Can we use state and transition models to add dynamism to fire risk and behaviour models?

J. Furlaud, K. Szetey, S. Luxton, G. Newnham, K. Williams, S. Prober, A. Richards
{"title":"Can we use state and transition models to add dynamism to fire risk and behaviour models?","authors":"J. Furlaud, K. Szetey, S. Luxton, G. Newnham, K. Williams, S. Prober, A. Richards","doi":"10.36334/modsim.2023.furlaud","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":": Fire risk and fire behaviour models have long assumed static fuel profiles: fuels reaccumulate post-disturbance to an equilibrium value following the Olson curve (Olson, 1963). However, fuel load is not the only vegetation-related predictor of fire behaviour and does not always follow Olsen accumulation patterns, and, perhaps more importantly such static models are unable to represent the dynamic changes to ecosystems that are likely under climate change. One approach for modelling and mapping ecosystems dynamically is using State and Transition Simulation Models (STSMs; Daniel et al., 2016), a spatially-explicit parameterisation of state and transition conceptual models (S&TMs; Westoby et al., 1989), that has been widely applied in the United States . S&TMs, or similar models with the same underpinning theory, have been utilised by Australian ecologists and practitioners for over 50 years. Many such models exist but few have been parameterised to make spatially explicit predictions of the extent and change of different vegetation types in Australia. We outline an approach for using STSMs to model fuels and fire risk at both landscape and continental scales. This involves (a) identifying important expressions of ecosystem dynamics (e.g. frequently burnt savanna or structurally mature forest) and pathways between them (e.g. succession), (b) identifying anthropogenic drivers of change (e.g. reference or altered fuel structure) and drivers of transitions between states (e.g. fire exclusion) for an ecosystem type, (c) locating existing states and expressions in the landscape using remote sensing variables, and (d) using existing abiotic and biophysical models (e.g., fire behaviour, climate change, and plant growth) to understand how rates of change along these pathways might be altered by climate change interacting with land management. We then discuss two case studies of the landscape-scale approach: one in Tasmanian wet eucalypt forest, and one in tropical savanna in central Arnhem Land, providing preliminary results and indicating how this approach fits into a national state and transition modelling framework. We examine how this approach could create ecologically meaningful, dynamic maps of fuels that will be compatible with modern fire risk and behaviour modelling efforts , contributing to a nationally consistent map of fuels and fire risk through inclusion in the Australian Fire Danger Rating System (AFDRS) and inform natural asset protection.","PeriodicalId":390064,"journal":{"name":"MODSIM2023, 25th International Congress on Modelling and Simulation.","volume":"2 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"MODSIM2023, 25th International Congress on Modelling and Simulation.","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.36334/modsim.2023.furlaud","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

: Fire risk and fire behaviour models have long assumed static fuel profiles: fuels reaccumulate post-disturbance to an equilibrium value following the Olson curve (Olson, 1963). However, fuel load is not the only vegetation-related predictor of fire behaviour and does not always follow Olsen accumulation patterns, and, perhaps more importantly such static models are unable to represent the dynamic changes to ecosystems that are likely under climate change. One approach for modelling and mapping ecosystems dynamically is using State and Transition Simulation Models (STSMs; Daniel et al., 2016), a spatially-explicit parameterisation of state and transition conceptual models (S&TMs; Westoby et al., 1989), that has been widely applied in the United States . S&TMs, or similar models with the same underpinning theory, have been utilised by Australian ecologists and practitioners for over 50 years. Many such models exist but few have been parameterised to make spatially explicit predictions of the extent and change of different vegetation types in Australia. We outline an approach for using STSMs to model fuels and fire risk at both landscape and continental scales. This involves (a) identifying important expressions of ecosystem dynamics (e.g. frequently burnt savanna or structurally mature forest) and pathways between them (e.g. succession), (b) identifying anthropogenic drivers of change (e.g. reference or altered fuel structure) and drivers of transitions between states (e.g. fire exclusion) for an ecosystem type, (c) locating existing states and expressions in the landscape using remote sensing variables, and (d) using existing abiotic and biophysical models (e.g., fire behaviour, climate change, and plant growth) to understand how rates of change along these pathways might be altered by climate change interacting with land management. We then discuss two case studies of the landscape-scale approach: one in Tasmanian wet eucalypt forest, and one in tropical savanna in central Arnhem Land, providing preliminary results and indicating how this approach fits into a national state and transition modelling framework. We examine how this approach could create ecologically meaningful, dynamic maps of fuels that will be compatible with modern fire risk and behaviour modelling efforts , contributing to a nationally consistent map of fuels and fire risk through inclusion in the Australian Fire Danger Rating System (AFDRS) and inform natural asset protection.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
我们可以使用状态和转换模型来增加火灾风险和行为模型的动态性吗?
:火灾风险和火灾行为模型长期以来一直假设燃料的静态分布:燃料在扰动后重新积累到Olson曲线下的平衡值(Olson, 1963)。然而,燃料负荷并不是唯一与植被相关的火灾行为预测指标,也并不总是遵循奥尔森积累模式,而且,也许更重要的是,这种静态模型无法代表气候变化下可能发生的生态系统的动态变化。动态建模和映射生态系统的一种方法是使用状态和过渡模拟模型(STSMs;Daniel等人,2016),状态和过渡概念模型(S&TMs;Westoby et al., 1989),在美国得到了广泛应用。S&TMs,或具有相同基础理论的类似模型,已经被澳大利亚生态学家和实践者使用了50多年。存在许多这样的模型,但很少有模型被参数化,以对澳大利亚不同植被类型的范围和变化进行空间上明确的预测。我们概述了使用STSMs在景观和大陆尺度上模拟燃料和火灾风险的方法。这涉及(a)确定生态系统动态的重要表现形式(如经常被烧毁的稀树草原或结构成熟的森林)及其之间的途径(如演替);(b)确定某一生态系统类型的人为变化驱动因素(如参考或改变的燃料结构)和状态之间过渡的驱动因素(如防火);(c)利用遥感变量定位景观中的现有状态和表现形式。(d)利用现有的非生物和生物物理模型(例如,火灾行为、气候变化和植物生长)来了解气候变化与土地管理的相互作用如何改变这些途径的变化率。然后,我们讨论了景观尺度方法的两个案例研究:一个在塔斯马尼亚州的湿桉树林,一个在阿纳姆地中部的热带稀树草原,提供了初步结果,并表明这种方法如何适应国家和过渡建模框架。我们研究了这种方法如何创建具有生态意义的燃料动态地图,该地图将与现代火灾风险和行为建模工作相兼容,通过纳入澳大利亚火灾危险评级系统(AFDRS),为全国一致的燃料和火灾风险地图做出贡献,并为自然资产保护提供信息。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Modelling of the activated sludge process with a stratified settling unit Recent changes in the water and ecological condition at the arid Tarim River Basin A study on internal observation of vertical protective nets of temporary structures using image processing techniques Developing synthetic datasets for reef modelling Modelling hydrological impact of remotely sensed vegetation change
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1