2017
DOI: 10.3390/f8110408
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Visual Assessment of Surface Fuel Loads Does Not Align with Destructively Sampled Surface Fuels

Abstract: Fuel load and structure are fundamental drivers of fire behaviour. Accurate data is required for managers and researchers to better understand our ability to alter fire risk. While there are many ways to quantify fuel, visual assessment methods are generally considered the most efficient. Visual hazard assessments are commonly used by managers, government agencies and consultants to provide a fuel hazard score or rating but not a quantity of fuel. Many systems attempt to convert the hazard score or rating to a… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
7
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 14 publications
(7 citation statements)
references
References 31 publications
0
7
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The destructive measurement approach was employed including the collection, drying, and weighting of the fuel material. It is considered one of the most reliable fuel load measurement methods, although mostly used for research rather than operational inventory purposes due to its time-consuming and cost-inefficient nature [16,17].…”
Section: Field Surveymentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The destructive measurement approach was employed including the collection, drying, and weighting of the fuel material. It is considered one of the most reliable fuel load measurement methods, although mostly used for research rather than operational inventory purposes due to its time-consuming and cost-inefficient nature [16,17].…”
Section: Field Surveymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Although destructive sampling is considered one of the most accurate direct methods for quantifying surface fuel load on the field, it is extremely costly and time-consuming, especially when the area to be sampled is large. Given the impracticality of measuring each and every fuel particle over an area of 1000 m 2 , subsampling surface fuels and summarizing the respective measurements (i.e., averaging the measured weights of the subplots) is a commonly adopted method for the reliable description of surface fuel load [6,17,80]. Therefore, within each plot, five subplots of 1 m 2 were randomly placed and the included surface fuels were collected, categorized according to type, and stored in separate paper bags.…”
Section: Field Surveymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…These were included as a separate category. We excluded studies where we could not separate grass and understory (near‐surface or elevated fuel layers) from SL (e.g., fuel studies such as Fensham [1992], McColl‐Gausden and Penman [2017]). If data on the mass of dead standing trees were reported, we added this information as an additional class.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The fuel load of the litter bed was measured by collecting all dead fuel particles < 25 mm in diameter (leaves, twigs, bark and woody fragments) inside a 0.1 mP 2 P sampling ring at each of the four corners of the plot [44]. Fuel was separated into dead fine (<6 mm diameter) and dead coarse (6 ≥ diameter) size classes.…”
Section: Field Measurementsmentioning
confidence: 99%