LEADER 03223oam  2200469Ia 450 
001 9910695800803321
005 20110208153839.0
035   $a(CKB)5470000002371768
035   $a(OCoLC)85843526
035   $a(EXLCZ)995470000002371768
100   $a20070313d2004      ua             0
101 0 $aeng
135   $aur|n|||||||||
181   $ctxt$2rdacontent
182   $cc$2rdamedia
183   $acr$2rdacarrier
200 10$aPostfire mortality of Ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir$b[electronic resource] $ea review of methods to predict tree death /$fJames F. Fowler, Carolyn Hull Sieg
210  1$aFort Collins, CO :$cU.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station :$cPublications Distribution, Rocky Mountain Research Station,$d[2004]
215   $a25 pages $cdigital, PDF file
225 1 $aGeneral technical report RMRS ;$vGTR-132
300   $aTitle from title screen (viewed Mar. 12, 2007).
300   $a"July 2004."
320   $aIncludes bibliographical references.
330   $aThis review focused on the primary literature that described, modeled, or predicted the probability of postfire mortality in ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa) and Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii). The methods and measurements that were used to predict postfire tree death tended to fall into two general categories: those focusing on measuring important aspects of fire behavior, the indirect but ultimate cause of mortality; and those focusing on tissue damage due to fire, the direct effect of fire on plant organs. Of the methods reviewed in this paper, crown scorch volume was the most effective, easiest to use, and most popular measurement in predicting postfire mortality in both conifer species. In addition to this direct measure of foliage damage, several studies showed the importance and utility of adding a measurement of stem (bole) damage. There is no clear method of choice for this, but direct assessment of cambium condition near the tree base is widely used in Douglas-fir. Only two ponderosa pine studies directly measured fine root biomass changes due to fire, but they did not use these measurements to predict postfire mortality. Indirect measures of fire behavior such as ground char classes may be the most practical choice for measuring root damage. This review did not find clear postfire survivability differences between the two species. The literature also does not show a consistent use of terminology; we propose a standard set of terms and their definitions.
517   $aPostfire mortality of Ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir 
606   $aPonderosa pine$xEffect of fires on
606   $aDouglas fir$xEffect of fires on
606   $aFire ecology
615  0$aPonderosa pine$xEffect of fires on.
615  0$aDouglas fir$xEffect of fires on.
615  0$aFire ecology.
700   $aFowler$b James F$01410759
701   $aSieg$b Carolyn Hull$01410760
712 02$aRocky Mountain Research Station (Fort Collins, Colo.)
801  0$bGPO
801  1$bGPO
801  2$bESR
801  2$bGPO
906   $aBOOK
912   $a9910695800803321
996   $aPostfire mortality of Ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir$93500142
997   $aUNINA