Repository logo
 

Comparing crown fire predictions in ponderosa pine stands among four fire behavior models

Simple item page
dc.contributor.authorNey, Jacob, author
dc.contributor.authorHoffman, Chad, advisor
dc.contributor.authorLinn, Rodman, committee member
dc.contributor.authorFischer, Emily, committee member
dc.date.accessioned2024-09-09T20:51:10Z
dc.date.available2024-09-09T20:51:10Z
dc.date.issued2024
dc.description.abstractFire and land managers commonly use fire behavior modeling systems to support their planning and decision-making process. Fire modeling systems have been increasingly used across the western United States to plan fuel treatments that reduce hazard fuels, especially as a drier climate has resulted in more frequent high severity wildfire. Given differences in model types, approaches, assumptions, and sensitivity to various input parameters, modeling systems can produce different predictions and lead to different management decisions. Variability arising from model selection results in increased uncertainty within the decision-making framework. Multi-model comparisons help identify areas of model agreement and disagreement, reduce uncertainty associated with management decisions, and identify directions for future experimentation. Here, I compare predictions of fire type and crown fire rate of spread (ROS) among four modeling systems that represent a range of model types and complexities—Wildland-urban interface Fire Dynamics Simulator (WFDS), QUIC-Fire, a Rothermel-based modeling framework, and Crown Fire Initiation and Spread (CFIS). Comparisons (n = 297) were made based on a range of forest structure and environmental conditions representative of treated and untreated ponderosa pine forest stands in the southern Rocky Mountains. All four models predicted crown fire occurrence for 71% of simulations in total. WFDS, QUIC-Fire, and CFIS agreed on fire type more than 65% of the time. Rothermel predicted crown fire for 41% of simulations with ROS predictions 45% lower than the other models. Models tended to agree on crown fire occurrence in scenarios with a low canopy base height and greater surface and canopy fuel loading, indicating lower uncertainty in predicted fire behavior among models when fuel hazard is greatest. Differences among model predictions were more evident in scenarios with greater canopy base heights, moderate surface and canopy fuel levels, and at lower windspeeds. These results suggest that uncertainty introduced by model selection is likely greatest for designing and evaluation of fuel treatments, and that further research on fire behavior in treated forests stands is needed.
dc.format.mediumborn digital
dc.format.mediummasters theses
dc.identifierNey_colostate_0053N_18489.pdf
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/10217/239149
dc.languageEnglish
dc.language.isoeng
dc.publisherColorado State University. Libraries
dc.relation.ispartof2020-
dc.rightsCopyright and other restrictions may apply. User is responsible for compliance with all applicable laws. For information about copyright law, please see https://libguides.colostate.edu/copyright.
dc.subjectfire behavior modeling
dc.subjectQUIC-Fire
dc.subjectWFDS
dc.subjectmulti-model comparison
dc.subjectCFIS
dc.subjectRothermel
dc.titleComparing crown fire predictions in ponderosa pine stands among four fire behavior models
dc.typeText
dcterms.rights.dplaThis Item is protected by copyright and/or related rights (https://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/). You are free to use this Item in any way that is permitted by the copyright and related rights legislation that applies to your use. For other uses you need to obtain permission from the rights-holder(s).
thesis.degree.disciplineForest and Rangeland Stewardship
thesis.degree.grantorColorado State University
thesis.degree.levelMasters
thesis.degree.nameMaster of Science (M.S.)

Files

Original bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Thumbnail Image
Name:
Ney_colostate_0053N_18489.pdf
Size:
441.92 KB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Download

Collections

2020-
Theses and Dissertations