Geology Reports⌕ Search

USGS · 70032718

Fire intensity, fire severity and burn severity: A brief review and suggested usage

Abstract

Several recent papers have suggested replacing the terminology of fire intensity and fire severity. Part of the problem with fire intensity is that it is sometimes used incorrectly to describe fire effects, when in fact it is justifiably restricted to measures of energy output. Increasingly, the term has created confusion because some authors have restricted its usage to a single measure of energy output referred to as fireline intensity. This metric is most useful in understanding fire behavior in forests, but is too narrow to fully capture the multitude of ways fire energy affects ecosystems. Fire intensity represents the energy released during various phases of a fire, and different metrics such as reaction intensity, fireline intensity, temperature, heating duration and radiant energy are useful for different purposes. Fire severity, and the related term burn severity, have created considerable confusion because of recent changes in their usage. Some authors have justified this by contending that fire severity is defined broadly as ecosystem impacts from fire and thus is open to individual interpretation. However, empirical studies have defined fire severity operationally as the loss of or change in organic matter aboveground and belowground, although the precise metric varies with management needs. Confusion arises because fire or burn severity is sometimes defined so that it also includes ecosystem responses. Ecosystem responses include soil erosion, vegetation regeneration, restoration of community structure, faunal recolonization, and a plethora of related response variables. Although some ecosystem responses are correlated with measures of fire or burn severity, many important ecosystem processes have either not been demonstrated to be predicted by severity indices or have been shown in some vegetation types to be unrelated to severity. This is a critical issue because fire or burn severity are readily measurable parameters, both on the ground and with remote sensing, yet ecosystem responses are of most interest to resource managers.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Jon E. Keeley. 2009. Fire intensity, fire severity and burn severity: A brief review and suggested usage. https://doi.org/10.1071/wf07049

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

Estimating basal area change by tree size with Sentinel-2 imagery following four fires in California, USA

Background Failure to account for tree size when estimating burn severity may not accurately capture post-fire tree mortality and post-fire forest structure. Aims We explored whether basal area mortality by tree size class could be determined from remotely-sensed burn severity indices based solely on Sentinel-2 satellite imagery. Methods We used data collected in four large California wildfires to model the relationship between proportional basal area mortality and burn severity indices derived from Sentinel-2 imagery for three tree diameter class thresholds: small (15 to 30 cm), medium (30 to 50 cm) and large (>50 cm). Key results Our models showed that for a given burn severity index value, the proportion of mortality was greater overall in smaller trees, and that the proportion of mortality in large trees changed more slowly than that of smaller trees with changing burn severity index values. Conclusions We found that models that accounted for tree size can more precisely estimate changes in forest size structure than a similar model that did not account for tree size. Implications Explicitly accounting for tree size can improve estimates of post-fire forest structure, including for large trees which make up the bulk of stand biomass and post-fire seed sources.

California↗

Post-fire soil hydrologic response and recovery in northern California (USA)

Background Wildfires abruptly change landscapes by altering soil properties and vegetation cover. These changes are thought to reduce soil infiltration capacity, making landscapes susceptible to runoff and erosion. However, post-fire soil response is complex and likely varies across locations and time. Aims Here, we aim to understand regional post-fire soil response and recovery by tracking changes across different northern California (USA) lithology and vegetation types. Methods We conducted repeat in situ soil infiltration tests for 3 years post-fire at 31 burned and 10 unburned sites spanning the 2021 Dixie, 2020 LNU Lightning Complex, 2020 Walbridge and 2020 Glass fires. Key results Our two main findings are: (1) burned chaparral soils have increased hydraulic conductivity compared with unburned sites, and (2) infiltration rates return to pre-fire conditions within 3 years across most lithologies and vegetations. Conclusions Recovery might be generalizable by vegetation and lithology but differ regionally, making it important to identify meaningful hydrologic response units (HRUs). Multi-year studies with paired burned and unburned measurements can constrain the recovery timeline and provide information missed by observations solely of burned soils. Implications Understanding where, and for how long, soil remains susceptible to runoff and erosion can help prioritize areas and time periods most in need of mitigation.

California↗

Variability and consistency in wildfire susceptibility: Insights from a national compilation

Background Wildfire risk in the United States is rising and remains a land management priority. The quantitative wildfire risk assessment (QWRA) framework integrates fuels, topography, weather and values at risk to estimate the potential change in value from wildfire. Within this, response functions (RFs) represent how values respond to fire intensity. These are often based on expert judgment, but variation across assessments is unclear. Aims This study uses data from the US Geological Survey (USGS) Wildfire Hazard and Risk Assessment Clearinghouse to characterize consistency and variation across categories and contexts. Methods We applied descriptive statistics to summarize RFs, using tables, box-and-whisker plots and heat maps stratified by highly valued resource or asset (HVRA) category and spatial scale. Key results RFs and value definitions vary, especially for ecosystem-related resources. Some functions, such as for buildings in the wildland–urban interface (WUI), translate well across contexts, while others require more input. Conclusions Some functions are broadly transferable, while others need customization. This analysis provides references and starting points for improvement to RFs in QWRAs. Interpretations Expanding the clearinghouse and dataset and building more transparency in expert elicitation can build trust among communities, agencies and end-users, and can support efficient use of limited resources to mitigate wildfire risk.

International Journal of Wildland Fire↗