Table 4 Summary of statistical comparisons of fuel consumption by sampling protocol, fuel class, and burn treatment. Statistical analyses were performed using a non-parametric Kruskal-Wallis rank-based standard least squares ANOVA aggregated by plot with fixed effect of treatment and random effects of replicate, replicate crossed with treatment, and plot nested within treatment and replicate (response) or fixed effect of treatment and random effect of replicate (variability of response). Response variables include both the mean (± standard error) and coefficient of variation (CV; %). Tests with statistical significance (α = 0.10) are reported in boldface

Response variable (*α = 0.10) Burn treatment Mean (± SE) CV (%)
Woody fuel consumption (Brown 1974) [|Δ|]
Woody fuelbed height [cm]
Mean: F1, 2.2 = 0.30, P = 0.63
CV: F1, 2.0 = 23.88, P = *0.04
DS 5.0 (± 2.4) 629.2
GS 3.9 (± 3.5) 256.9
1-h woody [kg ha−1]
Mean: F1, 2.1 = 0.34, P = 0.61
CV: F1, n/a = 0.00, P = n/a
DS 66.5 (± 231.3) 83.7
GS 217.2 (± 133.1) 400.9
10-h woody [kg ha−1]
Mean: F1, 3.1 = 0.03, P = 0.86
CV: F1, 3.2 = 4.19, P = 0.13
DS 298.6 (± 870.1) 141.3
GS 296.3 (± 323.0) 627.4
100-h woody [kg ha−1]
Mean: F1, 2.7 = 0.41, P = 0.57
CV: F1, 2.8 = 0.29, P = 0.63
DS 4160.0 (± 2,691.6) 128.0
GS 2701.4 (± 1,075.9) 271.3
Litter and duff consumption (nail method) [|Δ|]
Litter [kg ha−1]
Mean: F1, 3.1 = 3.34, P = 0.16
CV: F1, 2.5 = 27.17, P = *0.02
DS 2664.6 (± 372.9) 94.4
GS 4365.0 (± 394.0) 41.1
Duff [kg ha−1]
Mean: F1, 2.0 = 11.34, P = *0.08
CV: F0, 0.0 = n/a, P = n/a
DS 0.0 (± 0.0) n/a
GS 135.6 (± 113.7) n/a