Fire resilience analysis: Using high temporal and spatial satellite imagery for rehabilitated landscapes

IF 4.1 2区 环境科学与生态学 Q1 ECOLOGY Ecological Engineering Pub Date : 2025-02-01 Epub Date: 2024-12-13 DOI:10.1016/j.ecoleng.2024.107478
Phillip B. McKenna , Stuart Phinn , Peter D. Erskine
{"title":"Fire resilience analysis: Using high temporal and spatial satellite imagery for rehabilitated landscapes","authors":"Phillip B. McKenna ,&nbsp;Stuart Phinn ,&nbsp;Peter D. Erskine","doi":"10.1016/j.ecoleng.2024.107478","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>The progressive rehabilitation of open-cut coal mines and the demonstration of a sustainable post-mining land use is required prior to mine closure in many parts of the world. There is a general belief that the risk of rehabilitation failure following mine closure due to disturbance events such as fire is minimal, based largely on the assumed resilience of rehabilitated pastures and the assumption that rehabilitated pastures will respond analogous to unmined pastures following fire. However, there is little scientific evidence to support this notion, and additional knowledge gaps on the resilience of rehabilitation age classes and appropriate methods for land managers to measure and demonstrate rehabilitation resilience. We used Sentinel-2 and Landsat-8 time-series and assessed the impact and vegetation response to eight fire events in rehabilitation and five fires in unmined analogues in central and southeast Queensland, Australia. Using the Soil Adjusted Vegetation Index (SAVI), we aimed to compare rehabilitated and unmined areas using three resilience metrics: i) percent impact, ii) recovery time and iii) recovery rate. Compared with unmined pastures, post-mine rehabilitation recorded higher mean impact (52–65 % vs 67–79 % respectively), longer recovery times (38–117 vs 144–245 days respectively) and a slower rate of recovery (2.5–5.7 % vs 0.9–1.7 % per day respectively). Younger age-classes (&lt;10 y/o and 10–15 y/o) recorded reduced resilience compared to mature rehabilitation (≥ 16 y/o). We compared three different baseline indices and showed that the choice of baseline index yielded significantly different results for the same fires, indicating the importance of standardised approaches to resilience monitoring.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":11490,"journal":{"name":"Ecological Engineering","volume":"212 ","pages":"Article 107478"},"PeriodicalIF":4.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ecological Engineering","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0925857424003033","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/12/13 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The progressive rehabilitation of open-cut coal mines and the demonstration of a sustainable post-mining land use is required prior to mine closure in many parts of the world. There is a general belief that the risk of rehabilitation failure following mine closure due to disturbance events such as fire is minimal, based largely on the assumed resilience of rehabilitated pastures and the assumption that rehabilitated pastures will respond analogous to unmined pastures following fire. However, there is little scientific evidence to support this notion, and additional knowledge gaps on the resilience of rehabilitation age classes and appropriate methods for land managers to measure and demonstrate rehabilitation resilience. We used Sentinel-2 and Landsat-8 time-series and assessed the impact and vegetation response to eight fire events in rehabilitation and five fires in unmined analogues in central and southeast Queensland, Australia. Using the Soil Adjusted Vegetation Index (SAVI), we aimed to compare rehabilitated and unmined areas using three resilience metrics: i) percent impact, ii) recovery time and iii) recovery rate. Compared with unmined pastures, post-mine rehabilitation recorded higher mean impact (52–65 % vs 67–79 % respectively), longer recovery times (38–117 vs 144–245 days respectively) and a slower rate of recovery (2.5–5.7 % vs 0.9–1.7 % per day respectively). Younger age-classes (<10 y/o and 10–15 y/o) recorded reduced resilience compared to mature rehabilitation (≥ 16 y/o). We compared three different baseline indices and showed that the choice of baseline index yielded significantly different results for the same fires, indicating the importance of standardised approaches to resilience monitoring.
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
火灾恢复力分析:利用高时空卫星图像对恢复景观进行分析
在世界许多地方,在关闭煤矿之前,必须逐步恢复露天煤矿,并证明采矿后土地的可持续利用。人们普遍认为,由于火灾等干扰事件,矿井关闭后恢复失败的风险很小,这主要是基于对恢复牧场的恢复能力的假设,以及恢复牧场在火灾后的反应与未开采牧场类似的假设。然而,几乎没有科学证据支持这一观点,并且在恢复年龄阶层的恢复能力和土地管理者衡量和证明恢复能力的适当方法方面存在额外的知识空白。我们利用Sentinel-2和Landsat-8时间序列,评估了澳大利亚昆士兰州中部和东南部8起火灾事件和5起未开采类似火灾对植被的影响和响应。利用土壤调整植被指数(SAVI),我们旨在通过三个恢复指标来比较恢复和未采空区:i)影响百分比,ii)恢复时间和iii)恢复速度。与未开采的牧场相比,矿后恢复的平均影响更高(分别为52 - 65%和67 - 79%),恢复时间更长(38-117天和144-245天),恢复速度更慢(2.5 - 5.7%和每天0.9% - 1.7%)。较年轻年龄组(10岁/岁和10 - 15岁/岁)与成熟康复组(≥16岁/岁)相比,恢复力下降。我们比较了三种不同的基线指数,结果表明,对于相同的火灾,基线指数的选择产生了显著不同的结果,这表明了标准化方法对恢复力监测的重要性。
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
Ecological Engineering
Ecological Engineering 环境科学-工程:环境
CiteScore
8.00
自引率
5.30%
发文量
293
审稿时长
57 days
期刊介绍: Ecological engineering has been defined as the design of ecosystems for the mutual benefit of humans and nature. The journal is meant for ecologists who, because of their research interests or occupation, are involved in designing, monitoring, or restoring ecosystems, and can serve as a bridge between ecologists and engineers. Specific topics covered in the journal include: habitat reconstruction; ecotechnology; synthetic ecology; bioengineering; restoration ecology; ecology conservation; ecosystem rehabilitation; stream and river restoration; reclamation ecology; non-renewable resource conservation. Descriptions of specific applications of ecological engineering are acceptable only when situated within context of adding novelty to current research and emphasizing ecosystem restoration. We do not accept purely descriptive reports on ecosystem structures (such as vegetation surveys), purely physical assessment of materials that can be used for ecological restoration, small-model studies carried out in the laboratory or greenhouse with artificial (waste)water or crop studies, or case studies on conventional wastewater treatment and eutrophication that do not offer an ecosystem restoration approach within the paper.
期刊最新文献
Factors influencing spontaneous plant diversity and insect herbivory on extensive green roofs Enhancing agricultural soil fertility and improving crop yield with the sediment dredged from the treatment wetland Modeling cumulative and spatially-varying nitrate removal from multiple floodplain restoration projects in a 4th-order river channel network Long-term assessment of chestnut live cribwalls deterioration using drilling resistance measurements Enhancing urban wastewater treatment through nature-based solutions: The role of biofilm–plant development in subsurface retention of multiple solutes
×
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:604180095
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