Advertisement

Landscape Ecology

, Volume 33, Issue 7, pp 1159–1176 | Cite as

The changing landscape of wildfire: burn pattern trends and implications for California’s yellow pine and mixed conifer forests

  • Zachary L. Steel
  • Michael J. Koontz
  • Hugh D. Safford
Research Article

Abstract

Purpose

Wildfire spatial patterns drive ecological processes including vegetation succession and wildlife community dynamics. Such patterns may be changing due to fire suppression policies and climate change, making characterization of trends in post-fire mosaics important for understanding and managing fire-prone ecosystems.

Methods

For wildfires in California’s yellow pine and mixed-conifer forests, spatial pattern trends of two components of the post-fire severity matrix were assessed for 1984–2015: (1) unchanged or very low-severity and (2) high-severity, which represent remnant forest and stand-replacing fire, respectively. Trends were evaluated for metrics of total and proportional burned area, shape complexity, aggregation, and core area. Additionally, comparisons were made between management units where fire suppression is commonly practiced and those with a history of managing wildfire for ecological/resource benefits.

Results

Unchanged or very low-severity area per fire decreased proportionally through time, and became increasingly fragmented. High-severity area and core area increased on average across most of California, with the high-severity component also becoming simpler in shape in the Sierra Nevada. Compared to suppression units, managed wildfire units lack an increase in high-severity area, have less aggregated post-fire mosaics, and more high-severity spatial complexity.

Conclusions

Documented changes in severity patterns have cascading ecological effects including increased vegetation type conversion risk, habitat availability shifts, and remnant forest fragmentation. These changes likely benefit early-seral-associated species at the expense of mature closed-canopy forest-associated species. Managed wildfire appears to moderate some effects of fire suppression, and may help buy time for ecosystems and managers to respond to a changing climate.

Keywords

Fire ecology Burn severity Landscape heterogeneity Disturbance Patch dynamics Climate change 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank two anonymous reviewers, along with Mark Schwartz and Malcolm North for providing critiques of early versions of this article, and Jay Miller for assistance in accessing burn severity data. Funding was provided by the United States Forest Service Pacific Southwest Region, and the University of California, Davis.

Supplementary material

10980_2018_665_MOESM1_ESM.csv (1 kb)
File 1 Parameter estimates for core area sensitivity analysis. Distance thresholds range from 50-400 m. The mean estimate, standard deviation, and 90% credible interval is presented for the intercepts, and the effect of year. The probability that effect of year is positive (i.e. the proportion of the parameter posterior distribution above zero) is listed as Prob_Positive. Supplementary material 1 (CSV 0 kb)
10980_2018_665_MOESM2_ESM.pdf (162 kb)
File 2 Correlation matrices and bivariate scatterplots for the landscape metrics modeled in the state-wide and managed wildfire analyses. Severity area (SevArea), shape complexity (EdgeArea), and severity core area (CoreArea) are on the log scale. Severity proportion (SevProp), the aggregation metric percent-like adjacency (PLA), and management area (Management) are on the proportion scale. Elevation, topographic roughness (Roughness), and mean 100 h fuel moisture (FuelMoisture) are in meters, meter standard deviations, and degrees Celsius, respectively. Supplementary material 2 (PDF 162 kb)
10980_2018_665_MOESM3_ESM.csv (11 kb)
File 3 Parameter estimates for each state-wide model (unique outcome metric and severity level combination). The mean estimate, standard deviation, and 90% credible interval is presented for the intercepts of California (\(\alpha\)) and each bioregion (\(\alpha + \alpha_{{br_{j} }}\)), and the effect of year on California (\(\beta_{yr}\)) and each bioregion (\(\beta_{yr} + \beta_{{br_{j} }}\)). The probability that effect of year is positive (i.e. the proportion of the parameter posterior distribution above zero) is listed as Prob_Positive. Supplementary material 3 (CSV 11 kb)
10980_2018_665_MOESM4_ESM.csv (10 kb)
File 4 Parameter estimates for each managed wildfire model (unique outcome metric and severity level combination). The mean estimate, standard deviation, and 90% credible interval is presented for each model parameter and the following derived parameters of interest: intercepts of fires burning fully in suppression units (Int_Supp = \(\alpha + \beta_{pmw} *PMW_{min}\)) and managed wildfire units (Int_MW = \(\alpha + \beta_{pmw} *PMW_{max}\)), the effect of year on fires in suppression units (Year_Supp = \(\beta_{yr} + \beta_{yr:pmw} *PMW_{min}\)) and managed wildfire units (Year_MW = \(\beta_{yr} + \beta_{yr:pmw} *PMW_{max}\)), where \(PMW_{min}\) and \(PMW_{max}\) represent proportional area within managed wildfire units of 0 and 1 on the z-scale, respectively. The estimated difference (e.g. \(\beta_{pmw} *PMW_{min} - \beta_{pmw} *PMW_{max}\)) between suppression and managed wildfire intercepts and effects of year are also presented. The probability that an effect or difference is positive (i.e. the proportion of the parameter posterior distribution above zero) is listed as Prob_Positive. Supplementary material 4 (CSV 9 kb)

References

  1. Abatzoglou JT (2013) Development of gridded surface meteorological data for ecological applications and modelling. Int J Climatol 33:121–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Abatzoglou JT, Williams AP (2016) Impact of anthropogenic climate change on wildfire across western US forests. Proc Natl Acad Sci 113:11770–11775CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Agee JK (1993) Fire ecology of pacific northwest forests. Island Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  4. Andren H (1994) Effects of habitat fragmentation on birds and mammals in landscapes with different proportions of suitable habitat: a review. Oikos 71:355–366CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Buchalski MR, Fontaine JB, Heady PA, Hayes JP, Frick WF (2013) Bat response to differing fire severity in mixed-conifer forest California, USA. PLoS ONE 8:7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cansler CA, McKenzie D (2014) Climate, fire size, and biophysical setting control fire severity and spatial pattern in the northern cascade range, USA. Ecol Appl 24:1037–1056CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Collins BM, Miller JD, Thode AE, Kelly M, van Wagtendonk JW, Stephens SL (2009) Interactions among wildland fires in a long-established sierra nevada natural fire area. Ecosystems 12:114–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Collins BM, Stevens JT, Miller JD, Stephens SL, Brown PM, North MP (2017) Alternative characterization of forest fire regimes: incorporating spatial patterns. Landscape Ecol 32:1543–1552CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Coppoletta M, Merriam KE, Collins BM (2016) Post-fire vegetation and fuel development influences fire severity patterns in reburns. Ecol Appl 26:686–699CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Dennison PE, Brewer SC, Arnold JD, Moritz MA (2014) Large wildfire trends in the western united states, 1984–2011. Geophys Res Lett 41:2928–2933CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dillon GK, Holden ZA, Morgan P, Crimmins MA, Heyerdahl EK, Luce CH (2011) Both topography and climate affected forest and woodland burn severity in two regions of the western US, 1984 to 2006. Ecosphere 2:33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Donato DC, Fontaine JB, Campbell JL, Robinson WD, Kauffman JB, Law BE (2009) Conifer regeneration in stand-replacement portions of a large mixed-severity wildfire in the Klamath-Siskiyou mountains. Can J For Res-Rev Can Rech For 39:823–838CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Eyes SA, Roberts SL, Johnson MD (2017) California spotted owl (Strix occidentalis occidentalis) habitat use patterns in a burned landscape. Condor.  https://doi.org/10.1650/condor-16-184.1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fites-Kaufman JP, Rundel PW, Stephenson N, Weixelman DA (2007) Montane and subalpine vegetation of the Sierra Nevada and Cascade ranges. In: Barbour MG, Keeler-Wolf T, Schoenherr AA (eds) Terrestrial vegetation of California, 3rd edn. University of California Press, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  15. Fontaine JB, Kennedy PL (2012) Meta-analysis of avian and small-mammal response to fire severity and fire surrogate treatments in U.S. fire-prone forests. Ecol Appl 22:1547–1561CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Gardner RH, Milne BT, Turner MG, O’Neill RV (1987) Neutral models for the analysis of broad-scale landscape pattern. Landscape Ecol 1:19–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gorelick N, Hancher M, Dixon M, Ilyushchenko S, Thau D, Moore R (2017) Google earth engine: planetary-scale geospatial analysis for everyone. Remote Sens Environ 202:18–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gustafson EJ, Parker GR (1992) Relationships between landcover proportion and indices of landscape spatial pattern. Landscape Ecol 7:101–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Harvey BJ, Donato DC, Turner MG (2016) Drivers and trends in landscape patterns of stand-replacing fire in forests of the US Northern Rocky Mountains (1984–2010). Landscape Ecol 31:2367–2383CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Holden ZA, Morgan P, Evans JS (2009) A predictive model of burn severity based on 20-year satellite-inferred burn severity data in a large southwestern us wilderness area. For Ecol Manag 258:2399–2406CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Holling CS (1973) Resilience and stability of ecological systems. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 4:1–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Jones GM, Gutierrez RJ, Tempel DJ, Whitmore SA, Berigan WJ, Peery MZ (2016) Megafires: an emerging threat to old-forest species. Front Ecol Environ 14:300–306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kemp KB, Higuera PE, Morgan P (2016) Fire legacies impact conifer regeneration across environmental gradients in the US Northern Rockies. Landscape Ecol 31:619–636CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lydersen JM, Collins BM, Miller JD, Fry DL, Stephens SL (2016) Relating fire-caused change in forest structure to remotely sensed estimates of fire severity. Fire Ecol 12:99–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Mallek C, Safford H, Viers J, Miller J (2013) Modern departures in fire severity and area vary by forest type, Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascades, California, USA. Ecosphere.  https://doi.org/10.1890/es13-00217 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Martin RE, Sapsis DB (1992) Fires as agents of biodiversity: pyrodiversity promotes biodiversity. In: Proceedings of the conference on biodiversity of northwest California ecosystems. Cooperative Extension, University of California, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  27. McElreath R (2016) Statistical rethinking: a Bayesian course with examples in R and Stan. CRC Press, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
  28. McGarigal K, Cushman SA, Ene E (2012) Fragstats v4: spatial pattern analysis program for categorical and continous maps. University of Massachusetts, AmherstGoogle Scholar
  29. Meyer MD (2015) Forest fire severity patterns of resource objective wildfires in the southern Sierra Nevada. J For 113:49–56Google Scholar
  30. Miller JD, Collins BM, Lutz JA, Stephens SL, van Wagtendonk JW, Yasuda DA (2012a) Differences in wildfires among ecoregions and land management agencies in the Sierra Nevada region, California, USA. Ecosphere 3:20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Miller JD, Knapp EE, Key CH, Skinner CN, Isbell CJ, Creasy RM, Sherlock JW (2009a) Calibration and validation of the relative differenced normalized burn ratio (RdNBR) to three measures of fire severity in the Sierra Nevada and Klamath Mountains, California, USA. Remote Sens Environ 113:645–656CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Miller JD, Quayle B (2015) Calibration and validation of immediate post-fire satellite-derived data to three severity metrics. Fire Ecol 11:12–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Miller JD, Safford H (2012) Trends in wildfire severity: 1984 to 2010 in the Sierra Nevada, Modoc Plateau, and Southern Cascades, California, USA. Fire Ecol 8:41–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Miller JD, Safford HD (2008) Sierra Nevada fire severity monitoring 1984–2004. USDA-Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region, VallejoGoogle Scholar
  35. Miller JD, Safford HD, Crimmins M, Thode AE (2009b) Quantitative evidence for increasing forest fire severity in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade mountains, California and Nevada, USA. Ecosystems 12:16–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Miller JD, Skinner CN, Safford HD, Knapp EE, Ramirez CM (2012b) Trends and causes of severity, size, and number of fires in northwestern California, USA. Ecol Appl 22:184–203CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Miller JD, Thode AE (2007) Quantifying burn severity in a heterogeneous landscape with a relative version of the delta normalized burn ratio (dNBR). Remote Sens Environ 109:66–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. North M, Stine P, O’Hara K, Zielinski W, Stephens S (2009) An ecosystem management strategy for sierran mixed-conifer forests. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station AlbanyGoogle Scholar
  39. North MP, Stephens SL, Collins BM, Agee JK, Aplet G, Franklin JF, Fulé PZ (2015) Reform forest fire management. Science 349:1280–1281CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Peterson DL, Millar CI, Joyce LA, Furniss MJ, Halofsky JE, Neilson RP, Morelli TL (2011) Responding to climate change in national forests: a guidebook for developing adaptation options. Pacific Northwest Research Station PortlandGoogle Scholar
  41. Pickett STA, White PS (1985) The ecology of natural disturbance and patch dynamics. Academic Press, OrlandoGoogle Scholar
  42. R Development Core Team (2011) R: a language and environment for statistical computing vol 2.14. Vienna, AustriaGoogle Scholar
  43. Restaino CR, Safford H (2018) Fire and climate change. Chapter 26. In: van Wagtendonk JW, Sugihara NG, Stephens SL, Thode AE, Shaffer KE, Fites-Kaufman J (eds) Fire in California’s ecosystems, 2nd edn. University of California Press, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  44. Rivera-Huerta H, Safford HD, Miller JD (2016) Patterns and trends in burned area and fire severity from 1984 to 2010 in the Sierra de San Pedro Martir, Baja California, Mexico. Fire Ecol.  https://doi.org/10.4996/fireecology.1201052 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Roberts SL, Van Wagtendonk JW, Miles AK, Kelt DA, Lutz JA (2008) Modeling the effects of fire severity and spatial complexity on small mammals in yosemite national park, California. Fire Ecol 4:83–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Safford H, Stevens JT (2017) Natural range of variation (NRV) for yellow pine and mixed conifer forests in the Sierra Nevada, Southern Cascades, and Modoc and Inyo National Forests, California. Pacific Southwest Research Station, AlbanyGoogle Scholar
  47. Safford HD, Hayward GD, Heller NE, Wiens JA (2012) Historical ecology, climate change, and resource management: can the past still inform the future? In: Wiens JA, Hayward GD, Safford HD, Giffen CM (eds) Historical environmental variation in conservation and natural resource management. Wiley, HobokenGoogle Scholar
  48. Safford HD, Van de Water KM (2011) California fire return interval departure (FRID) map metadata: description of purpose, data sources, database fields, and their calculations. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region, VallejoGoogle Scholar
  49. Safford HD, Van de Water KM (2014) Using fire return interval departure (FRID) analysis to map spatial and temporal changes in fire frequency on national forest lands in California. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, AlbanyCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Shive K, Preisler H, Welch KR, Safford HD, Butz RJ, O’Hara K, Stephens SL (in press) Scaling stand-scale measurements to landscape-scale predictions of forest regeneration after disturbance: the importance of spatial pattern. Ecol ApplGoogle Scholar
  51. Stan Development Team (2016) Rstan: the R interface to Stan, 2.10.1 edn.Google Scholar
  52. Steel ZL, Safford HD, Viers JH (2015) The fire frequency-severity relationship and the legacy of fire suppression in California forests. Ecosphere.  https://doi.org/10.1890/es14-00224.1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Steel ZL, Steel AE, Williams JN, Viers JH, Marquet PA, Barbosa O (2017) Patterns of bird diversity and habitat use in mixed vineyard-matorral landscapes of central Chile. Ecol Ind 73:345–357CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Stephens SL, Collins BM, Biber E, Fulé PZ (2016a) US Federal fire and forest policy: emphasizing resilience in dry forests. Ecosphere.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.1584 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Stephens SL, Miller JD, Collins BM, North MP, Keane JJ, Roberts SL (2016b) Wildfire impacts on California spotted owl nesting habitat in the Sierra Nevada. Ecosphere.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.1478 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Stevens JT, Collins BM, Miller JD, North MP, Stephens SL (2017) Changing spatial patterns of stand-replacing fire in California conifer forests. For Ecol Manag 406:28–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Sugihara NG, Van Wagtendonk JW, Shaffer KE, Fites-Kaufman J, Thode AE (2006) Fire in California’s ecosystems. University of California Press, BerkeleyCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Tepley AJ, Thompson JR, Epstein HE, Anderson-Teixeira KJ (2017) Vulnerability to forest loss through altered postfire recovery dynamics in a warming climate in the Klamath Mountains. Global Change Biol.  https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.13704 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Tews J, Brose U, Grimm V, Tielborger K, Wichmann MC, Schwager M, Jeltsch F (2004) Animal species diversity driven by habitat heterogeneity/diversity: the importance of keystone structures. J Biogeogr 31:79–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Tingley MW, Ruiz-Gutiérrez V, Wilkerson RL, Howell CA, Siegel RB (2016) Pyrodiversity promotes avian diversity over the decade following forest fire. Proc R Soc B.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2016.1703 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. Turner MG (2010) Disturbance and landscape dynamics in a changing world. Ecology 91:2833–2849CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. Turner MG, Baker WL, Peterson CJ, Peet RK (1998) Factors influencing succession: lessons from large, infrequent natural disturbances. Ecosystems 1:511–523CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Turner MG, Gardner RH (2015) Landscape ecology in theory and practic: pattern and process, 2nd edn. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  64. USDA (2004) Sierra Nevada forest plan amendment. Forest Service Pacific Southwest Region, VallejoGoogle Scholar
  65. Van de Water KM, Safford HD (2011) A summary of fire frequency estimates for California vegetation before Euro-American settlement. Fire Ecol 7:26–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. van Mantgem EF, Keeley JD, Witter M (2015) Faunal responses to fire in chaparral and sage scrub in California. Fire Ecol, USA, p 11Google Scholar
  67. van Wagtendonk JW (2007) The history and evolution of wildland fire use. Fire Ecol 3:3–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. van Wagtendonk JW, Lutz JA (2007) Fire regime attributes of wildland fires in Yosemite National Park, USA. Fire Ecol 3:34–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Villard MA (1998) On forest-interior species, edge avoidance, area sensitivity, and dogmas in avian conservation. Auk 115:801–805CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Welch KR, Safford HD, Young TP (2016) Predicting conifer establishment post wildfire in mixed conifer forests of the North American Mediterranean-climate zone. Ecosphere.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.1609 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Westerling AL (2016) Increasing western US forest wildfire activity: sensitivity to changes in the timing of spring. Philos Trans R Soc B: Biol Sci 371(1696):20150178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. White AM, Manley PN, Tarbill GL, Richardson TW, Russell RE, Safford HD, Dobrowski SZ (2016) Avian community reponses to post-fire forest structure: implications for fire management in mixed conifer forests. Anim Conserv 19:256–264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Yahner RH, Scott DP (1988) Effects of forest fragmentation on depredation of artificial nests. J Wildl Manag 52:158–161CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Environmental Science and PolicyUniversity of CaliforniaDavisUSA
  2. 2.Graduate Group in EcologyUniversity of CaliforniaDavisUSA
  3. 3.Department of Plant SciencesUniversity of CaliforniaDavisUSA
  4. 4.United States Department of Agriculture, Forest ServicePacific Southwest RegionVallejoUSA

Personalised recommendations