Growth form and functional traits influence the shoot flammability of tropical rainforest species

Potts, Ebony; Tng, David Y. P.; Apgaua, Deborah M. G.; Curran, Timothy J.; Engert, Jayden E.; Laurance, Susan G.

doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2022.120485

Cited by 15 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 30 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Our study also shows that leaf dry matter content (LDMC) is a signi cant predictor of burn time for groundcover and shrub as well as a signi cant predictor of the burnt biomass of groundcover and shrubs. This is consistent with the literature showing that leaves with a higher water content are more resistant to burning (Gill 1996;Potts et al 2022).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 93%

“…Lower strata life forms tend to have lower maximum temperatures, shorter burn times, and less biomass loss while taller plants experienced a converse of these measurements. A recent study by Potts et al (2022) similarly showed that tree lifeforms are more ammable than shrub lifeforms, potentially because tree canopies experience higher temperatures.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Various authors have proposed that plant ammability is in uenced by leaf traits (Krix and Murray 2018; Potts et al 2022), and our results are in agreement. A recent study by Potts et al (2022) similarly showed that tree lifeforms are more ammable than shrub lifeforms, potentially because tree canopies experience higher temperatures. Previous studies have shown that leaf area (LA) is a strong predictor of ammability with leaves that are longer, wider, and have a larger area more likely to ignite (Murray et al 2013).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The 70 cm long shoot samples were air-dried at room temperature for 24 hr prior to ammability measurements. We conducted plant ammability measurements largely following the methods described by Jaureguiberry et al (2011) and Potts et al (2022), burning the plant samples and recording three ammability measurements: maximum temperatures (°C), burn time (s), and burnt biomass (%).…”

Section: Flammability Measurementsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The burning apparatus has been described in detail previously (see Potts et al 2022) but brie y, it consists of a grill with gas burners which serve as a safe and standardized way to measure shoot-level ammability (Jaureguiberry et al 2011). Ambient air temperature was recorded using Digitech QM-1602 Digital Thermometer with K-Type thermocouples to ensure radiant heat was maintained between 100°C − 150°C before each burn.…”

Section: Flammability Measurementsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Fighting fire with food: Assessing the flammability of crop plant species for building fire resilient agroforestry systems

Pacheco

Goodman

Hankenson

et al. 2022

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Climate change has increased drought and wildfire frequency in recent decades and poses a significant risk to agricultural lands and private property. Given the negative impact of fires on the livelihoods of farmers, it is crucial to assess the flammability of crop species and find ways of mitigating risk of fire in agricultural lands. We quantify the flammability of 66 tropical species of fiber, food, and spice crops by assessing maximum temperature, burn time, and burned biomass and assessed key leaf traits from a subset of these species to look at the interaction of leaf area (LA) and leaf dry matter content (LDMC) with life form type. We found groundcover, shrubs, and vines to be generally less flammable than canopy and subcanopy plants. We also found LDMC to be a consistent and significant predictor of all three flammability measures regardless of plant life form. Our results equips farmers and policy makers with information for constructing more fire resilient agricultural landscapes and pursuing nature-based solutions to mitigate fire risk, such as by planting green firebreaks with fire retardant species.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 93%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%