LANDIS 4.0, A New Generation Computer Simulation Model for Assessing Fuel Management Effects on Fire Risk in Eastern U.S. Forest LandscapesHong S. He

University of Missouri-Columbia

Acknowledgements Original Design: David Mladenoff LANDIS 4.0 Dynamic Design: Hong He

Succession/Dispersal Module David Mladenoff, Hong He

Fire Module Jian Yang, Hong He, Eric Gustafson

Wind Module David Mladenoff, Hong He

Harvest Module Eric Gustafson, Stephen Shifley, Kevin Nimerfro, David Mladenoff,

Hong He Fuel Module

Hong He, Bo Shang, Thomas Crow, Eric Gustafson, Stephen Shifley Biological Disturbance Module

Brian Sturtevant, Eric Gustafson, Wei Li, Hong He LANDIS 4.0 Programming

Vera W. Li, Jian Yang, Bo Shang, and Hong He Funding Supports for LANDIS 4.0 Development

USFS North Central Research Station

Introduction

National/Regional Landscape Stand

Tools• Fuel Characteristic Classification (FCC)

• Fire Regime Condition Class (FRCC)

• National Fire Danger Rating System (NFDRS)

• Other tools

Results• Fire, fuel conditions• Management guidelines• Other results

Tools• Decision Support System• Landscape fire succession

Models• Other tools

ResultsManagement Plans• Short-term (10-20 yr)• Mid-term 20-50 yr)• Long-term >50 yr

Tools• BEHAVE• FVS-FFE• CONSUME• FOFEM• Other tools

Results• Fuel consumption• Smoke production• Fire effects• Other results

See reviews by Keane et al (Ecol. Model. 179) and Mladenoff (Ecol. Model. 180, 2004)

LANDISLandscape Disturbance and Succession ‘Stochastic cellular automaton’ Raster-based

Complex spatial dynamics computationally possible Infinite aggregation and dissolution of patches

Spatial Scales Functional extent 100s ha – 107 ha Functional resolution- cell size 10x10m - km2

Temporal Scales Current model time step is 10 yr, while a version of annual time

step has been developed and is being used in Southern California.

LANDIS simulates multiple disturbance and management processes in combination with the simulation of succession dynamics at the tree species level.

LANDIS 4.0 Model Dynamics

Tree Species Establishment

and Resprouting

Species LevelCompetitive Succession

and Dispersal

Disturbance and Harvest Related

Mortality

Wind(top down)

Fire(bottom up)

Insect/Disease(specie/age specific)

Harvest(specie/age specific)

Fuel(Accumulation/reduction)

Sp

ec

ies

ag

e/s

ize

s

us

ce

pti

bil

ity

Modify fine/coarse fuel

Modify Specieand Age Cohorts

Land type

Shade tolerance

Backgroundmortality

Longevity

Dispersal distance

Disturbance and Management

Modified from Mladenoff 2004 Ecological Modelling

LANDIS Operational Design

climate zone

soil mapDEM

Multiple fire regimes: Ignition, size, cycle, spread, intensity and severity

multiple species and age input maps

output singlespecies map

year 0

year n

reclassifiedvegetation type

output disturbances

species age Classes

model input

model simulation processes

Environmental boundariesand constrains

Site and species interactionssuccession, seeding, disturbance history, and disturbance interaction

Harvest prescriptions: stands, management units, rotationsize, species, and methods

fire

wind

harvest

Land type

Insect/disease

fuelFine, coarse and life fuelAccumulation/decomposition

Wind regimes: size, cycle, spread, intensity and severity

Epicenter, frequency, size, Hosts, susceptibility, intensity, and severity

LANDIS 4.0 Software Design--Component-based

SU

CC

ESSI

ON

1/O

B

DA

I/O

FI

RE

I/O

FU

EL

I/O

HA

RV

EST

I/O

User1

User2

Usern

species name

longevity

maturity

mortality growth

dispersal

sprouting

fire tolerance

shade tolerance

inte

rnal d

esi

gn

I/O

WIN

D

Sites of LANDIS Applications

Modified from Mladenoff 2004 Ecological Modelling

An Application in Missouri Central Hardwood Forests

Fuel and Fire Management Issues Over half a century fire suppression Increasing fire intensity Need for fuel management

Currently prescribed burning 0.06% per year for fuel reduction

How extensive should fuel treatment be expanded, 0.6%, 1.2%, or 2.4% per year?

Should coarse woody debris reduction be employed?

What are the effects of the combinations of fuel treatment size and method?

Simulation Design

Treatment Size (percentage /yr)

Tre

atm

ent

Met

hod

0.06 0.12 0.6 1.2 2.4 4.8

PB

PB+CWD

Factorial Design of Fuel Treatments

A B C D

E F G H

Simulation Design

Using existing data of species/age and land types

Current fire regime under suppression Mean fire size 3.5=ha, SD=1.8 ha Fire cycle 300 yrs on southwestern slopes and 450

yrs on northeastern land types Harvest

Even/uneven aged harvesting on oldest forest (>100 yrs) and “thinning” on young forest (<30 yrs), 0.4% /yr

Statistical Analysis

Each treatment was simulated to 200 years with 10 replicates

Overall treatment effects were analyzed using multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA)

Treatment pair comparisons was analyzed using ANOVA

Response variables: percent pixels (% landscape) simulated fire severity classes (1-5), with 4 severely

stand damaging and 5 stand leveling fire five age classes of four species group, black oak,

white oak, shortleaf pine, and maple Seedling, sapling, pole, sawlog, and old-growth

Results and DiscussionSimulated Fire and Species

Dynamics

Results and DiscussionSimulated Fuel Dynamics

Simulated Fires at Different Severities

200 year means

0

10

20

30

40

50

A B C D E F G HTreatment

Fir

es

Bu

rne

d o

n t

he

La

nd

sc

ap

e

(%)

severity 5

severity 4

severity 3

severity 2

severity 1Ground fire

Severe damaging

Stand leveling

Medium damaging

Low damaging

Simulated Fires at Different Severities

200 Year Dynamics

Simulation Years

Fir

e S

ever

ity

Cla

ss P

rop

ort

ion

s (%

)

0

20

40

60

80

10 40 70

100

130

160

190

1

2

3

4

5

H)Fire severity

0

20

40

60

80 A)

0

20

40

60

80 B)

0

20

40

60

80 C

0

20

40

60

80

10

30

50

70

90

11

0

13

0

15

0

17

0

19

0

D)

0

20

40

60

80 E)

0

20

40

60

80 F)

0

20

40

60

80 G)

0

20

40

60

80

10

30

50

70

90

11

0

13

0

15

0

17

0

19

0

H) Fire severity

Effects of Fuel Treatments on Fire Severity

Land

scap

e (%

)

Land

scap

e (%

)

A B C D E

F

G

H

A B CD

E

F

G H

A B C DE F

GH

A B CD

E

F G H

AB

CD

E

F

GH

Ground fire

Severe damaging

Stand levelingMedium damaging

Low damaging

Simulated Age Class Compositions

200 year means

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

A B C D E F G H

Treatment

Ag

e C

lass

es

old-growthsawlogpolesaplingseedling

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

A B C D E F G HTreatment

Ag

e C

lass

es

old-growthsawlogpole

saplingseedling

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

A B C D E F G HTreatment

Ag

e C

lass

es

old-growth

sawlog

pole

sapling

seedling

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

A B C D E F G HTreatment

Ag

e C

lass

es

old-growth

sawlog

pole

sapling

seedling

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

A B C D E F G H

old-growthsawlogpolesaplingseedling

Black oak Pine

Maple White oak

Effects of Fuel Treatments on Species Age Compositions—Seedling/Sapling

Black oak Pine

Maple White oak

Land

scap

e (%

)La

ndsc

ape

(%)

B CD

E

F GH

A

B CD

E

F

GH

A

B C D E F G

H

A

Effects of Fuel Treatments on Species Age Compositions—Old Growth Black oak Pine

Maple White oak

Land

scap

e (%

)La

ndsc

ape

(%)

B C D EF

G

H

A

BC D

E

F

GH

A

B C D E

F G

H

A

BC

D

E

FG

H

A

Summaries Low and mid severity fires will change to severe

stand damaging (class 4) or stand leveling (class 5) fires under the situation of limited fuel treatment (e.g., 0.6%/yr) in central hardwood forests.

Fuel treatments reduce fire occurrence, prolong fire cycle, and reduce the high severity fires. Fire cycles extend from current 300-450 years to over

1,000 years depending upon treatment methods. Total sites burned by high severity fires are reduced from

11% to 1% of the study area. Fuel treatment size exhibits threshold effects in the

study area: When treatment size is small (e.g., <0. 6% per year

(treatment B), treatment methods have little effect in terms of reducing fire severity.

Summaries CWD reduction in combination with prescribed burning is

more effective in reducing fire severity.

The benefits of fuel treatment are not linearly related to the treatment effort. Increasing treatment size from 1.2%/yr (F) to 2.4% /yr (G)

reduces severe stand damaging fire from 2.4% to 0.5%. Further increasing treatment size to 4.8% (H) had only small effects (although statistically significant) on high severity fires. Thus planners and managers should consider a balanced approach in terms of treatment size and treatment effects.

PBPB

CWD

Treatment F Treatment D

Treatment effects

Summaries Fuel treatment effects on species composition

and age class are statistically significant, except when treatment size is too small (e.g., <0.6%). However, such effects are secondary to the effects of fire suppression on species composition and age structure (result not shown).

We showed that LANDIS is a effective model for evaluating long-term and large spatial effects for the identified scenarios. The actual future is only one realization of numerous possible scenarios that are beyond any simulation capacity. Thus LANDIS is not a predictive model. Nevertheless, the model is useful since the large-scale effects would otherwise be very difficult to assess.