IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v12y2020i17p7025-d405502.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Prediction of Fuel Loading Following Mastication Treatments in Forest Stands in North Idaho, USA

Author

Listed:
  • Ryer M. Becker

    (Forest Operations Research Lab, College of Natural Resources, University of Idaho, 875 Perimeter Drive, Moscow, ID 83844-4264, USA)

  • Robert F. Keefe

    (Forest Operations Research Lab, College of Natural Resources, University of Idaho, 875 Perimeter Drive, Moscow, ID 83844-4264, USA)

Abstract

Fuel reduction in forests is a high management priority in the western United States and mechanical mastication treatments are implemented common to achieve that goal. However, quantifying post-treatment fuel loading for use in fire behavior modeling to forecast treatment effectiveness is difficult due to the high cost and labor requirements of field sampling methods and high variability in resultant fuel loading within stands after treatment. We evaluated whether pre-treatment LiDAR-derived stand forest characteristics at 20 m × 20 m resolution could be used to predict post-treatment surface fuel loading following mastication. Plot-based destructive sampling was performed immediately following mastication at three stands in the Nez Perce Clearwater National Forest, Idaho, USA, to correlate post-treatment surface fuel loads and characteristics with pre-treatment LiDAR-derived forest metrics, specifically trees per hectare (TPH) and stand density index (SDI). Surface fuel loads measured in the stand post-treatment were consistent with those reported in previous studies. A significant relationship was found between the pre-treatment SDI and total resultant fuel loading ( p = 0.0477), though not between TPH and fuel loading ( p = 0.0527). SDI may more accurately predict post-treatment fuel loads by accounting for both tree number per unit area and stem size, while trees per hectare alone does not account for variations of tree size and subsequent volume within a stand. Relatively large root-mean-square errors associated with the random forest models for SDI (36%) and TPH (46%) suggest that increased sampling intensity and modified methods that better account for fine spatial variability in fuels resulting from within-stand conditions, treatment prescriptions and machine operators may be needed. Use of LiDAR to predict fuel loading after mastication is a useful approach for managers to understand the efficacy of fuel reduction treatments by providing information that may be helpful for determining areas where treatments can be most beneficial.

Suggested Citation

  • Ryer M. Becker & Robert F. Keefe, 2020. "Prediction of Fuel Loading Following Mastication Treatments in Forest Stands in North Idaho, USA," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(17), pages 1-20, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:17:p:7025-:d:405502
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/17/7025/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/17/7025/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Huggett Jr., Robert J. & Abt, Karen L. & Shepperd, Wayne, 2008. "Efficacy of mechanical fuel treatments for reducing wildfire hazard," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 10(6), pages 408-414, August.
    2. Hartsough, Bruce R. & Abrams, Scott & Barbour, R. James & Drews, Erik S. & McIver, James D. & Moghaddas, Jason J. & Schwilk, Dylan W. & Stephens, Scott L., 2008. "The economics of alternative fuel reduction treatments in western United States dry forests: Financial and policy implications from the National Fire and Fire Surrogate Study," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 10(6), pages 344-354, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Th. Zagas & D. Raptis & D. Zagas & D. Karamanolis, 2013. "Planning and assessing the effectiveness of traditional silvicultural treatments for mitigating wildfire hazard in pine woodlands of Greece," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 65(1), pages 545-561, January.
    2. Chai, Li & Saffron, Christopher M., 2016. "Comparing pelletization and torrefaction depots: Optimization of depot capacity and biomass moisture to determine the minimum production cost," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 163(C), pages 387-395.
    3. Spinelli, Raffaele & Magagnotti, Natascia, 2010. "A tool for productivity and cost forecasting of decentralised wood chipping," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 12(3), pages 194-198, March.
    4. Robert Perlack, Robert & Eaton, Lawrence & Thurhollow, Anthony & Langholtz, Matt & De La Torre Ugarte, Daniel, 2011. "US billion-ton update: biomass supply for a bioenergy and bioproducts industry," MPRA Paper 89324, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 2011.
    5. Prestemon, Jeffrey P. & Abt, Karen L. & Barbour, R. James, 2012. "Quantifying the net economic benefits of mechanical wildfire hazard treatments on timberlands of the western United States," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(C), pages 44-53.
    6. Bagdon, Benjamin A. & Huang, Ching-Hsun & Dewhurst, Stephen, 2016. "Managing for ecosystem services in northern Arizona ponderosa pine forests using a novel simulation-to-optimization methodology," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 324(C), pages 11-27.
    7. Bhuiyan, Tanveer Hossain & Moseley, Maxwell C. & Medal, Hugh R. & Rashidi, Eghbal & Grala, Robert K., 2019. "A stochastic programming model with endogenous uncertainty for incentivizing fuel reduction treatment under uncertain landowner behavior," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 277(2), pages 699-718.
    8. Hjerpe, Evan E. & Colavito, Melanie M. & Waltz, Amy E.M. & Meador, Andrew Sánchez, 2024. "Return on investments in restoration and fuel treatments in frequent-fire forests of the American west: A meta-analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 223(C).
    9. Pokharel, Raju & Latta, Gregory S., 2020. "A network analysis to identify forest merchantability limitations across the United States," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 116(C).
    10. Jones, Kelly W. & Gannon, Benjamin & Timberlake, Thomas & Chamberlain, James L. & Wolk, Brett, 2022. "Societal benefits from wildfire mitigation activities through payments for watershed services: Insights from Colorado," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 135(C).
    11. Eliott, Martyn G. & Venn, Tyron J. & Lewis, Tom & Farrar, Michael & Srivastava, Sanjeev K., 2021. "A prescribed fire cost model for public lands in south-east Queensland," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 132(C).
    12. Canadas, Maria João & Leal, Miguel & Soares, Filipa & Novais, Ana & Ribeiro, Paulo Flores & Schmidt, Luísa & Delicado, Ana & Moreira, Francisco & Bergonse, Rafaello & Oliveira, Sandra & Madeira, Paulo, 2023. "Wildfire mitigation and adaptation: Two locally independent actions supported by different policy domains," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 124(C).
    13. Fischer, A. Paige, 2012. "Identifying policy target groups with qualitative and quantitative methods: The case of wildfire risk on nonindustrial private forest lands," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 25(C), pages 62-71.
    14. Young, Jesse D. & Ager, Alan A., 2024. "Resource objective wildfire leveraged to restore old growth forest structure while stabilizing carbon stocks in the southwestern United States," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 488(C).
    15. Ager, Alan A. & Vogler, Kevin C. & Day, Michelle A. & Bailey, John D., 2017. "Economic Opportunities and Trade-Offs in Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 136(C), pages 226-239.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:17:p:7025-:d:405502. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.