FOREST RESOURCES WANAGEMENT ›› 2023, Vol. 0 ›› Issue (3): 56-64.doi: 10.13466/j.cnki.lyzygl.2023.03.008
• Scientific Research • Previous Articles Next Articles
LUO Dan1(), WANG Qingfei2, CHAO Bixiao3, LI Le2, HAO Zezhou2, LU Yuan4, WANG Cheng5, WU Ruichen2, LIU Feipeng1, PEI Nancai2()
Received:
2023-04-11
Revised:
2023-04-25
Online:
2023-06-28
Published:
2023-08-09
CLC Number:
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, 0(3): 56-64.
Add to citation manager EndNote|Ris|BibTeX
URL: http://www.lyzygl.com.cn/EN/10.13466/j.cnki.lyzygl.2023.03.008
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.2
Forest stand characteristics and structural fire risk indicators
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 |
Tab.4
Indicators and weights at all levels of the fire risk evaluation index system
准则层(B) | 子准则层(C) | 指标层(D) | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
指标 | 权重WB | 指标 | 权重WC | 指标 | 权重WD | ||
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 |
Tab.5
Heterogeneity test results of fire risk index weight
指标级 | λmax | 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 |
[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. |
[1] | JIANG Xuwang, YU Shuhan, LI Yihui, ZHAN Liyu. Research on Evaluation of Elderly Healing Forest Wellness Base [J]. FOREST RESOURCES WANAGEMENT, 2023, 0(3): 71-79. |
[2] | LIU Lijie, XIE Zhuohong, LEI Ming, SHI Yuemou, LI Shengqiang, LIU Ping. Evaluation of Forest Quality Based on Analytic Hierarchy Process —A Case Study in Liuxihe Forest Farm,Guangzhou [J]. FOREST RESOURCES WANAGEMENT, 2022, 0(6): 89-94. |
[3] | HAO Min, TANG Hui, WANG Manlian, LIU Baoyu, CHEN Yujiao. Evaluation and Screening of Ornamental Illicium difengpi Germplasm in Terms of Leaf Morphology Using Analytic Hierarchy Process Method [J]. FOREST RESOURCES WANAGEMENT, 2022, 0(5): 136-144. |
[4] | HU Jiayi, WANG Ruihui, LIU Kaili, ZHANG Bin, ZHOU Yuhuai, LI Xuehui, GONG Yingyun. Effects of Thinning on Ecological Benefits of Cryptomeria fortunei Plantations in High Altitude Area of Western Sichuan [J]. FOREST RESOURCES WANAGEMENT, 2022, 0(4): 80-88. |
[5] | XIE Xiansheng, SU Hongxin, YANG Yuanzheng, LI Chunhai, LU Feng, LUO Weisheng, XU Zhanyong. Estimation of Forest Parameters of Guangxi Eucalyptus Plantation Based on Terrestrial Laser Scanning [J]. FOREST RESOURCES WANAGEMENT, 2022, 0(2): 100-108. |
[6] | Zhipeng XIAO, Polang LIU, Ye LIU, Fangwen HU, Huaizhen PENG, Ziyan ZHANG, Ping GAO. Evaluation and Selection of Potential Scenic View-point Distribution Areas Based on GIS and Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process —An Example from Jiulangshan Mountain Park in Zhuzhou [J]. FOREST RESOURCES WANAGEMENT, 2020, 0(1): 158-165. |
[7] | PENG Chucai, DIAN Yuanyong, ZHOU Zhixiang, CHENG Weijin, XIAO Zhiyan, DONG Lian, LI Xinyu. Quality Evaluation and Analysis on Factors Affecting the Quality of the Forest Belt Around Wuhan City [J]. FOREST RESOURCES WANAGEMENT, 2019, 0(6): 75-83. |
[8] | MENG Meng, MA Jianzhang, JI Jianwei, ZHOU Xiaorui, HU Xinxin. Comprehensive Evaluation and Analysis of Chinese Wildlife Hometown Operation [J]. FOREST RESOURCES WANAGEMENT, 2019, 0(3): 30-35. |
[9] | SUN Yu, LI Jiping, CAO Xiaoyu, XU Zhanyong. Comprehensive Evaluation of Soil Fertility of Cunninghamia lanceolata Ecological Public Welfare Forests in Different Age Groups [J]. FOREST RESOURCES WANAGEMENT, 2019, 0(1): 57-62. |
[10] | LI Shu, ZHANG Wei, LUO Hongyan, WANG Yalei, LAN Siren, CAO Guangqiu. Comprehensive Benefit Evaluation of Undergrowth Plant Allocation Model in Moderately Eroded Areas [J]. FOREST RESOURCES WANAGEMENT, 2018, 0(2): 111-118. |
[11] | PAN Yangliu, ZENG Jin, WEN Ye, YAN Qi, LIU Yuanqiu. Study on the Suitability Evaluation Index System of Forest Wellness Base Construction [J]. FOREST RESOURCES WANAGEMENT, 2017, 0(5): 101-107. |
[12] | FENG Lili, JIA Zhiqing, LI Qingxue, HE Lingxianzi, YANG Kaiyue. The Selection of the Most Suitable Shelter Forest Types for Alpine Sandy Land [J]. FOREST RESOURCES WANAGEMENT, 2017, 0(5): 45-51. |
[13] | LIU Shaohai, ZHAO Tianzhong, LI Saibo. Application of Intuitionistic Fuzzy Sets in Evaluating the Forest Fire Prevention Service with TOPSIS Method [J]. FOREST RESOURCES WANAGEMENT, 2017, 0(3): 62-68. |
[14] | LIANG Ziyu, SUN Yuan, LI Weizheng. The Calibration of Terrestrial Laser Scanning for Forest Inventory [J]. FOREST RESOURCES WANAGEMENT, 2014, 0(3): 126-133. |
[15] | WANG Ni, PENG Shikui. Evaluation on Ecological Service Functions of Nanjing Urban Forest Based on 3S Technology and AHP Method [J]. FOREST RESOURCES WANAGEMENT, 2011, 0(6): 98-103. |
Viewed | ||||||
Full text |
|
|||||
Abstract |
|
|||||