia, 1990. [Google Scholar]
- DEWR. Australia’s Native Vegetation: A Summary of Australia’s Major Vegeration Groups; Department of Environment and Water Resources: Canberra, Australia, 2007; p. 41.
- Matthews, S.; Bally, J.; Faggian, N.; Farrell, A.; Grootemaat, S.; Fox-Hughes, P.; Heemstra, S.; Hollis, J.; Kenny, B.; Sauvage, S.; et al. Building the research prototype for a new national fire danger rating system. In Hazards CRC & AFAC Conference; Bushfire & Natural Hazards CRC: Sydney, Australia, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Groves, R.H. Australian Vegetation; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1994. [Google Scholar]
- Mott, J.J.; Groves, R.H. Natural and derived grasslands. In Australian Vegetation; Groves, R.H., Ed.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1994; pp. 369–392. [Google Scholar]
- Cofinas, M.; Creighton, C. Australian Native Vegetation Assessment 2001; National Land and Water Resources Audit, Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts, Commonwealth of Australia: Canberra, Australia, 2001.
- Allan, G.E.; Southgate, I.R. Fire regimes in the spinifex landscapes of Australia. In Flammable Australia: The Fire Regimes and Biodiversity of a Continent; Bradstock, R.A., Williams, J.E., Gill, A.M., Eds.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2002; pp. 145–176. [Google Scholar]
- Burrows, N.D.; Ward, B.; Robinson, A. Fuel dynamics and fire spread in spinifex grasslands of the Western Desert. In Proceedings of the Royal Society of Queensland; Royal Society of Queensland Inc.: St. Lucia, Australia, 2009; pp. 69–76. [Google Scholar]
- Griffin, G.; Allan, G. Fire behaviour. In Anticipating the Inevitable: A Patch Burn Strategy for Fire Management at Uluru (Ayers Rock-Mt Olga) National Park; Saxon, E., Ed.; CSIRO Australia: Melbourne, VIC, Australia, 1984; pp. 55–68. [Google Scholar]
- Burrows, N.D.; Gill, A.M.; Sharples, J. Development and validation of a model for predicting fire behaviour in spinifex grasslands of arid Australia. Int. J. Wildland Fire 2018, in press. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Williamson, H.D.; Eldridge, D.J. Pasture status in a semi-arid grassland. Int. J. Remote Sens. 1993, 14, 2535–2546. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cheney, P.; Sullivan, A. Grassfires, Fuel, Weather and Fire Behaviour, 2nd ed.; CSIRO Publishing: Collingwood, Australia, 2008; p. 150.
- Setterfield, S.A.; Rossiter-Rachor, N.; Douglas, M.M.; McMaster, D.; Adams, V.; Ferdinands, K. The impacts of andropogon gayanus (gamba grass) invasion on the fire danger index and fire management at a landscape scale. In In Proceedings of the 19th Australasian Weeds Conference, Hobart, Australia, 1–4 September 2014; pp. 125–128. [Google Scholar]
- Luke, R.H.; McArthur, A.G. Bushfires in Australia; Australian Government Publishing Service: Canberra, Australia, 1978; p. 359.
- Cheney, N.P.; Gould, J.S.; Catchpole, W.R. The influence of fuel, weather and fire shape variables on fire-spread in grasslands. Int. J. Wildland Fire 1993, 3, 31–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kidnie, S.; Cruz, M.G.; Gould, J.; Nichols, D.; Anderson, W.; Bessell, R. Effects of curing on grassfires: I. Fuel dynamics in a senescing grassland. Int. J. Wildland Fire 2015, 24, 828–837. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rossiter, N.A.; Setterfield, S.A.; Douglas, M.M.; Hutley, L.B. Testing the grass-fire cycle: Alien grass invasion in the tropical savannas of northern Australia. Divers. Distrib. 2003, 9, 169–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Setterfield, S.A.; Rossiter-Rachor, N.A.; Douglas, M.M.; Wainger, L.; Petty, A.M.; Barrow, P.; Shepherd, I.J.; Ferdinands, K.B. Adding fuel to the fire: The impacts of non-native grass invasion on fire management at a regional scale. PLoS ONE 2013, 8, e59144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Cheney, N.P.; Gould, J.S.; Catchpole, W.R. Prediction of fire spread in grasslands. Int. J. Wildland Fire 1998, 8, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Byram, G.M. Combustion of forest fuels. In Forest Fire: Control and Use; Davis, K.P., Ed.; McGraw-Hill: New York, NY, USA, 1959; pp. 61–89. [Google Scholar]
- Specht, R.L.; Moll, E.J. Mediterranean-type heathlands and sclerophyllous shrublands of the world: An overview. In Mediterranean-Type Ecosystems: The Role of Nutrients; Kruger, F.J., Mitchell, D.T., Jarvis, J.U.M., Eds.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 1983; pp. 41–65. [Google Scholar]
- Specht, R.L. Heathlands. In Australian Vegetation, 4th ed.; Groves, R.H., Ed.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1981; pp. 253–275. [Google Scholar]
- Di Castri, F. Mediterranean-type shrublands of the world. In Mediterranean-Type Shrublands; Di Castri, F., Goodall, D.W., Specht, R.L., Eds.; Elsevier Science Publishing Company: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 1981; pp. 1–52. [Google Scholar]
- Bradstock, R.A.; Gill, A.M. Fire in semi-arid mallee shrublands: Size of flames from discrete fuel arrays and their role in the spread of fire. Int. J. Wildland Fire 1993, 3, 3–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cruz, M.G.; McCaw, W.L.; Anderson, W.R.; Gould, J.S. Fire behaviour modelling in semi-arid mallee-heath shrublands of Southern Australia. Environ. Model. Softw. 2013, 40, 21–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Just, T.E. Fire Control Problems of the Wallum with Particular Reference to Cooloola; Department of Forestry: Brisbane, Australia, 1977; p. 14.
- Marsden-Smedley, J.B.; Catchpole, W.R. Fire modelling in tasmanian buttongrass moorlands I. Fuel characteristics. Int. J. Wildland Fire 1995, 5, 203–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fontaine, J.B.; Westcott, V.C.; Enright, N.J.; Lade, J.C.; Miller, B.P. Fire behaviour in south-western Australian shrublands: Evaluating the influence of fuel age and fire weather. Int. J. Wildland Fire 2012, 21, 385–395. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McFarland, D. Fire and the vegetation composition and structure of sub-tropical heathlands in southeastern Queensland. Austr. J. Bot. 1988, 36, 533–546. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Westcott, V.C.; Enright, N.J.; Miller, B.P.; Fontaine, J.B.; Lade, J.C.; Lamont, B.B. Biomass and litter accumulation patterns in species-rich shrublands for fire hazard assessment. Int. J. Wildland Fire 2014, 23, 860–871. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Noble, J.C. Prescribed fire in mallee rangelands and the potential role of aerial ignition. Rangeland J. 1986, 8, 118–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bradstock, R. Dynamics of a perennial understorey. In Mediterranean Landscapes in Australia: Mallee Ecosystems and Their Management; CSIRO: East Melbourne, Australia, 1989; pp. 141–154. [Google Scholar]
- Dalgleish, S.A.; van Etten, E.J.B.; Stock, W.D.; Knuckey, C. Fuel dynamics and vegetation recovery after fire in a semiarid Australian shrubland. Int. J. Wildland Fire 2015, 24, 613–623. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cruz, M.G.; Matthews, S.; Gould, J.; Ellis, P.; Henderson, M.; Knight, I.; Watters, J. Fire Dynamics in Mallee-Heath; Fuel Weather and Fire Behaviour Prediction in South Australian Semi-Arid Shrublands; Technical Report A.10.01; Bushfire Cooperative Research Centre: East Melbourne, Australia, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Specht, R.L. (Ed.) The sclerophyllous (heath) vegetation of Australia: The eastern and central states. In Heathlands and Related Shrublands, Descriptive Studies; Ecosystems of the World; Elsevier Scientific Publishing Company: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 1979; Volume 9A, pp. 125–210. [Google Scholar]
- Kitchener, A.; Harris, S. From Forest to Fjaeldmark: Descriptions of Tasmania’s Vegetation; Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment: Hobart, Australia, 2013.
- Marsden-Smedley, J.B.; Catchpole, W.R. Fire modelling in tasmanian buttongrass moorlands II. Fire behaviour. Int. J. Wildland Fire 1995, 5, 215–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Marsden-Smedley, J.B.; Rudman, T.; Pyrke, A.; Catchpole, W.R. Buttongrass moorland fire-behaviour prediction and management. Tasforests 1999, 11, 87–107. [Google Scholar]
- Gillison, A.N.; Walker, J. Woodlands. In Australian Vegetation; Groves, R.H., Ed.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1994; pp. 227–255. [Google Scholar]
- Burrows, D.; Burrows, W. Seed production and litter fall in some eucalypt communities in central Queensland. Austr. J. Bot. 1992, 40, 389–403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Burrows, N.D.; McCaw, W.L. Fuel characteristics and bushfire control in banksia low woodlands in western Australia. J. Environ. Manag. 1990, 31, 229–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lamb, R. Litter fall and nutrient turnover in two eucalypt woodlands. Austr. J. Bot. 1985, 33, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hawkins, P. Seed production and litter fall studies of callitris columellaris. Australian Forest Res. 1966, 2, 16. [Google Scholar]
- Williams, R.J.; Gill, A.M.; Moore, P.H.R. Seasonal changes in fire behaviour in a tropical savanna in northern Australia. Int. J. Wildland Fire 1998, 8, 227–239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van Loon, A.P. Bushland Fuel Quantities in the Blue Mountains—Litter and Understorey; N.S.W. Forestry Commision: Beecroft, Australia, 1977; p. 22. [Google Scholar]
- Watson, P. Fuel Load Dynamics in NSW Vegetation. Part 1: Forests and Grassy Woodlands; Centre for Environmental Risk Management of Bushfires, University of Wollongong: Wollongong, Australia, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Gill, A. Patterns and processes in open-forests of eucalyptus in southern Australia. In Australian Vegetation; Groves, R.H., Ed.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1994; pp. 197–227. [Google Scholar]
- Birk, E.M. Overstorey and understorey litter fall in a eucalypt forest: Spatial and temporal variability. Austr. J. Bot. 1979, 27, 145–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gill, A.M.; Cheney, N.P.; Walker, J.; Tunstall, B.R. Bark losses from two eucalypt species following fires of different intensities. Austr. Forest Res. 1986, 16, 1–7. [Google Scholar]
- Miehs, A.; York, A.; Tolhurst, K.; Di Stefano, J.; Bell, T. Sampling downed coarse woody debris in fire-prone eucalypt woodlands. For. Ecol. Manag. 2010, 259, 440–445. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fogarty, L.G. The Accumulation and Structural Development of the Wiregrass (Tetrarrhena juncea) Fuel Type in East Gippsland; No. 37; Victorian Department of Conservation and Environment Fire Management Branch: Melbourne, Australia, 1993; p. 29.
- Ash, J.; Helman, C. Floristics and vegetation biomass of a forest catchment, kioloa, south coastal New South Wales. Cunninghamia 1990, 2, 167–182. [Google Scholar]
- Attiwill, P. Nutrient cycling in a eucalyptus obliqua (l’herit.) forest. III. Growth, biomass, and net primary production. Austr. J. Bot. 1979, 27, 439–458. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gifford, R.M. Carbon Contents of Above-Ground Tissues of Forest and Woodland Trees; Australian Greenhouse Office: Canberra, Australia, 2000.
- Snowdon, P.; Keith, H.; Raison, R.J. Protocol for Sampling Tree and Stand Biomas; Australian Greenhouse Office: Canberra, Australia, 2001.
- Marsden-Smedley, J.; Anderson, W. Fuel-Load and Fuel-Hazard Prediction in Tasmanian Dry Forests; Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment: Hobart, Australia, 2013.
- Johnson, A. North Australian Grassland Fuel Guide: Sturt Plateau & Victoria River District; Tropical Savannas CRC: Darwin, Australia, 2002. [Google Scholar]
- Webb, L.; Tracey, J. The Rainforests of Northern Australia; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1994. [Google Scholar]
- Busby, J.; Brown, M. Southern rainforests. In Australian Vegetation; Groves, R.H., Ed.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1994; pp. 131–155. [Google Scholar]
- Spain, A. Litterfall and the standing crop of litter in three tropical australian rainforests. J. Ecol. 1984, 72, 947–961. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lowman, M.D. Litterfall and leaf decay in three australian rainforest formations. J. Ecol. 1988, 76, 451–465. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Congdon, R.A. Litter fall of the paperbark tree (melaleuca cuticularis) in the marshes of the Blackwood River estuary, western Australia. Austr. J. Ecol. 1979, 4, 411–417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Keith, D.A. Ocean Shores to Desert Dunes: The Native Vegetation of NSW and the ACT (Selected Extracts); Department of Environment and Conservation (NSW): Sydney, Australia, 2004.
- Douglas, D.R. Some characteristics of major fires in coniferous plantations. Aus. For. 1964, 28, 119–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- FFMG. Softwood Plantation Fire Synopsis. Available online: www.ffr.co.nz/system/files/documents2/ffmg_2007.pdf (accessed on 19 March 2018).
- Woodman, M.; Rawson, R. Fuel Reduction Burning in Radiata Pine Plantations; Department of Conservation and Environment: Melbourne, Australia, 1982.
- Fernandes, P.M. Examining fuel treatment longevity through experimental and simulated surface fire behaviour: A maritime pine case study. Can. J. For. Res. 2009, 39, 2529–2535. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cruz, M.G.; Alexander, M.E.; Plucinski, M.P. The effect of silvicultural treatments on fire behaviour potential in radiata pine plantations of South Australia. For. Ecol. Manag. 2017, 397, 27–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Forrest, W.G.; Ovington, J.D. Organic matter changes in an age series of pinus radiata plantations. J. Appl. Ecol. 1970, 177–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Burrows, N.D. Quantifying Pinus Radiata Slash Fuels; Research Paper; Forests Department: Brisbane, Australia, 1980.
- Cruz, M.G.; de Mar, P.J.; Adshead, D. Radiata Pine Plantation Fuel and Fire Behaviour Guide; DAFF: Canberra, Australia, 2011; p. 23.
- Byrne, P. Prescribed Burning in Queensland Exotic Pine Plantations; Department of Forestry: Brisbane, Australia, 1980.
- Alexander, M.E. Crown Fire Thresholds in Exotic Pine Plantations of Australasia. Ph.D. Thesis, Australian National University, Canberra, Australia, 1998. [Google Scholar]
- McCormick, J. Assessing Maritime Pine Fuel Quantity; No. 7; Forest Department of Western Australia: Brisbane, Australia, 1973.
- Burrows, N.D.; Ward, B.; Robinson, A. Behaviour and some impacts of a large wildfire in the gnangara maritime pine (Pinus pinaster) plantation, western Australia. CALMScience 2000, 3, 251–260. [Google Scholar]
- Cruz, M.G.; Alexander, M.E.; Fernandes, P.A.M. Development of a model system to predict wildfire behaviour in pine plantations. Aus. For. 2008, 71, 113–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- De Mar, P.; Adshead, D. Blue Gum Plantation Fuel and Fire Behavior Guide; GHD Publication for the Australian Government Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry: Canberra, Australia, 2011.
- Lacy, P. Burning under Young Eucalypts; University of New South Wales at ADFA: Canberra, Australia, 2008. [Google Scholar]
- AFAC. Bushfire Glossary. Available online: http://knowledgeweb.afac.com.au/data/documents/AFAC_Bushfire_Glossary_Indexed_2012.pdf (accessed on 20 September 2012).
- NWCG. Glossary of Wildland Fire Terminology; National Wildfire Coordinating Group: Boise, ID, USA, 2011; p. 189.
- Ellis, P.F.M.; Blanchi, R.; Plucinski, M.P.; Sullivan, A.L.; Hurley, R.J. Bushfire Transitions across Urban Boundaries: A Study of Factors Leading to Free-Burning Landscape Fire Becoming Urban Fire and Causing Damage; EP144701; CSIRO: Canberra, Australia, 2014; p. 97.
- Mell, W.E.; Manzello, S.L.; Maranghides, A.; Butry, D.; Rehm, R.G. The wildland-urban interface fire problem—Current approaches and research needs. Int. J. Wildland Fire 2010, 19, 238–251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wilson, A.A.G.; Ferguson, I.S. Predicting the probability of house survival during bushfires. J. Environ. Manag. 1986, 23, 259–270. [Google Scholar]
- Blanchi, R.; Lucas, C.; Leonard, J.; Finkele, K. Meteorological conditions and wildfire-related house loss in Australia. Int. J. Wildland Fire 2010, 19, 914–926. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Blanchi, R.; Leonard, J.; Haynes, K.; Opie, K.; James, M.; Oliveira, F.D. Environmental circumstances surrounding bushfire fatalities in Australia 1901–2011. Environ. Sci. Policy 2014, 37, 192–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tolhurst, K.; Duff, T.; Chong, D. From ‘Wildland–Urban Interface’to ‘Wildfire Interface Zone’ using Dynamic Fire Modelling. In In Proceedings of the MODSIM2013, 20th International Congress on Modelling and Simulation, Adelaide, Australia, 1–6 December 2013; pp. 1–6. [Google Scholar]
- Radeloff, V.C.; Hammer, R.B.; Stewart, S.I.; Fried, J.S.; Holcomb, S.S.; McKeefry, J.F. The wildland–urban interface in the United States. Ecol. Appl. 2005, 15, 799–805. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wein, R.W. Characteristics and suppression of fires in organic terrain in Australia. Aus. For. 1981, 44, 162–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Plucinski, M.P.; Sullivan, A.L.; Rucinski, C.J.; Prakash, M. Improving the reliability and utility of operational bushfire behaviour predictions in Australian vegetation. Environ. Modell. Softw. 2017, 91, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Miller, C.; Hilton, J.; Sullivan, A.; Prakash, M. Spark—A Bushfire Spread Prediction Tool. In Environmental Software Systems. Infrastructures, Services and Applications; Denzer, R., Argent, R., Schimak, G., Hřebíček, J., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2015; Volume 448, pp. 262–271. [Google Scholar]
Fuel Type | Fuel Stratum | Attributes |
---|---|---|
Grassland | Surface/near-surface | Type (e.g., pasture, spinifex) Condition (ungrazed, grazed, over-grazed) Fine fuel load (kg m−2) Fuel height (m) Fuel cover (%) Curing level (%) |
Shrubland | Elevated | Type (temperate, semi-arid) Shrub height (m) Fuel age (years) Overstorey height (m) Cover (%) Hazard score or rating (category) |
Native forest | Duff | Fuel load (kg m−2) |
Surface | Fine fuel load (kg m−2) Woody fuel load (kg m−2) Hazard score or rating (category) | |
Near-surface | Fine fuel load (kg m−2) Height (m) Hazard score or rating (category) | |
Elevated | Fine fuel load (kg m−2) Height (m) Hazard score or rating (category) | |
Bark | Available fuel load (kg m−2) Hazard score or rating (category) | |
Conifer plantation | Duff | Fuel load (kg m−2) |
Surface | Fine fuel load (kg m−2) Height (m) Woody fuel load (kg m−2) | |
Overstorey | Foliage biomass (kg m−2) Canopy base height (m) Canopy bulk density (kg m−3) |
Life Form Codes | Description A |
---|---|
F | Forest |
W | Woodland |
P | Plantation |
S | Shrubland |
HG | Hummock grassland |
G | Grassland |
Height | |
T, t | Tall—Trees >30 m; Shrubs 2–5 m; Grasses >1.5 m |
M, m | Medium—Trees 10–30 m; Shrubs 0.5–2 m |
L, l | Low—Trees <10 m; Shrubs <0.5 m; |
Cover | |
4 | Greater than 70% |
3 | 30–70% |
2 | 5–30% |
1 | Less than 5% |
Supplemental codes | |
R | Rainforest |
B | Significant bark fuel component |
F | Dominated by fine fibrous bark |
r | Dominated by ribbon bark |
Mid-Tier Code | Fuel Complex Description | Suggested Wildfire Spread Rate Model |
---|---|---|
G3_1 | Heavily grazed and eaten-out pasture, generally less than 3 cm tall. Scattered patches of bare ground cover more than 30% of the area. | Cheney, Gould and Catchpole [71] eaten-out condition. |
G3_2 | Grazed or mown pasture, generally <10 cm tall | Cheney, Gould and Catchpole [71] grazed condition. |
G3_3 | Undisturbed and/or very lightly grazed natural grassland or improved pastures, generally >40 cm tall. | Cheney, Gould and Catchpole [71] natural condition. |
Mid-Tier Code | Fuel Complex Description | Suggested Wildfire Spread Rate Model |
---|---|---|
G4_1 | Heavily grazed and eaten-out pasture, generally <3 cm tall, with scattered patches of bare ground | Cheney, Gould and Catchpole [71] eaten-out condition. |
G4_2 | Grazed or mown pasture, generally <10 cm tall | Cheney, Gould and Catchpole [71] grazed condition. |
G4_3 | Undisturbed and/or very lightly grazed natural grassland or improved pastures, generally >30 cm tall. | Cheney, Gould and Catchpole [71] natural condition. |
G4T | Undisturbed tall grasses with height above 1.5 m; typically exotic grasses, such as gamba and buffel grass | Cheney, Gould and Catchpole [71] natural condition. |
Mid-Tier Code | Fuel Complex Description | Suggested Wildfire Spread Rate Model |
---|---|---|
SL1_hg# | Low sparse shrubland with interspersed low hummock grasses (Triodia spp.). The hummock component is restricted to cover class 1 and 2. Overall fuel cover <30% with large gaps in between discrete vegetation units. | Cruz et al. [86] semi-arid heath model in combination with Burrows, Gill and Sharples [62] spinifex model. |
SL1_g# | Low sparse shrubland with low understorey (<0.4 m) of soft grasses and forbs. This understorey layer is homogeneously spread and restricted to cover class 1 and 2. The overall fuel cover is less than 30%. | Cruz, Matthews, Gould, Ellis, Henderson, Knight and Watters [86] semi-arid heath model in combination with Cheney, Gould and Catchpole [71] grassland model. |
Mid-Tier Code | Fuel Complex Description | Suggested Wildfire Spread Rate Model |
---|---|---|
SL2_hg# | Low open shrubland with a hummock (Triodia spp.) grass component with a cover class between 2 and 3. Overall fuel cover can reach 60%. Horizontal fuel discontinuity is characterised by relatively large discrete gaps. | Cruz, Matthews, Gould, Ellis, Henderson, Knight and Watters [86] semi-arid heath model in combination with Burrows, Gill and Sharples [62] spinifex model. |
SL2_g# | Low open shrubland with an understorey of grasses and/or sedges. This grassy understorey can range from moderate to widespread cover. Overall fuel cover ranges from class 3 to 4. | Cruz, Matthews, Gould, Ellis, Henderson, Knight and Watters [86] semi-arid heath model in combination with Cheney, Gould and Catchpole [71] grassland model. |
Mid-Tier Code | Fuel Complex Description | Suggested Wildfire Spread Rate Model |
---|---|---|
SM2_hg# | Open shrubland with a distinct understorey of hummock (Triodia spp.) grasses. The understorey component cover can vary between 10% and 60% (cover class 2 and 3). Overall fuel cover can reach 70% in long unburned areas. | Cruz, Matthews, Gould, Ellis, Henderson, Knight and Watters [86] semi-arid heath model in combination with Burrows, Gill and Sharples [62] spinifex model. |
SM2_g# | Open shrubland with a grassy-dominated understorey comprising grasses (typically <0.5 m tall) and sedges. Lower shrub plants can coexist, but in lower proportion. The understorey component cover is typically higher than 30%. Overall fuel cover can reach 100%. | Cruz, Matthews, Gould, Ellis, Henderson, Knight and Watters [86] semi-arid heath model in combination with Cheney et al. (1998) grassland model or Marsden-Smedley and Catchpole [89] model if appropriate. |
SM2_sl# | Open shrubland with an understorey of mainly lower shrubs (<0.5 m tall) and minor proportion of soft vegetation such as grasses, sedges, and forbs. The understorey component cover is typically higher than 30%, with the fuel cover varying between 50% and 100%. | Cruz, Matthews, Gould, Ellis, Henderson, Knight and Watters [86] semi-arid heath model; Marsden-Smedley and Catchpole [89] model if appropriate. |
Mid-Tier Code | Fuel Complex Description | Suggested Wildfire Spread Rate Model |
---|---|---|
SM3_hg# | Medium height (0.5 to 2 m) and moderately dense (30 to 70% canopy cover) shrubland with a hummock (Triodia spp.) grass understorey. The understorey component cover can vary between 10% and 50% (cover class 2 and 3). | Anderson, Cruz, Fernandes, McCaw, Vega, Bradstock, Fogarty, Gould, McCarthy, Marsden-Smedley, Matthews, Mattingley, Pearce and van Wilgen [48] shrubland model in combination with Burrows, Gill and Sharples [62] spinifex model. |
SM3_g# | Medium height (0.5 to 2 m) and moderately dense (30 to 70% canopy cover) shrubland with understorey of grasses and sedges. Lower sparse shrub plants can coexist in the understorey, but in lower proportion. Overall fuel cover can reach 100%. | Anderson, Cruz, Fernandes, McCaw, Vega, Bradstock, Fogarty, Gould, McCarthy, Marsden-Smedley, Matthews, Mattingley, Pearce and van Wilgen [48] shrubland model; Marsden-Smedley and Catchpole [89] in some conditions. |
SM3_sl# | Medium height (0.5 to 2 m) and moderately dense (30 to 70% canopy cover) shrubland with an understorey dominated by lower shrubs (<0.5 m tall) and a smaller contribution of grasses, sedges, and forbs. Overall fuel cover can reach 100%. | Anderson, Cruz, Fernandes, McCaw, Vega, Bradstock, Fogarty, Gould, McCarthy, Marsden-Smedley, Matthews, Mattingley, Pearce and van Wilgen [48] shrubland model; Marsden-Smedley and Catchpole [89] in some conditions. |
Mid-Tier Code | Fuel Complex Description | Suggested Wildfire Spread Rate Model |
---|---|---|
ST2_hg# | Tall open shrubland with a distinct understorey of hummock (Triodia spp.) grasses. Lower sparse shrubs likely to coexist in the understorey, but in lower proportion. Understorey component cover can vary between 10% and 60% (cover class 2 and 3). Overall fuel cover can reach 70% in long unburned areas. | Cruz, McCaw, Anderson and Gould [77] semi-arid mallee–heath model in combination with Burrows, Gill and Sharples [62] spinifex model. |
ST2_g# | Tall open shrubland with a grass-dominated understorey. The understorey component cover can vary between 10% and 60% (cover class 2 and 3). Overall fuel cover can reach 70% in long unburned areas. | Cruz, McCaw, Anderson and Gould [77] semi-arid mallee–heath model. |
ST2_sm# | Tall open shrubland with an understorey of medium-height and smaller shrubs and a minor component of soft vegetation such as grasses, sedges, and forbs. The understorey component cover is typically higher than 30%, with the fuel cover varying between 50% and 100%. | Cruz, McCaw, Anderson and Gould [77] semi-arid mallee–heath model. |
Mid-Tier Code | Fuel Complex Description | Suggested Wildfire Spread Rate Model |
---|---|---|
ST3_hg# | Tall and moderately dense shrubland with a lower stratum dominated by hummock grasses (Triodia spp.) and a sparse component of lower shrubs. The understorey component cover can vary between 10% and 50% (cover class 2 and 3). | Anderson, Cruz, Fernandes, McCaw, Vega, Bradstock, Fogarty, Gould, McCarthy, Marsden-Smedley, Matthews, Mattingley, Pearce and van Wilgen [48] shrubland model in combination with Burrows, Gill and Sharples [62] spinifex model. |
ST3_g# | Tall and moderately dense shrubland with an understorey dominated by grasses and/or sedges. Overall fuel cover can reach 100%. | Anderson, Cruz, Fernandes, McCaw, Vega, Bradstock, Fogarty, Gould, McCarthy, Marsden-Smedley, Matthews, Mattingley, Pearce and van Wilgen [48] shrubland model. |
ST3_sm# | Tall and moderately dense shrubland with an understorey dominated by medium- and lower height shrubs (<2 m tall). Grasses, sedges, and forbs can make up a lesser proportion of this understorey. Overall fuel cover can reach 100%. | Anderson, Cruz, Fernandes, McCaw, Vega, Bradstock, Fogarty, Gould, McCarthy, Marsden-Smedley, Matthews, Mattingley, Pearce and van Wilgen [48] shrubland model. |
Mid-Tier Code | Fuel Complex Description | Suggested Wildfire Spread Rate Model |
---|---|---|
WL2_hg# | Low woodland with an understorey of hummock grasses (Triodia spp. and Plectrachne spp.). Small, sparsely distributed shrubs might coexist in the understorey. Understorey component cover can vary between 10 and 60% (cover class 2 and 3). | Burrows, Gill and Sharples [62] spinifex model relying on eye-level wind speed. |
WL2_g# | Low woodland with an understorey stratum of grasses. The grass understorey can vary from over-grazed to undisturbed, medium-height (<1.5 m) grasses typical of the grassland or closed grassland fuel types. | Cheney, Gould and Catchpole [71] grass fire model with appropriated woodland wind reduction factor [64]. |
WL2_gt# | Low woodland with an understorey stratum of dense tall (>1.5 m) grasses, typically introduced exotic species. | Cheney, Gould and Catchpole [71] grass fire model with appropriated woodland wind reduction factor [64]. |
WL2_sm# | Low woodland with a medium- or lower height shrubland stratum in the understorey. Shrubland cover can range from cover class 2 to 4. A sparse component of grasses, sedges, and forbs can make up a lesser proportion of this understorey. | Cruz, Matthews, Gould, Ellis, Henderson, Knight and Watters [86] semi-arid heath model for understorey cover of 2 or less; Anderson, Cruz, Fernandes, McCaw, Vega, Bradstock, Fogarty, Gould, McCarthy, Marsden-Smedley, Matthews, Mattingley, Pearce and van Wilgen [48] shrubland model for understorey cover of 3 or higher. |
WL2_st# | Low woodland with a dense understorey of tall shrubs. Shrubland cover varying between cover class 3 and 4. A lower understorey layer composed of lower vegetation such as small shrubs, grasses, sedges, and forbs can also be present. | Anderson et al. (2015) shrubland model. |
Mid-Tier Code | Fuel Complex Description | Suggested Wildfire Spread Rate Model |
---|---|---|
WM2_hg# | Woodland with an understorey of hummock grasses (Triodia spp. and Plectrachne spp.). A sparse component of small- and medium-size shrubs might coexist in the understorey. Understorey component cover can vary between 20% and 60% (cover class 2 and 3). | Burrows, Gill and Sharples [62] spinifex model relying on eye-level wind speed. |
WM2_g# | Woodland with an understorey stratum of grasses. The grass understorey can vary from over-grazed to undisturbed, medium-height grasses typical of the grassland or closed grassland fuel types. | Cheney, Gould and Catchpole [71] grass fire model with appropriated woodland wind reduction factor [64]. |
WM2_gt# | Woodland with an understorey stratum of tall grasses (height > 1.5 m), typically introduced species. | Cheney, Gould and Catchpole [71] grass fire model with appropriated woodland wind reduction factor [64]. |
WM2_sm# | Woodland with a medium- or lower height shrubland stratum in the understorey. Shrubland cover can range from cover class 2 to 4. A sparse component of grasses, sedges, and forbs can make up a lesser proportion of this understorey. | Cruz, Matthews, Gould, Ellis, Henderson, Knight and Watters [86] semi-arid heath model for understorey cover of 2 or less; Anderson, Cruz, Fernandes, McCaw, Vega, Bradstock, Fogarty, Gould, McCarthy, Marsden-Smedley, Matthews, Mattingley, Pearce and van Wilgen [48] shrubland model for understorey cover of 3 or higher. |
WM2_st# | Woodland with a dense understorey of tall shrubs, and occasional low trees. Shrubland cover varying between cover class 3 and 4. A lower understorey layer composed of lower vegetation such as small shrubs, grasses, sedges, and forbs can also be present. | Anderson, Cruz, Fernandes, McCaw, Vega, Bradstock, Fogarty, Gould, McCarthy, Marsden-Smedley, Matthews, Mattingley, Pearce and van Wilgen [48] shrubland model or Cheney, Gould, McCaw and Anderson [27] eucalypt forest model with appropriate wind factor [64]. |
Mid-Tier Code | Fuel Complex Description | Suggested Wildfire Spread Rate Model |
---|---|---|
WT2_g# | Tall woodland with a grass understorey, varying from over-grazed to undisturbed. | Cheney, Gould and Catchpole [71] grass fire model with appropriated woodland wind reduction factor [64]. |
WT2_st# | Tall woodland with a dense understorey of tall shrubs, and occasional low trees. Shrubland cover varying between cover class 3 and 4. A lower understorey layer composed of lower vegetation such as small shrubs, grasses, sedges, and forbs can also be present | Cheney, Gould, McCaw and Anderson [27] eucalypt forest model with appropriate wind reduction factor [64]. |
Mid-Tier Code | Fuel Complex Description | Suggested Wildfire Spread Rate Model |
---|---|---|
FL3_lit# | Low open forest with virtually no understorey vegetation; litter is the main surface fuel layer. | Cheney, Gould, McCaw and Anderson [27] eucalypt forest model. |
FL3_g# | Low open forest with grass-dominated understorey. Grasses typically lower than 0.5 m tall. Sparse shrubs likely to coexist in the understorey, but in low proportion. Understorey live component cover can vary between 30% and 80% (cover class 2 and 3). Overall understorey fuel cover can reach 100%. | Cheney, Gould, McCaw and Anderson [27] eucalypt forest model. |
FL3_sm# | Low open forest with an understorey of medium-height and smaller shrubs. A minor component of soft vegetation such as grasses, sedges, and forbs can co-exist in the understorey. Understorey live component cover can vary between 30% and 80% (cover class 2 and 3). Overall understorey fuel cover can reach 100%. | Cheney, Gould, McCaw and Anderson [27] eucalypt forest model. |
FL3_st# | Low open forest with an understorey of predominantly tall shrubs. A lower layer of shrubs and other vegetation, such as grasses and sedges, is likely to be present. Understorey live component cover can vary between 30% and 80% (cover class 2 and 3). Overall understorey fuel cover can reach 100%. | Cheney, Gould, McCaw and Anderson [27] eucalypt forest model. |
Mid-Tier Code | Fuel Complex Description | Suggested Wildfire Spread Rate Model |
---|---|---|
FM3_lit# | Open forest with virtually no understorey vegetation; litter is the main surface fuel layer. | Cheney, Gould, McCaw and Anderson [27] eucalypt forest model. |
FM3_g# | Open forest with grass-dominated understorey. Grasses typically lower than 0.5 m tall. Sparse shrubs likely to coexist in the understorey, but in low proportion. Understorey live component cover can vary between 30% (sparse cover) and 80% (dense cover). Overall understorey fuel cover can reach 100%. | Cheney, Gould, McCaw and Anderson [27] eucalypt forest model. |
FM3_sm# | Open forest with an understorey of medium-height and smaller shrubs. A minor component of soft vegetation such as grasses, sedges, and forbs can co-exist in the understorey. Understorey live component cover can vary between 30% and 80% (cover class 2 and 3). Overall understorey fuel cover can reach 100%. | Cheney, Gould, McCaw and Anderson [27] eucalypt forest model. |
FM3_st# | Open forest with an understorey of predominantly tall shrubs. A lower layer of shrubs and other vegetation, such as grasses and sedges, is likely to be present. Understorey live component cover can vary between 30% and 80% (cover class 2 and 3). Overall understorey fuel cover can reach 100%. | Cheney, Gould, McCaw and Anderson [27] eucalypt forest model. |
Mid-Tier Code | Fuel Complex Description | Suggested Wildfire Spread Rate Model |
---|---|---|
FT3_st# | Tall open forest with a dense understorey of predominantly tall shrubs. Lower shrubs and other vegetation, such as grasses and sedges, likely to be present. Understorey live component cover can vary between 50% and 80% (cover class 2 and 3). Overall understorey fuel cover can reach 100%. | Cheney, Gould, McCaw and Anderson [27] eucalypt forest model with appropriate wind reduction factor [64]. |
FT3_fl# | Tall open forest with a layer of dominated trees and an understorey of tall shrubs and lower vegetation comprising sedges, ferns, and lower shrubs. Understorey live component cover can vary between 50% and 100% (cover class 2 to 4). | Cheney, Gould, McCaw and Anderson [27] eucalypt forest model with appropriate wind reduction factor. |
Mid-Tier Code | Fuel Complex Description | Suggested Wildfire Spread Rate Model |
---|---|---|
PRAD | Radiata pine plantation. Dynamic fuel complex along the 35–40 years rotation. Fuel structure range from grass/activity fuels dominated at an early stage to mature stands characterised by medium-height trees, high vertical discontinuity, and an understorey litter layer. Fuel structure largely determined by silvicultural activities. | Cruz et al. [128] pine plantation model with fuel parameterisation described in Cruz, de Mar and Adshead [123]. |
PPIN | Maritime pine plantation. Dynamic fuel complex along the 35–40 years rotation. Open fuel complex dominated by grass and activity fuels during the first years. Thinning and prescribed burning maintain an understorey layer dominated by litter fuels. | Cruz, Alexander and Fernandes [128] pine plantation model; requires further fuel parameterisation |
PSOU | Southern pines plantation. Dynamic fuel complex along the 30 year rotation. Grass understorey dominates fuel complex during first 5–10 years of rotation; medium-size shrubs and scattered grasses can dominate understorey fuel structure thereafter. | Cruz, Alexander and Fernandes [128] pine plantation model; requires further fuel parameterisation. |
PARA | Hoop pine plantation. Low fire risk. | None. |
Mid-Tier Code | Fuel Complex Description | Suggested Wildfire Spread Rate Model |
---|---|---|
PESR | Short-rotation eucalypt plantations. Fuel dominated by grass in the first few years up to crown closure. After crown closure, litter fuels dominate understorey fuel layer up to the end of the rotation (typically 8–12 years). | None. |
PEMR | Medium-rotation (20–40 years) eucalypt plantations. Initial wide spacing leads to well-developed undertorey fuel layer of grasses or shrubs. After crown closure, litter fuels dominate understorey fuel layer up to the end of the rotation. | None. |
© 2018 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Cruz, M.G.; Gould, J.S.; Hollis, J.J.; McCaw, W.L. A Hierarchical Classification of Wildland Fire Fuels for Australian Vegetation Types. Fire 2018, 1, 13. https://doi.org/10.3390/fire1010013
Cruz MG, Gould JS, Hollis JJ, McCaw WL. A Hierarchical Classification of Wildland Fire Fuels for Australian Vegetation Types. Fire. 2018; 1(1):13. https://doi.org/10.3390/fire1010013
Chicago/Turabian StyleCruz, Miguel G., Jim S. Gould, Jen J. Hollis, and W. Lachie McCaw. 2018. "A Hierarchical Classification of Wildland Fire Fuels for Australian Vegetation Types" Fire 1, no. 1: 13. https://doi.org/10.3390/fire1010013
APA StyleCruz, M. G., Gould, J. S., Hollis, J. J., & McCaw, W. L. (2018). A Hierarchical Classification of Wildland Fire Fuels for Australian Vegetation Types. Fire, 1(1), 13. https://doi.org/10.3390/fire1010013