A large database supports the use of simple models of post-fire tree mortality for thick-barked conifers, with less support for other species

Cansler, C. Alina; Hood, Sharon M.; van Mantgem, Phillip J.; Varner, J. Morgan

doi:10.1186/s42408-020-00082-0

Fire Ecology

Table 6 Species-specific models predicting post-fire tree mortality designed for use after the fire occurs (hereafter, “post-fire models”), assessed in this study of post-fire tree mortality models. These models are used in the First Order Fire Effects Modeling system (FOFEM), which predicts post-fire mortality for species in the USA. We evaluated dead and live tree status at three years post-fire, unless otherwise noted

From: A large database supports the use of simple models of post-fire tree mortality for thick-barked conifers, with less support for other species

Species	References	Model form ^a	β₀	β₁	β₂	β₃	β₄	β₅	β₆	β₇
Abies concolor	Hood and Lutes 2017	\( {P}_{\mathrm{m}}=\frac{1}{1+{e}^{\left(-\left({\upbeta}_0+{\upbeta}_1{CLS}^3+{\upbeta}_2 CKR+{\upbeta}_3 DBH+{\upbeta}_4 AB\right)\right)}} \)	−3.5964	0.00000628	0.3019	0.019	0.5209
Abies lasiocarpa ^b	Hood and Lutes 2017	\( {P}_{\mathrm{m}}=\frac{1}{1+{e}^{\left(-\left({\upbeta}_0+{\upbeta}_1{CVS}^3+{\upbeta}_2 CKR\right)\right)}} \)	−2.6036	0.000004587	1.3554
Larix occidentalis	Hood and Lutes 2017	\( {P}_{\mathrm{m}}=\frac{1}{1+{e}^{\left(-\left({\upbeta}_0+{\upbeta}_1{CVS}^2-{\upbeta}_2 CKR\right)\right)}} \)	−3.8458	0.0004	0.6266
Picea engelmannii	Hood and Lutes 2017	\( {P}_{\mathrm{m}}=\frac{1}{1+{e}^{\left(-\left({\upbeta}_0+{\upbeta}_1 CVS+{\upbeta}_2 CKR\right)\right)}} \)	−2.9791	0.0405	1.1596
Pinus contorta	Hood and Lutes 2017	\( {P}_{\mathrm{m}}=\frac{1}{1+{e}^{\left(-\left({\upbeta}_0+{\upbeta}_1{CVS}^3+{\upbeta}_2{CKR}^2-{\upbeta}_3 DBH\right)\right)}} \)	−1.4059	0.000004459	0.2843	0.0485
Pinus lambertiana	Hood and Lutes 2017	\( {P}_{\mathrm{m}}=\frac{1}{1+{e}^{\left(-\left({\upbeta}_0+{\upbeta}_1{CLS}^2+{\upbeta}_2{CKR}^3+{\upbeta}_3 BTL2\right)\right)}} \)	−2.7598	0.000642	0.0386	0.8485
Pinus ponderosa ^c	Hood and Lutes 2017	\( {P}_{\mathrm{m}}=\frac{1}{1+{e}^{\left(-\left({\upbeta}_0+{\upbeta}_1{CVS}^2+{\upbeta}_2 CKR+{\upbeta}_3 BTL2\right)\right)}} \)	−4.1914	0.000376	0.5130	1.5873
Pinus ponderosa ^d	Hood and Lutes 2017	\( {P}_{\mathrm{m}}=\frac{1}{1+{e}^{\left(-\left({\upbeta}_0+{\upbeta}_1{CVK}^2+{\upbeta}_2 CKR+{\upbeta}_3 BTL2\right)\right)}} \)	−3.5729	0.000567	0.4573	1.6075
Pseudotsuga menziesii	Hood and Lutes 2017	\( {P}_m=\frac{1}{1+{e}^{\left[-\left(\begin{array}{c}\\ {}{\upbeta}_0+{\upbeta}_1 CVS-{\upbeta}_2{CVS}^2+{\upbeta}_3{CVS}^3+\\ {}{\upbeta}_4 CKR-{\upbeta}_5 DBH-{\upbeta}_6 BTL+{\upbeta}_7(DBH)(BTL1)\end{array}\right)\right]}} \)	−1.8912	0.07	0.0019	0.000018	0.5840	0.031	0.7959	0.0492

^aVariables used in the model are defined in Table 1
^bPost-fire status data came from one year after the fire for the evaluation of the Abies lasiocarpa post-fire model
^cPost-fire scorch Pinus ponderosa model
^dPost-fire kill Pinus ponderosa model

Back to article page