Evaluation on Fire Risk Rating of Forest Stands in Wildland-Urban Interface—A Case Study of Guangzhou City

doi:10.13466/j.cnki.lyzygl.2023.03.008

Abstract

Abstract:

Forest fire risk assessment is the basis for fire prevention.Sixteen major forest stand types in Wildland-Urban Interface of Guangzhou City were studied,using terrestrial laser scanning data for precise,non-destructive analysis results to obtain forest stand characteristics and structural indicators.The fire risk of different forest stand types was comprehensively evaluated with 11 factors relating to the fire risk of forest stands via the analytic hierarchy process.The results showed that Eucalyptus forest(EF),Cunninghamia lanceolata forest(CLF) and Castanopsis chinensis forest(CCF) were classified as higher fire risk,specifically,EF with fire risk Class IV,CLF and CCF with fire risk Class III.The fire risk of mixed fir and broad forest,Acacia auriculiformis forest,Liquidambar formosana forest,Cinnamomum camphora forest,Schefflera heptaphylla forest,Castanea henryi forest,Machilus chinensis forest,Acacia auriculiformis forest,Elaeocarpus rugosus forest,Acacia confuse forest,Machilus nanmu forest and broadleaf mixed forest decreased in order.Among them,the mixed fir and broad forest had the highest fire risk in the secondary fire risk forest.The fire risk level of Schima superba forest was classified as Class I,with a low fire risk.By analyzing the stand characteristics and structure of medium and high fire risk forest types,targeted combustible material control and modifications were removed to reduce stand combustibility and to improve the efficiency of forest fire prevention.

Key words: wildland-urban interface, forest fire risk class, combustible material control, terrestrial laser scanning, analytic hierarchy process

CLC Number:

S762.3

LUO Dan, WANG Qingfei, CHAO Bixiao, LI Le, HAO Zezhou, LU Yuan, WANG Cheng, WU Ruichen, LIU Feipeng, PEI Nancai. Evaluation on Fire Risk Rating of Forest Stands in Wildland-Urban Interface—A Case Study of Guangzhou City[J]. FOREST RESOURCES WANAGEMENT, 2023, (3): 56-64.

Figures/Tables 8

Fig.1

Tab.1

Basic characteristics of the sampling plots

林分火险因子	描述
植被类型(C1)	根据林分树种叶的形状,将林分分为阔叶林、针叶林、针阔混交林,通常阔叶林、针阔混交林、针叶林的火灾危险性依次增强。
优势种燃烧级别(C2)	林分优势树种燃烧级别越高,林分燃烧性越高,火险等级越高,优势种燃烧级别根据《全国森林火险区划等级》 (LY/T 1063—2008)确定。
生物量(C3)	生物量为样地所有乔木的地上生物量,生物量越高,一定程度上说明林分的成熟度高、林龄大,且发生火灾后燃烧的物质多,火灾强度大,危险性高。
平均枝下高(C4)	样地所有胸径大于5cm乔木的枝下高平均值,枝下高越高,火灾危险性越低。
平均树高(C5)	样地所有胸径大于5cm乔木的平均树高,通常乔木越高,树种抗火性越强,火灾危险性越低。
平均胸径(C6)	样地所有胸径大于5cm乔木的平均胸径,通常胸径越大,树种抗火性越强,火灾危险性越低。
地表可燃物载量(C7)	样地内1.5m以下所有植被的单位面积质量,地表可燃物载量越低,越不易发生地表火,或火灾危险性越低。
冠层可燃物载量(C8)	样地内所有胸径大于0.5cm乔木的冠层单位面积质量,冠层可燃物载量越高,发生火灾后,冠火强度越大,火灾危险性越高。
树冠火引发层可燃物载量(C9)	样地内所有树高小于3m乔木的单位面积质量,树冠火引发层可燃物载量越高,地表火越容易引发树冠火,林地火灾危险性越高。
郁闭度(C10)	样地中乔木树冠在阳光直射下在地面的总投影面积(冠幅)与此林地(林分)总面积的比值,反映林分的密度。郁闭度越高,林内透光越小,阳性杂草越少,且林内越易形成低温、湿润的环境,火灾危险性越小。
冠层连续性(C11)	所有树高大于5m乔木的树冠垂直投影面积之和与样地面积的比值,反映冠层的连续性。冠层连续性越高,树冠火越容易蔓延,火灾危险性越高。

Tab.1

Tab.2

Fig.2

Tab.3

Tab.4

Tab.5

Fig.3

References 30

[1]	Mota P, Reis B, Zatelli K, et al. Forest fire hazard mapping of a state park in the Atlantic forest,MG,Brazil[J]. Australian Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences, 2016, 10(15):223-230.
[2]	Coban H O, Erdi'n C. Forest fire risk assessment using GIS and AHP integration in Bucak forest enterprise,Turkey[J]. Applied Ecology and Environmental Research, 2020, 18(1):1567-1583. doi: 10.15666/aeer
[3]	Mitsopoulos I, Trapatsas P, Xanthopoulos G. SYPYDA:A software tool for fire management in Mediterranean pine forests of Greece[J]. Computersand Electronics in Agriculture, 2016, 121:195-199.
[4]	李缙. 沈阳马耳山森林群落地表可燃物及火险等级的研究[D]. 沈阳: 沈阳农业大学, 2017.
[5]	徐丽华. 地被可燃物与林型火险等级划分[J]. 辽宁林业科技, 2001(6):3-6.
[6]	宗学政, 田晓瑞, 刘畅. 林分尺度上的森林火灾风险评估方法及应用[J]. 林业科学研究, 2021, 34(5):69-78.
[7]	晏颖杰, 范少辉, 官凤英. 地基激光雷达技术在森林调查中的应用研究进展[J]. 世界林业研究, 2018, 31(4):42-47.
[8]	Lim K, Treitz P, Wulder M, et al. LiDAR remote sensing of forest structure[J]. Progress in Physical Geography, 2003, 27(1):88-106.
[9]	Wilson N, Bradstock R, Bedward M. Detecting the effects of logging and wildfire on forest fuel structure using terrestrial laser scanning(TLS)[J]. Forest Ecology and Management, 2021, 488:119037. doi: 10.1016/j.foreco.2021.119037
[10]	Stewart S I, Radeloff V C, Hammer R B, et al. Defining the wildland-urban interface[J]. Journal of Forestry, 2007, 105(4):201-207.
[11]	Gibbons P, Van Bommel L, Gill A M, et al. Land management practices associated with house loss in wildfires[J]. PLoS One, 2012, 7(1):e29212. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0029212
[12]	FXPC/LC F-01,森林可燃物标准地调查技术规范[S].
[13]	Eskandari S. A new approach for forest fire risk modeling using fuzzy AHP and GIS in Hyrcanian forests of Iran[J]. Arabian Journal of Geosciences, 2017, 10(8):1-13. doi: 10.1007/s12517-016-2714-1
[14]	Nuthammachot N, Stratoulias D. Multi-criteria decision analysis for forest fire risk assessment by coupling AHP and GIS:Method and case study[J]. Environment,Development and Sustainability, 2021, 23:17443-17458. doi: 10.1007/s10668-021-01394-0
[15]	Chavan M, Das K, Suryawanshi R. Forest fire risk zonation using remote sensing and GIS in Huynial watershed,Tehri Garhwal district,UA[J]. International Journal of Basic and Applied Research, 2012, 2(7):6-12.
[16]	Beverly J L, Leverkus S E, Cameron H, et al. Stand-level fuel reduction treatments and fire behaviour in canadian boreal conifer forests[J]. Fire, 2020, 3(3):35. doi: 10.3390/fire3030035
[17]	LY/T 1063—2008,全国森林火险区划等级[S].
[18]	李颖, 严思晓, 张秀芳, 等. 武夷山国家公园内4种森林类型地表可燃物热值特征比较[J]. 应用与环境生物学报, 2020, 26(6):1385-1391.
[19]	Arroyo L A, Pascual C, Manzanera J A. Fire models and methods to map fuel types:The role of remote sensing[J]. Forest Ecology and Management, 2008, 256(6):1239-1252. doi: 10.1016/j.foreco.2008.06.048
[20]	李炳怡, 刘冠宏, 舒立福. 北京门头沟区主要林分类型地表火行为模拟研究[J]. 北京林业大学学报, 2022, 44(6):96-105.
[21]	解国磊, 丁新景, 马风云, 等. 鲁中山区主要森林类型易燃可燃物垂直分布及其燃烧性[J]. 西北林学院学报, 2016, 31(1):158-163.
[22]	王叁, 树奎, 李德, 等. 云南松林可燃物的垂直分布及影响因子[J]. 应用生态学报, 2013, 24(2):331-337.
[23]	胡海清, 鞠琳. 小兴安岭8个阔叶树种的燃烧性能[J]. 林业科学, 2008, 44(5):90-95.
[24]	Kataki R, Konwer D. Fuelwood characteristics of some indigenous woody species of north-east India[J]. Biomass and Bioenergy, 2001, 20(1):17-23. doi: 10.1016/S0961-9534(00)00060-X
[25]	Cohn J S, Lunt I D, Ross K A, et al. How do slow-growing,fire-sensitive conifers survive in flammable eucalypt woodlands?[J]. Journal of Vegetation Science, 2011, 22(3):425-435. doi: 10.1111/jvs.2011.22.issue-3
[26]	Trauernicht C, Murphy B P, Portner T E, et al. Tree cover-fire interactions promote the persistence of a fire-sensitive conifer in a highly flammable savanna[J]. Journal of Ecology, 2012, 100(4):958-968. doi: 10.1111/jec.2012.100.issue-4
[27]	Ager A, Preisler H K, Arca B, et al. Wildfire risk estimation in the Mediterranean area[J]. Environmetrics, 2014, 25(6):384-396. doi: 10.1002/env.v25.6
[28]	Pourtaghi Z S, Pourghasemi H R, Aretano R, et al. Investigation of general indicators influencing on forest fire and its susceptibility modeling using different data mining techniques[J]. Ecological Indicators, 2016, 64:72-84. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2015.12.030
[29]	田晓瑞, 舒立福, 乔启宇, 等. 南方林区防火树种的筛选研究[J]. 北京林业大学学报, 2001(5):43-47.
[30]	田晓瑞, 舒立福. 防火林带的应用与研究现状[J]. 世界林业研究, 2000, 13(1):20-26.

样地编号	林分类型	C1	C2	C3/ (t/hm²)	C4/ m	C5/ m	C6/ m	C7/ (t/hm²)	C8/ (t/hm²)	C9/ (t/hm²)	C10	C11
1	润楠林	阔叶林	难燃	205.10	1.29	10.7	0.17	6.33	61.53	3.90	0.75	1.86
2	华润楠林	阔叶林	可燃	241.74	1.30	10.3	0.23	5.90	82.19	1.29	0.78	2.87
3	樟树林	阔叶林	可燃	281.90	1.51	12.5	0.21	5.86	107.12	1.53	0.78	3.24
4	锥栗林	阔叶林	可燃	299.29	1.26	11.1	0.17	6.88	104.75	2.78	0.86	2.55
5	黧蒴林	阔叶林	可燃	290.16	1.43	9.7	0.16	7.12	92.85	1.24	0.75	2.89
6	台湾相思林	阔叶林	可燃	177.32	2.27	12.3	0.20	6.13	44.33	2.50	0.75	2.34
7	阔叶混交林	阔叶林	难燃	192.31	1.52	12.8	0.23	7.45	69.23	2.44	0.76	2.27
8	桉树林	阔叶林	易燃	352.32	1.52	14.9	0.18	8.55	133.88	0.69	0.81	3.21
9	大叶相思林	阔叶林	可燃	178.73	1.38	12.4	0.17	6.40	51.83	1.58	0.75	2.71
10	尖叶杜英林	阔叶林	可燃	127.08	1.76	11.8	0.17	7.16	41.94	0.41	0.72	2.61
11	木荷林	阔叶林	难燃	168.37	2.43	13.1	0.18	2.96	42.09	0.68	0.81	2.33
12	杉木纯林	针叶林	可燃	125.11	3.29	15.2	0.23	10.64	25.02	1.62	0.64	1.28
13	杉阔混交林	针阔混交林	可燃	196.61	1.41	10.2	0.12	8.69	45.22	2.29	0.71	2.21
14	米锥林	阔叶林	难燃	263.92	1.27	9.2	0.17	6.63	97.65	6.97	0.69	2.74
15	鸭脚木林	阔叶林	可燃	301.77	1.34	11.2	0.18	6.65	87.51	0.47	0.76	2.98
16	枫香林	阔叶林	易燃	136.89	1.59	12.0	0.30	3.84	56.12	4.81	0.76	1.65

SFR取值区间	林分火险等级	火灾危险性
[0, 0.3]	一级	低
(0.3, 0.5]	二级	中
(0.5, 0.6]	三级	较高
(0.6, 1]	四级	高

准则层(B)		子准则层(C)		指标层(D)
指标	权重W_B	指标	权重W_C	指标	权重W_D
林分群落特征因子 (B1)	0.608	植被类型(C1)	0.157	针叶林(D1)	0.090
				阔叶林(D2)	0.045
				针阔混交林(D3)	0.022
		优势种燃烧级别(C2)	0.199	难燃(D4)	0.017
				可燃(D5)	0.054
				易燃(D6)	0.127
		生物量(C3)	0.082	0~<100 t/hm²(D7)	0.008
				100~<180 t/hm²(D8)	0.013
				180~<260 t/hm²(D9)	0.023
				≥260 t/hm²(D10)	0.038
		平均枝下高(C4)	0.093	0~<1 m(D11)	0.041
				1~<1.5 m(D12)	0.027
				1.5~<2 m(D13)	0.014
				2~<2.5 m(D14)	0.008
				≥2.5 m(D15)	0.004
		平均树高(C5)	0.043	0~<8 m(D16)	0.021
				8~<11 m(D17)	0.013
				11~<14 m(D18)	0.005
				≥14 m(D19)	0.003
		平均胸径(C6)	0.034	0~<0.11 m(D20)	0.015
				0.11~<0.16 m(D21)	0.009
				0.16~<0.21 m(D22)	0.005
				0.21~<0.26 m(D23)	0.003
				≥0.26 m(D24)	0.002
林分群落垂直结构因子 (B2)	0.272	地表可燃物载量(C7)	0.165	0~<4 t/hm²(D25)	0.016
				4~<8 t/hm²(D26)	0.042
				≥8 t/hm²(D27)	0.108
		冠层可燃物载量(C8)	0.033	0~<25 t/hm²(D28)	0.002
				25~<50 t/hm²(D29)	0.003
				50~<75 t/hm²(D30)	0.005
				75~<100 t/hm²(D31	0.008
				≥100 t/hm²(D32)	0.016
		树冠火引发层可燃物载量(C9)	0.074	0~<2 t/hm²(D33)	0.005
				2~<4 t/hm²(D34)	0.008
				4~<6 t/hm²(D35)	0.019
				≥6 t/hm²(D36)	0.041
林分群落水平结构因子 (B3)	0.12	郁闭度(C10)	0.08	0~<0.7(D37)	0.051
				0.7~<0.8(D38)	0.021
				≥0.8(D39)	0.008
		冠层连续性(C11)	0.04	0~<2(D40)	0.003
				2~<2.5(D41)	0.005
				2.5~<3(D42)	0.012
				≥3(D43)	0.020

指标级	λ_max	CI	RI	CR
A-Bi	3.074	0.037	0.52	0.071
B1-Ci	6.242	0.048	1.26	0.038
B2-Ci	3.074	0.037	0.52	0.071
B3-Ci	2.000	0.000	0.00	0.000
C1-Di	3.000	0.000	0.52	0.000
C2-Di	3.054	0.027	0.52	0.052
C3-Di	4.031	0.010	0.89	0.012
C4-Di	5.207	0.052	1.12	0.046
C5-Di	4.000	0.000	0.89	0.000
C6-Di	5.103	0.026	1.12	0.023
C7-Di	3.018	0.009	0.52	0.017
C8-Di	5.079	0.019	1.12	0.018
C9-Di	4.000	0.000	0.89	0.000
C10-Di	3.038	0.019	0.52	0.037
C11-Di	4.000	0.000	0.89	0.000