Climate and weather drivers in southern California Santa Ana Wind and non-Santa Wind fires

IF 2.9 3区 农林科学 Q1 FORESTRY International Journal of Wildland Fire Pub Date : 2024-08-15 DOI:10.1071/wf23190
Jon E. Keeley, Michael Flannigan, Tim J. Brown, Tom Rolinski, Daniel Cayan, Alexandra D. Syphard, Janin Guzman-Morales, Alexander Gershunov
{"title":"Climate and weather drivers in southern California Santa Ana Wind and non-Santa Wind fires","authors":"Jon E. Keeley, Michael Flannigan, Tim J. Brown, Tom Rolinski, Daniel Cayan, Alexandra D. Syphard, Janin Guzman-Morales, Alexander Gershunov","doi":"10.1071/wf23190","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<strong> Background</strong><p>Autumn and winter Santa Ana Winds (SAW) are responsible for the largest and most destructive wildfires in southern California.</p><strong> Aims</strong><p>(1) To contrast fires ignited on SAW days vs non-SAW days, (2) evaluate the predictive ability of the Canadian Fire Weather Index (CFWI) for these two fire types, and (3) determine climate and weather factors responsible for the largest wildfires.</p><strong> Methods</strong><p>CAL FIRE (California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection) FRAP (Fire and Resource Assessment Program) fire data were coupled with hourly climate data from four stations, and with regional indices of SAW wind speed, and with seasonal drought data from the Palmer Drought Severity Index.</p><strong> Key results</strong><p>Fires on non-SAW days were more numerous and burned more area, and were substantial from May to October. CFWI indices were tied to fire occurrence and size for both non-SAW and SAW days, and in the days following ignition. Multiple regression models for months with the greatest area burned explained up to a quarter of variation in area burned.</p><strong> Conclusions</strong><p>The drivers of fire size differ between non-SAW and SAW fires. The best predictor of fire size for non-SAW fires was drought during the prior 5 years, followed by a current year vapour pressure deficit. For SAW fires, wind speed followed by drought were most important.</p>","PeriodicalId":14464,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Wildland Fire","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Wildland Fire","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1071/wf23190","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"FORESTRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

Autumn and winter Santa Ana Winds (SAW) are responsible for the largest and most destructive wildfires in southern California.

Aims

(1) To contrast fires ignited on SAW days vs non-SAW days, (2) evaluate the predictive ability of the Canadian Fire Weather Index (CFWI) for these two fire types, and (3) determine climate and weather factors responsible for the largest wildfires.

Methods

CAL FIRE (California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection) FRAP (Fire and Resource Assessment Program) fire data were coupled with hourly climate data from four stations, and with regional indices of SAW wind speed, and with seasonal drought data from the Palmer Drought Severity Index.

Key results

Fires on non-SAW days were more numerous and burned more area, and were substantial from May to October. CFWI indices were tied to fire occurrence and size for both non-SAW and SAW days, and in the days following ignition. Multiple regression models for months with the greatest area burned explained up to a quarter of variation in area burned.

Conclusions

The drivers of fire size differ between non-SAW and SAW fires. The best predictor of fire size for non-SAW fires was drought during the prior 5 years, followed by a current year vapour pressure deficit. For SAW fires, wind speed followed by drought were most important.

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
南加州圣安娜风火和非圣安娜风火的气候和天气驱动因素
背景秋季和冬季的圣安娜风(SAW)是南加州最大、破坏性最强的野火的罪魁祸首。目的(1)对比在圣安娜风日和非圣安娜风日点燃的火灾,(2)评估加拿大火灾天气指数(CFWI)对这两种火灾类型的预测能力,(3)确定造成最大野火的气候和天气因素。方法将加利福尼亚林业和消防局(California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection)的 FRAP(火灾和资源评估计划)火灾数据与四个站点的每小时气候数据、SAW 风速区域指数以及帕尔默干旱严重程度指数(Palmer Drought Severity Index)的季节性干旱数据相结合。主要结果非 SAW 日的火灾次数更多,燃烧面积更大,而且在 5 月至 10 月期间火势很大。CFWI 指数与非SAW 日和 SAW 日以及点火后几天的火灾发生率和火灾面积有关。燃烧面积最大的月份的多元回归模型最多可解释燃烧面积变化的四分之一。结论 非SAW 火灾和 SAW 火灾的火灾规模驱动因素各不相同。对非小水电火灾而言,预测火灾规模的最佳因素是前五年的干旱,其次是当年的蒸汽压力不足。对于小风速火灾,最重要的因素是风速,其次是干旱。
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
CiteScore
5.50
自引率
9.70%
发文量
67
审稿时长
12-24 weeks
期刊介绍: International Journal of Wildland Fire publishes new and significant articles that advance basic and applied research concerning wildland fire. Published papers aim to assist in the understanding of the basic principles of fire as a process, its ecological impact at the stand level and the landscape level, modelling fire and its effects, as well as presenting information on how to effectively and efficiently manage fire. The journal has an international perspective, since wildland fire plays a major social, economic and ecological role around the globe. The International Journal of Wildland Fire is published on behalf of the International Association of Wildland Fire.
期刊最新文献
Cross-landscape fuel moisture differences impact simulated fire behaviour Blackout burning in dry conditions increases long-term fire severity risk Observations of wildfire spread dynamics in southern Australian grasslands Expanding our understanding of nitrogen dynamics after fire: how severe fire and aridity reduce ecosystem nitrogen retention Assessing changes in high-intensity fire events in south-eastern Australia using Fourier Transform Infra-red (FITR) spectroscopy
×
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