Developing the LANDFIRE Fire Regime Data Products

OVERVIEW Developing nationally consistent data products describing ecological departure from historical conditions and historical fire regimes is a main component of the LANDFIRE Project. The purpose of this document is to describe the development of LANDFIRE data products related to characterizing historical vegetation conditions and fire regimes, these include: 1) maps of potential vegetation (an important pre-cursor to LANDFIRE fire regime products); models of vegetation dynamics, maps characterizing current seral status (succession class), maps of fire regime groups (FRG), and maps of fire regime condition class (FRCC) and FRCC departure. Potential vegetation and succession class maps are developed using gradient modeling and remote sensing methodologies; vegetation dynamics models are created at regional workshops organized by The Nature Conservancy; FRG maps are developed by combining maps of simulated mean fire return interval and percent replacement-severity fire (http://www.frcc.gov, NIFC 2007); and FRCC and FRCC departure maps are developed using the methods described in the interagency FRCC guidebook (http://www.frcc.gov). All LANDFIRE data products are available at http://www.landfire.gov.

[1]  R Daubenmire,et al.  Vegetation: identification of typal communities. , 1966, Science.

[2]  Robert D. Pfister,et al.  Classifying Forest Habitat Types Based on Potential Climax Vegetation , 1980 .

[3]  W. C. Fischer,et al.  Predicting postfire plant succession for fire management planning. , 1980 .

[4]  Robert E. Keane,et al.  Forest succession on four habitat types in western Montana , 1985 .

[5]  R. Keane,et al.  Fire-BGC: A mechanistic ecological process model for simulating fire succession on coniferous forest landscapes of the northern Rocky Mountains. Forest Service research paper , 2017 .

[6]  David L. Bunnell,et al.  Fire and land management planning and implementation across multiple scales , 2001 .

[7]  R. Keane,et al.  Estimating historical range and variation of landscape patch dynamics: limitations of the simulation approach , 2002 .

[8]  M. Rowland,et al.  Disturbance departure and fragmentation of natural systems in the interior Columbia basin. , 2003 .

[9]  J. Chew,et al.  Integrating Knowledge for Simulating Vegetation Change at Landscape Scales , 2004 .

[10]  D. Mladenoff.  LANDIS and forest landscape models , 2004 .

[11]  Md. Salequzzaman,et al.  Ecoregions: A Spatial Framework for Environmental Management , 2005 .

[12]  Chapter 7 - Mapping potential vegetation type for the LANDFIRE Prototype Project , 2006 .

[13]  M. Rollins,et al.  The LANDFIRE prototype project: Nationally consistent and locally relevant geospatial data for wildland fire management , 2006 .

[14]  John F. Caratti.  Chapter 4 - The LANDFIRE Prototype Project reference database , 2006 .

[15]  Lisa M. Holsinger,et al.  Chapter 10 - Using simulation modeling to assess historical reference conditions for vegetation and fire regimes for the LANDFIRE Prototype Project , 2006 .

[16]  Lisa M. Holsinger,et al.  Chapter 5 - Development of biophysical gradient layers for the LANDFIRE Prototype Project , 2006 .

[17]  D. Bedunah,et al.  Chapter 9 - Vegetation succession modeling for the LANDFIRE Prototype Project , 2006 .

[18]  Lisa M. Holsinger,et al.  Simulating historical landscape dynamics using the landscape fire succession model LANDSUM version 4.0 , 2006 .

[19]  G. Nowacki,et al.  Ecological Subregions: Sections and Subsections for the conterminous United States , 2007 .

[20]  R. Keane,et al.  Using simulated historical time series to prioritize fuel treatments on landscapes across the United States: The LANDFIRE prototype project , 2007 .