Abstract

Spectral indices derived from optical remote sensing data have been widely used for fire-severity classification in forests from local to global scales. However, comparative analyses of multiple indices across diverse forest types are few. This represents an information gap for fire management agencies in areas like temperate south-eastern Australia, which is characterised by a diversity of natural forests that vary in structure, and in the fire-regeneration strategies of the dominant trees. We evaluate 10 spectral indices across eight areas burnt by wildfires in 1998, 2006, 2007, and 2009 in south-eastern Australia. These wildfire areas encompass 13 forest types, which represent 86% of the 7.9M ha region’s forest area. Forest types were aggregated into six forest groups based on their fire-regeneration strategies (seeders, resprouters) and structure (tree height and canopy cover). Index performance was evaluated for each forest type and forest group by examining its sensitivity to four fire-severity classes (unburnt, low, moderate, high) using three independent methods (anova, separability, and optimality). For the best-performing indices, we calculated index-specific thresholds (by forest types and groups) to separate between the four severity classes, and evaluated the accuracy of fire-severity classification on independent samples. Our results indicated that the best-performing indices of fire severity varied with forest type and group. Overall accuracy for the best-performing indices ranged from 0.50 to 0.78, and kappa values ranged from 0.33 (fair agreement) to 0.77 (substantial agreement), depending on the forest group and index. Fire severity in resprouter open forests and woodlands was most accurately mapped using the delta Normalised Burnt ratio (dNBR). In contrast, dNDVI (delta Normalised difference vegetation index) performed best for open forests with mixed fire responses (resprouters and seeders), and dNDWI (delta Normalised difference water index) was the most accurate for obligate seeder closed forests. Our analysis highlighted the low sensitivity of all indices to fire impacts in Rainforest. We conclude that the optimal spectral index for quantifying fire severity varies with forest type, but that there is scope to group forests by structure and fire-regeneration strategy to simplify fire-severity classification in heterogeneous forest landscapes.

Highlights

  • Wildfire is considered an important disturbance agent, with a long history of shaping landscape patterns and ecosystem processes, relating to both vegetation distributions and physical structures [1,2]

  • The dMSAVI and the dNBRT were identified as indices that performed well for more than one forest group, lower average scores (CF-S, 1.63; Low woodland resprouter; low woodland resprouter (LW-R), 1.25) indicated reduced consistency in distinguishing between fire-severity classes

  • No spectral index successfully distinguished between fire-severity classes in Closed-forest, the sole representative of the Closed forest resprouter group. dVI6T, dBAI, dMSAVI, and dCSI were not among the best-performing indices for any of our forest groups, reflecting relatively poor capacity to distinguish between fire-severity classes in most of the forest types studied (Table 4)

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Wildfire is considered an important disturbance agent, with a long history of shaping landscape patterns and ecosystem processes, relating to both vegetation distributions and physical structures [1,2]. Spectral indices based on passive data are popular for providing information on fire severity due to their computational and conceptual simplicity [11]. Such indices often combine information from visible, near-infrared, and mid-infrared portions of the electromagnetic spectrum [7,12,13,14]. These bands are sensitive to variations in soil colour (visible and mid-infrared), soil composition (mid-infrared), and moisture and chlorophyll (near infrared), which are all land and vegetation properties that can be significantly affected by fire [14]

Objectives
Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call