How robust are burn severity indices when applied in a new region? Evaluation of alternate field-based and remote-sensing methods

Remote Sensing

Volumn 4, Issue 2, 2012, Pages 456-483

  Cansler, C Alina ^a   McKenzie, Donald ^b  

^a University of Washington   (United States)

^b USDA FOREST SERVICE   (United States)

Author keywords

Cascade range; CBI; Change detection; dNBR; Fire ecology; Fire severity; GeoCBI; Landsat; RdNBR; Washington State

Indexed keywords

CBI; CHANGE DETECTION; DNBR; FIRE ECOLOGY; FIRE SEVERITY; GEOCBI; LANDSAT; RDNBR; WASHINGTON STATE;

ECOSYSTEMS; FORESTRY; REFLECTION; REMOTE SENSING;

FIRES;

ECOLOGY; ECOSYSTEMS; FIRES; FORESTRY; REFLECTION; REMOTE SENSING;

EID: 84857829251     PISSN: None     EISSN: 20724292     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3390/rs4020456     Document Type: Article

References (54)

1. Miller, J.D.; Thode, A.E. Quantifying burn severity in a heterogeneous landscape with a relative version of the delta Normalized Burn Ratio (dNBR). Remote Sens. Environ. 2007, 109, 66-80.
2. Miller, J.D.; Knapp, E.E.; Key, C.H.; Skinner, C.N.; Isbell, C.J.; Creasy, R.M.; Sherlock, J.W. Calibration and validation of the relative differenced Normalized Burn Ratio (RdNBR) to three measures of fire severity in the Sierra Nevada and Klamath Mountains, California, USA. Remote Sens. Environ. 2009, 113, 645-656.
3. Key, C.H.; Benson, N.C. Landscape Assessment (LA): Sampling and analysis methods. In FIREMON: Fire Effects Monitoring and Inventory System; Lutes, D.C., Keane, R.E., Caratti, C.H., Key, N.C., Sutherland, S., Eds.; Rocky Mountain Research Station, USDA Forest Service: Fort Collins, CO, USA, 2006; pp. LA-1-LA-55.
4. De Santis, A.; Chuvieco, E. Burn severity estimation from remotely sensed data: Performance of simulation versus empirical models. Remote Sens. Environ. 2007, 108, 422-435.
5. De Santis, A.; Chuvieco, E. GeoCBI: A modified version of the Composite Burn Index for the initial assessment of the short-term burn severity from remotely sensed data. Remote Sens. Environ. 2009, 113, 554-562.
6. Zhu, Z.; Key, C.; Ohlen, D.; Benson, N. Evaluate Sensitivities of Burn-Severity Mapping Algorithms for Different Ecosystems and Fire Histories in the United States; Final Report to the Joint Fire Science Program; Project: JFSP 01-1-4-12; USGS EROS: Sioux Falls, SD, USA, 2006.
7. Key, C.H. Ecological and sampling constraints on defining landscape fire severity. Fire Ecol. 2006, 2, 34-59.
8. Allen, J.L.; Sorbel, B. Assessing the differenced Normalized Burn Ratio's ability to map burn severity in the boreal forest and tundra ecosystems of Alaska's national parks. Int. J. Wildland Fire 2008, 17, 463-475.
9. French, N.H.F.; Kasischke, E.S.; Hall, R.J.; Murphy, K.A.; Verbyla, D.L.; Hoy, E.E.; Allen, J.L. Using Landsat data to assess fire and burn severity in the North American boreal forest region: An overview and summary of results. Int. J. Wildland Fire 2008, 17, 443-462.
10. Keeley, J.E.; Brennan, T.; Pfaff, A.H. Fire severity and ecosytem responses following crown fires in California shrublands. Ecol. Appl. 2008, 18, 1530-1546.
11. Hall, R.J.; Freeburn, J.T.; de Groot, W.J.; Pritchard, J.M.; Lynham, T.J.; Landry, R. Remote sensing of burn severity: Experience from western Canada boreal fires. Int. J. Wildland Fire 2008, 17, 476-489.
12. Soverel, N.O.; Perrakis, D.D.B.; Coops, N.C. Estimating burn severity from Landsat dNBR and RdNBR indices across western Canada. Remote Sens. Environ. 2010, 114, 1896-1909.
13. Soverel, N.O.; Coops, N.C.; Perrakis, D.D.B.; Daniels, L.D.; Gergel, S.E. The transferability of a dNBR-derived model to predict burn severity across 10 wildland fires in western Canada. Int. J. Wildland Fire 2011, 20, 518-531.
14. Picotte, J.J.; Robertson, K.M. Validation of remote sensing of burn severity in south-eastern US ecosystems. Int. J. Wildland Fire 2011, 20, 453-464.
15. Cansler, C.A. Drivers of Burn Severity in the Northern Cascade Range, Washington, USA. M.S. Thesis, School of Forest Resources, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA, 2011.
16. Tabor, R.W.; Crowder, D.F. Hiker's Map of the North Cascades: Routes and Rocks in the Mt. Challenger Quadrangle; The Mountaineers: Seattle, WA, USA, 1968.
17. Lentile, L.B.; Holden, Z.A.; Smith, A.M.S.; Falkowski, M.J.; Hudak, A.T.; Morgan, P.; Lewis, S.A.; Gessler, P.E.; Benson, N.C. Remote sensing techniques to assess active fire characteristics and post-fire effects. Int. J. Wildland Fire 2006, 15, 319-345.
18. Keeley, J.E. Fire intensity, fire severity and burn severity: A brief review and suggested usage. Int. J. Wildland Fire 2009, 18, 116-126.
19. Larson, A.J.; Franklin, J.F. Patterns of conifer tree regeneration following an autumn wildfire event in the western Oregon Cascade Range, USA. Forest Ecol. Manage. 2005, 218, 25-36.
20. López-Garcia, M.J.; Caselles, V. Mapping burns and natural reforestation using Thematic Mapper data. Geocarto Int. 1991, 6, 31-37.
21. US Geological Survey and the US Forest Service. Monitoring Trends in Burn Severity; Assessment of Fire Information; NPS-WANCP-C1LS-20060726; 2011. Available online: http://mtbs.gov/dataquery/individualfiredata.html (accessed on 28 November 2011).
22. Roy, D.P.; Boschetti, L.; Trigg, S.N. Remote Sensing of Fire Severity: Assessing the performance of the Normalized Burn Ratio. IEEE Geosci. Remote. Sens. Lett. 2006, 3, 112-116.
23. Hudak, A.T.; Morgan, P.; Bobbitt, M.J.; Smith, A.M.S.; Lewis, S.A.; Lentile, L.B.; Robichaud, P.R.; Clark, J.T.; McKinley, R.A. The relationship of multispectral satellite imagery to immediate fire effects. Fire Ecol. 2007, 3, 64-90.
24. Brewer, C.K.; Winne, J.C.; Redmond, R.L.; Opitz, D.W.; Mangrich, M.V. Classifying and mapping wildfire severity: A comparison of methods. Photogramm. Eng. Remote Sensing 2005, 71, 1311-1320.
25. Kushla, J.D.; Ripple, W.J. Assessing wildfire effects with Landsat thematic mapper data. Int. J. Remote Sens. 1998, 19, 2493-2507.
26. Lentile, L.B.; Smith, A.M.S.; Hudak, A.T.; Morgan, P.; Bobbitt, M.J.; Lewis, S.A.; Robichaud, P.R. Remote sensing for prediction of 1-year post-fire ecosystem condition. Int. J. Wildland Fire 2009, 18, 594-608.
27. van Wagtendonk, J.W.; Root, R.R.; Key, C.H. Comparison of AVIRIS and Landsat ETM+ detection capabilities for burn severity. Remote Sens. Environ. 2004, 92, 397-408.
28. Eidenshink, J.; Schwind, B.; Brewer, K.; Zhu, Z.; Quayle, B.; Howard, S. A project for monitoring trends in burn severity. Fire Ecol. 2007, 3, 3-21.
29. Monitoring Trends in Burn Severity. What's New: Monitoring Trends in Burn Severity (MTBS); 2011. Available online: http://www.mtbs.gov/whatisnew.html (accessed on 1 June 2011).
30. Kasischke, E.S.; Turetsky, M.R.; Ottmar, R.D.; French, N.H.F.; Hoy, E.E.; Kane, E.S. Evaluation of the composite burn index for assessing fire severity in Alaskan black spruce forests. Int. J. Wildland Fire 2008, 17, 515-526.
31. Veraverbeke, S.; Verstraeten, W.W.; Lhermitte, S.; Goossens, R. Evaluating Landsat Thematic Mapper spectral indices for estimating burn severity of the 2007 Peloponnese wildfires in Greece. Int. J. Wildland Fire 2010, 19, 558-569.
32. Newcomer, M.; Delgado, D.; Gantenbein, C.; Wang, T.; Prichard, S.; Schmidt, C.; Skiles, J.W. Burn Severity Assessment in the Okanogan-Wenatchee Forest Using NASA Satellite Missions. In Proceedings of the ASPRS Annual Conference, Baltimore, MD, USA, 9-13 March 2009; Volume 1.
33. Agee, J.K.; Pickford, S.G. Vegetation and Fuel Mapping of North Cascades National Park Service Complex; National Park Service, Cooperative Park Studies Unit, College of Forest Resources, University of Washington: Seattle, WA, USA. 1985.
34. Franklin, J.F.; Dyrness, C.T. Natural Vegetation of Oregon and Washington, 2nd ed.; Oregon State University Press: Corvallis, OR, USA, 1988.
35. Agee, J.K. Fire Ecology of Pacific Northwest Forests; 1st ed. Washington, DC, USA, 1993.
36. Fahnestock, G.R. Fires, Fuel, and Flora as Factors in Wilderness Management: The Pasayten Case. In Proceedings of 15th Tall Timbers Fire Ecology Conference: Pacific Northwest, Portland, OR, USA, 16-17 October 1974; Volume 15, pp. 33-70.
37. Prichard, S.J.; Peterson, D.L.; Jacobson, K. Fuel treatments reduce the severity of wildfire effects in dry mixed conifer forest, Washington, USA. Can. J. For. Res. 2010, 40, 1615-1626.
38. Lyons-Tinsley, C.; Peterson, D.L. Surface fuel treatments in young, regenerating stands affect wildfire severity in a mixed conifer forest, eastside Cascade Range, Washington, USA. Forest Ecol. Manage. 2012, in press.
39. PRISM Climate Group. United States Average Monthly or Annual Maximum Temperature, 1971-2000; Oregon State University: Corvallis, OR, USA, 2006. Available online: http://prism.oregonstate.edu (accessed on 9 June 2011).
40. PRISM Climate Group. United States Average Monthly or Annual Minimum Temperature, 1971-2000; Oregon State University: Corvallis, OR, USA, 2006. Available online: http://prism.oregonstate.edu (accessed on 9 June 2011).
41. PRISM Climate Group. United States Average Monthly or Annual Precipitation, 1971-2000; Oregon State University: Corvallis, OR, USA, 2006. Available online: http://prism.oregonstate.edu (accessed on 9 June 2011).
42. Prichard, S.J. Tripod fire field data. Unpublished raw data, 2009.
43. Monitoring Trends in Burn Severity. Individual Fire-Level Geospatial Data; RSAC, USFS: Salt Lake City, UT, USA, 2008. Available online: http://www.mtbs.gov/dataquery/individualfiredata.html (accessed on 1 March 2008).
44. Kolden, C.A.; Weisberg, P.J. Assessing accuracy of manually-mapped wildfire perimeters in topographically dissected areas. Fire Ecol.2007, 3, 22-31.
45. Cocke, A.E.; Fulé, P.Z.; Crouse, J.E. Comparison of burn severity assessments using Differenced Normalized Burn Ratio and ground data. Int. J. Wildland Fire 2005, 14, 189-198.
46. Dillon, G.K.; Holden, Z.A.; Morgan, P.; Crimmins, M.A.; Heyerdahl, E.K.; Luce, C. Both topography and climate affected forest and woodland burn severity in two broad regions of western US, 1984 to 2006. Ecosphere 2011, 2, art130.
47. Lillesand, T.M.; Kiefer, R.W.; Chipman, J.W. Digital image interpertation and analysis. In Remote Sensing and Image Interpretation; 6th ed.; Chapter 7; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2007; pp. 585-592.
48. R Development Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing; R Foundation for Statistical Computing: Vienna, Austria, 2010. Available online: http://www.R-project.org/ (accessed on 1 January 2008).
49. Holden, Z.A.; Evans, J.S. Using fuzzy C-means and local autocorrelation to cluster satellite-inferred burn severity classes. Int. J. Wildland Fire 2010, 19, 853-860.
50. Holden, Z.A.; Morgan, P.; Evans, J.S. A predictive model of burn severity based on 20-year satellite-inferred burn severity data in a large southwestern US wilderness area. For. Ecol. Manage 2009, 258, 2399-2406.
51. Thode, A.E.; van Wagtendonk, J.W.; Miller, J.D.; Quinn, J.F. Quantifying the fire regime distributions for severity in Yosemite National Park, California, USA. Int. J. Wildland Fire 2011, 20, 223-239.
52. Lutz, J.A.; Key, C.H.; Kolden, C.A.; Kane, J.T.; van Wagtendonk, J.W. Fire frequency, area burned, and severity: A quantitative approach to defining a normal fire year. Fire Ecol. 2011, 7, 51-65.
53. Duffy, P.A.; Epting, J.; Graham, J.M.; Rupp, T.S.; McGuire, A.D. Analysis of Alaskan burn severity patterns using remotely sensed data. Int. J. Wildland Fire 2007, 16, 277-284.
54. Meigs, G.W.; Kennedy, R.E.; Cohen, W.B. A Landsat time series approach to characterize bark beetle and defoliator impacts on tree mortality and surface fuels in conifer forests. Remote Sens. Environ. 2011, 115, 3707-3718.