Skip to Main Content
Comparing potential fuel treatment trade-off modelsAuthor(s): David R. Weise; Richard Kimberlin; Mike Arbaugh; Jim Chew; Greg \r\nJones; Jim Merzenich; Marc Wiitala; Robert Keane; Mark Schaaf; Jan Van Wagtendonk
Source: In: Arthaud, Greg J.; Barrett, Tara M., eds. 2003. Systems Analysis in Forest Resources: Proceedings of the 8<sup>th</sup> Symposium; Snowmass Village, CO. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers: p. 15-25
Publication Series: Miscellaneous Publication
PDF: View PDF (373 KB)
DescriptionUnderstanding the trade~offs between short-term and long-term consequences\r\nof fire impacts on ecosystems is needed before a comprehensive fuels\r\nmanagement program can be implemented nationally. We are evaluating 3\r\npotential trade-off models at 8 locations in major U.S. fuel types, We present results of the initial testing of the 3 selected models/modelling approaches and a 4th model on the Bitterroot National Forest (BNF) in western Montana. The selected models/modelling approaches were 1) the Fire Emissions Trade-off Model (FETM), 2) sequential use of the SIMPPLLE and MAGIS models, 3) the Vegetation Dynamics Development Tool (VDDT), and 4) the LANDscape\r\nSUccession Model (LANDSUM). We simulated 3 fuel treatments over 50\r\nyears: 1) no action, 2) prescribed burning in ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir types at 2 different rates, and 3) timber harvesting that returns the stand to a reproduction stage. Simulation results for all models suggested that the acreage of Douglas-fir and ponderosa pine types would not be appreciably altered by the fuel treatments. Most models suggested the harvest treatment would reduce area burned by wildfire and smoke emissions; some models suggested the prescribed fire treatment would reduce wildfire acreage. All models suggested that the harvest treatment would reduce acreage of pole-size trees; some models suggested the fire treatment would increase acreage of sapling-size trees.
- You may send email to firstname.lastname@example.org to request a hard copy of this publication.
- (Please specify exactly which publication you are requesting and your mailing address.)
- We recommend that you also print this page and attach it to the printout of the article, to retain the full citation information.
- This article was written and prepared by U.S. Government employees on official time, and is therefore in the public domain.
CitationWeise, David R.; Kimberlin, Richard; Arbaugh, Mike; Chew, Jim; \r\nJones, Greg; Merzenich, Jim; Wiitala, Marc; Keane, Robert; Schaaf, Mark; Van Wagtendonk, Jan. 2003. Comparing potential fuel treatment trade-off models. In: Arthaud, Greg J.; Barrett, Tara M., eds. 2003. Systems Analysis in Forest Resources: Proceedings of the 8th Symposium; Snowmass Village, CO. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers: p. 15-25
Keywordsfuels, prescribed fire, landscape modelling
- Antelope bitterbrush and Scouler's willow response to a shelterwood harvest and prescribed burn in western Montana
- The setting and historical background
- ECO-Report - The case for research: How it makes a difference to managers
XML: View XML