Figures
Abstract
Fire regimes are strongly related to weather conditions that directly and indirectly influence fire ignition and propagation. Identifying the most important meteorological fire drivers is thus fundamental for daily fire risk forecasting. In this context, several fire weather indices have been developed focussing mainly on fire-related local weather conditions and fuel characteristics. The specificity of the conditions for which fire danger indices are developed makes its direct transfer and applicability problematic in different areas or with other fuel types. In this paper we used the low-to-intermediate fire-prone region of Canton Ticino as a case study to develop a new daily fire danger index by implementing a niche modelling approach (Maxent). In order to identify the most suitable weather conditions for fires, different combinations of input variables were tested (meteorological variables, existing fire danger indices or a combination of both). Our findings demonstrate that such combinations of input variables increase the predictive power of the resulting index and surprisingly even using meteorological variables only allows similar or better performances than using the complex Canadian Fire Weather Index (FWI). Furthermore, the niche modelling approach based on Maxent resulted in slightly improved model performance and in a reduced number of selected variables with respect to the classical logistic approach. Factors influencing final model robustness were the number of fire events considered and the specificity of the meteorological conditions leading to fire ignition.
Citation: De Angelis A, Ricotta C, Conedera M, Pezzatti GB (2015) Modelling the Meteorological Forest Fire Niche in Heterogeneous Pyrologic Conditions. PLoS ONE 10(2): e0116875. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0116875
Academic Editor: Julia A. Jones, Oregon State University, UNITED STATES
Received: July 28, 2014; Accepted: December 4, 2014; Published: February 13, 2015
Copyright: © 2015 De Angelis et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited
Data Availability: Relevant data are available within Supporting Information files.
Funding: This work was supported by the European Project ALP FFIRS, funded by the European Regional Development fund of Alpine Space Program, and by Canton Ticino, Valais and BAFU. It was also partly supported by BAFU/WSL Swiss program forest and climate change. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
Competing interests: Co-author Carlo Ricotta was a PLOS ONE Editorial Board Member. This does not alter the authors’ adherence to all the PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.
Introduction
A fire regime is the result of complex interactions between weather conditions, fuel, topography and ignition sources [1], [2], [3]. Climatic factors have a long term effect on the type and amount of biomass production, related fuel availability and a short term influence on actual vegetation moisture and related flammability, as well as fire propagation conditions (e.g. wind) [4], [5]. In case of lightning, weather conditions may also act as direct ignition source [6]. Similarly, humans may indirectly influence fire regimes through land use by shaping the type, amount and connectivity of vegetation and related fuel [7], through fire management activities such as fire legislation, fuel regulation and fire fighting activities, as well as by directly acting as intentional or unintentional ignition sources [8], [9], [10]. As a result, fire regimes always have natural and anthropogenic components, although with varying relative contributions [1], [7].
Understanding the main fire drivers and their variations within a specific region is the main objective of modern fire and environmental management agencies that are in charge of the appropriate allocation of fire fighting resources from day to day or place to place [11], [12]. The process of systematically evaluating individual or combined factors influencing fire potential is usually referred to as fire danger rating [13]. The aim of fire danger rating systems consists of integrating scientific knowledge about the reaction of specific forest fuels to weather conditions into models that are based on a representative set of consistently measurable fire-related variables [13]. Consequently, a number of approaches have been designed around the world, all sharing the same basic idea of synthesizing environmental and meteorological conditions that affect ignition, spread, and effort to control fires into qualitative and/or numerical fire danger indices [14], [12]. Such fire danger indices provide a measurement of the chance that a fire will start from a particular fuel, its rate of spread, intensity and difficulty to suppress, through various combinations of temperature, relative humidity, wind speed and drought effects.
As originally stated by van Wagner [15], a fire danger index should ideally work so that any given index value will always represent the same fire behavior, no matter what weather history leads up to it. Fuel wets and dries and fire responds to variations of fuel, weather and topography according to the same physical processes and principles regardless of location [13]. This theoretically gives to indices that are based on simple and universal moisture exchange models a great adaptive potential to different fire environments worldwide [11]. Thus, for instance, the Canadian FWI and related sub-indices that are based on sound scientific principles have outstanding interpretative support, and have therefore been implemented and adapted in many countries or regions all around the world [16], [17], [13], [18], [19], [20], [21].
The specificity of the conditions for which fire danger indices are developed, however, makes their practical adoption problematic in areas or with fuel types other than those for which they were intended [22], [11]. On the other hand, the adoption of existing fire danger rating systems can significantly reduce the time and the costs involved in developing a rating approach in a new area of application. Important calibration steps may be necessary in order to cover the full fluctuation range of daily fire conditions, as well as to assure a sound correlation between fire danger index outputs and the historical fire activity in the area of new application [16]. This is particularly important—but also accordingly difficult—in areas where a fire regime has a strong anthropogenic component in terms of fuel regulation, ignition source or fire control activities. In the case of fire bans or of evident and elevated fire danger, unintended human-induced fire ignition may not follow, causing a false non-fire day that may influence the calibration of physically-based fire danger indices. The fire community has attempted to overcome this problem by implementing extended modelling approaches [23], [24], [25] and by recalibrating index output scales [26], [18], [21], [27], [28]. So far, however, no fully satisfactory and universally applicable calibration method has been proposed.
In this paper we propose a new approach for developing a daily fire danger index at the regional scale consisting of:
- considering combinations of meteorological parameters, fire weather indices or both as input variables for modelling;
- applying the principle of ecological niche modelling to a temporal scale in order to identify specific daily fire weather conditions.
Both modelling approaches were tested using a combination of meteorological variables, fire weather indices, and the combination of both as explanatory variables. The resulting best models were then compared with the worldwide most adopted single fire weather indices.
We chose the low-to-intermediate fire-prone region of Canton Ticino in southern Switzerland as a study case because of the presence of anthropogenic and naturally driven seasonal fire regimes as well as the very heterogeneous fuel conditions in the region.
Materials and Methods
Study area
The study area is represented by the Canton Ticino (Switzerland) (Fig. 1) a mountainous Swiss canton that ranges from 200 m to 3,400 m a.s.l. Summers are wet and warm and winters dry and mild (‘Insubrian’ climate). The mean annual precipitation ranges from 1,660 to 2,600 mm and is mostly concentrated between June and September while the mean annual temperature ranges from 3 to 12°C (source: MeteoSwiss climatic norm values 1981–2010).
The climate is often influenced by a dry foehn wind from the north, which occurs occasionally in the main valleys of the study area causing significant drops in the relative air humidity (down to 20%) [35].
About 50% of the total surface of Canton Ticino is covered by heterogeneous structured forest with the species composition that reflects the altitudinal gradient. The early introduced Sweet chestnuts (Castanea sativa) at low elevations [36], with an occasional mixture by other broadleaved species such as, deciduous oak (Quercus spp.), small-leaved lime (Tilia cordata), wild cherry (Prunus avium), black alder (Alnus glutinosa), maple (Acer spp.), and ash (Fraxinus spp.). The slopes at medium elevations (900–1,400 m a.s.l.) are dominated by European beech (Fagus sylvatica) forests, followed by Norway spruce (Picea abies) stands [37] intermixed with European silver fir (Abies alba), pine species (Pinus spp.), and European larch (Larix decidua).
Forest fire data and current fire regimes
Fire data has been collected in Ticino by the Forest Service since 1900, and geo-referenced perimeters of the burnt area exist for most forest fires since 1969 [38]. According to Pezzatti et al. [10], a significant shift in burnt area took place—starting in the 1980s—as a result of a major fire brigade reorganisation (1978) and of the start of the systematic use of helicopters for both the transport of fire fighters and aerial fire fighting. Concerning fire frequency, a relevant drop in anthropogenic induced fire ignitions without a corresponding change in the precipitation regime occurred in 1990 as a consequence of two preventative legal acts [36], [10]: the prohibition of burning garden debris in the open (Cantonal decree approved on October 21, 1987, but operational with the corresponding penalties since January 1, 1989) and the prohibition against fireworks and celebration fires on the Swiss National Day of August 1st in case of high fire ignition danger (Cantonal decrees of July 11, 1990). Present pyrologic conditions have existed therefore since 1980 concerning burnt areas and since 1990 concerning the anthropogenic fire ignitions [10].
The current monthly distribution of fires highlights the existence of three fire regime patterns (Fig. 2). During vegetation rest (December to April, hereafter called winter) fire events mostly consist of rapid spreading (surface) fires of anthropogenic origin with a major peak in March-April. During the vegetation season (May-November hereafter called summer) and in the summer months of July-August in particular, a mixed pattern consisting of slow spreading fires of both natural (lightning-induced) and anthropogenic origin (hereafter called summer natural and summer anthropogenic respectively) dominates. According to Conedera et al. [39], summer fires also have two distinct geographic distributions: lightning-induced fires are concentrated in the coniferous forests at higher altitudes and on steeper slopes than human-caused events.
Monthly values refer to the same database used for the analysis: the winter fires from 1991 to 2012 (light grey), the summer anthropogenic fires from 1991 to 2012 (grey) and the summer natural fires from 1981 to 2012 (dark grey).
In the present study, homogeneous fire regime conditions in the study area refer to the period 1991–2012 for both winter (w) and summer anthropogenic fires (sa) and 1981–2012 for natural summer fires (sn) (Fig. 2). Extending the period of the natural forest fire regime back to 1981 represents a compromise between the consistency (homogeneity) and the representativeness (quantity) of the data, since lightning-induced fire ignitions are not influenced by preventive legislation.
Meteorological data and fire weather indices
Daily meteorological data was gathered from the MeteoSwiss meteorological station of Locarno-Monti, which is considered to be representative for the whole study area (Fig. 1).
The daily meteorological variables used are: Air Temperature in Celsius degree (T), Air Humidity in percentage value (H), Wind velocity in m/s (U), Precipitation in mm (P), coverage of sky in ratio between 0 and 1 (CloudCover) and coverage of snow expressed as snow presence or absence (SnowCover). From the original data, we also derived some cumulative meteorological parameters to be used as model input variables: total rainfall over the last seven days (WeekRain), the days since the last rainfall (DaysSinceRain), the sum of the last rainfall (consecutive days with rain) (LastRainSum), the dew point temperature (Tdew), that is the temperature to which air needs to be cooled to make air water vapour saturated [40] and the vapour pressure deficit (VPD) that is the difference between the saturation vapour pressure and the actual vapour pressure at a particular temperature.
The meteorological variables were used as input for the Fire Weather Indices Calculator software, developed in the frame of the ALPFFIRS project by WSL (www.wsl.ch), in order to calculate fire weather indices for each day of the time interval considered (Table 1). In this study, we retained 15 of the most well-known fire indices used to assess forest fire hazards in several parts of the world (see Table 1 for more details).
In order to consider all existing fire regimes, meteorological and fire data were split according to the three fire regimes: winter (w), summer anthropogenic (sa) and summer natural (sn). Within the three fire regimes we defined the days with at least a fire ignition of the correspondent origin (anthropogenic or natural) as “fire days”, and the ratio between fire days and the total number of the days considered as “prevalence” (hereafter called background, see Table 2).
Three different sets of input variables were then defined: the meteorological variables (hereafter called meteo), the fire weather indices (hereafter called indices), and the combination of a subset of both (hereafter called mixed).We decided to test also the combination of climatic variables and indices, in order to take into account both the linear information of the single meteorological variables and the complex, non-linear or cumulative information that the same variable may reflect within the complex algorithm of a fire index. To avoid redundancy, however, we retained only the combinations with all pairwise Spearman correlations among the variables lower than 0.9. See input variables in Table 3 for more details.
Models
As term of reference we used the logistic model. It is a particular case of the generalized linear model (GLM—[41]), also widely used in species distribution modelling because of its strong statistical foundation and ability to realistically describe ecological relationships [42], [30]. Generalized linear models are extensions of linear regression models that can handle non—normal distributions such as binomial distributions (e.g. presence-absence data; [43], [44]). GLMs are based on an assumed relationship, called a link function, between the mean of the response variable and the linear combination of the explanatory variables [43]. In our case, the link function is the “logit” function of the binary response data, and therefore the appropriate GLM is a logistic model. Each day of the study period and of the corresponding fire regime represents a binary response variable for which we considered the days with at least one fire ignition (fire days) as presence and the days without fire ignitions as absence.
Among existing niche modelling approaches, Maxent is a machine learning method that uses the principle of maximum entropy on presence data to estimate a set of functions that relate environmental variables and habitat suitability, so that it approximates the species’ niche and potential geographical distribution [29]. The principle of maximum entropy is used to seek a marginal suitability function for each variable that matches the empirical data and is maximally uninformative elsewhere [45]. The functions of the environmental variables are called features [29] and may be linear, product, quadratic, hinge, threshold or categorical. The use of these functions makes it possible to consider the complexity and potential non-linearity of the species’ response to environmental factors [42]. An increasing number of features building the model is treated as a penalty to avoid creating complex and over-fitted models. In order to avoid over-fitting [45], Maxent software uses a regularization process that allows model distributions to lie in a range around empirical data.
Widely used for many purposes such as biogeography and ecology, Maxent has recently been applied to wildfires to model fire occurrence in India’s Ghats Mountains [46] and fire ignition and distribution in the US [47], [34]. In the present study, we test the efficiency of Maxent in considering daily meteorological conditions as environmental variables. More precisely, for each fire regime considered, fire days represent the presences, whereas all days of the study period are the background. Daily values of the selected weather variable groups (meteo, indices, mixed) represent the explanatory environmental variables.
All model analyses were performed with the R statistical package, version 3.0.2 [48]. For the Maxent model, we used the ‘dismo’ R package (version 0.8–17) with the Maxent default settings.
Model performance metrics
Model performances were evaluated with the widely-used metric AUC, which is the area under the ROC (relative operating characteristic) curve. The ROC graph is a way to depict classifiers’ ability (performance) to distinguish between correct and false classifications. ROC performances are frequently reduced to the single one-dimensional value Area Under the Curve (AUC), in order to enable a direct comparison among classifiers [49], [50], even if the single AUC value does not often communicate the rich information that the entire ROC curve can reveal [51].
The AUC is widely considered to be a very useful index (however, see [52] for a contrasting view) because it provides a single measure of overall accuracy that is not dependent upon a particular threshold [53], [54], [55]. The AUC value is obtained by calculating the area under the ROC curve derived by plotting the true positive fraction on the y-axis and the false positive fraction on the x-axis. It ranges from 0 to 1, where the 1 score indicates perfect discrimination, a 0.5 score implies predictive discrimination that is no better than a random guess, and values lower than 0.5 indicate performance worse than random. AUC is interpretable as the probability that a model discriminates correctly between presence and absence [56].
Where no reliable absence data is available, the AUC is calculated by distinguishing presence from the whole background (AUC.bg), or a random sub-sample, rather than presence from absence. This implies that the maximum possible AUC.bg will always be less than unity [57], [29]. If the species’ distribution covers a fraction p of the background (prevalence, see Table 2), then the prevalence-based theoretical maximum achievable AUC can be shown to be exactly 1 − p/2 [29] (see theoretical Maximum AUC.bg in Table 3). According to these assumptions, the AUC.bg is only suitable when comparing models trained on the same dataset. Our dataset consists of a reliable and small background allowing us to use the whole data for both modelling approaches.
A preliminary comparative test on the presence-absence logistic approach allowed us to show that the values resulting from the traditional AUC and from the AUC.bg were very similar (S1 Fig.). We therefore opted to use the AUC.bg to evaluate and make both the Maxent and logistic models comparable.
Model evaluation
To evaluate the robustness of the selected models, a k-fold cross-validation [58], [59] was used in order to make the validation more meaningful and reliable [60]. The k-fold cross-validation consists in randomly splitting the whole original data into k subsets of equal size. Of the obtained k subsets, each one is used in turn for testing and the remaining k-1 subsets for training. In the splitting process, we paid particular attention to form folds (sub-periods) of two entire and consecutive years, obtaining 11 folds for w and sa (1991–2012) and 16 folds for sn (1981–2012) fire regimes.
The mean k-folds performances of the test cases were retained and used to compare the two model approaches. The differences between the classical logistic approach and Maxent were statistically verified using the non-parametric paired Wilcoxon Signed-rank test. We first tested the best models of the two modelling approaches, successively comparing the performance of both methods when applied to single indices. All statistical tests were run using the R statistical packages version 3.0.2 [48].
Results
Table 3 reports the retained variables for the best Maxent models for each fire regime (w, sa, sn) and each group of explanatory variables considered (meteo, indices, mixed), as well as the related model performances in terms of mean, minimum, and maximum AUC.bg values reached by the k-folds cross-validations with respect to the theoretical Maximum AUC.bg. The number of explanatory variables retained ranges from 4 (indices w) to 7 (meteo and mixed w). The mean AUC.bg values for the three different groups of explanatory variables were rather high, ranging between 0.7516 (meteo sa) and 0.8517 (mixed sn). Absolute minimum test values resulted for k-folds models of meteo sa (AUC.bg = 0.5829 out of a theoretical maximum value of 0.9827), whereas the highest score was reached by the mixed sn (AUC.bg = 0.9760 out of a theoretical maximum value of 0.9890). When relating the results to the theoretical Maximum AUC.bg for each fire regime, the sa displays the lowest scores for every group of explanatory variables considered.
Comparing the results between the best Maxent and logistic models (see S1 Table for more details), most of the mean AUC.bg values for Maxent models were higher than those from logistic models, while the number of the selected variables was lower.
Fig. 3 shows the plots of ROC curves of the best Maxent models with the theoretical Maximum AUC.bg curves and the random guess lines for all fire regimes. These plots relate the proportion of fire days predicted (the true positive rate) and the proportion of total days considered (the background proportion), highlighting the differences in the shape of the curves in comparison to the theoretical Maximum AUC.bg, as well as the better performances of mixed-variable models with respect to all others.
The prevalence-based theoretical Maximum AUC.bg lines are represented in dashed-dotted (w = 0.933, sa = 0.9827, sn = 0.9890) while the random guess lines (values of 0.5) are indicated using dotted lines. The Y-axis reports the true positive rate (%), that is the proportion of the fire days considered, while the X-axis indicates the background (total number of days) proportion.
Fig. 4 shows the performances of the Maxent models with respect to the logistic models of single selected indices. The best Maxent models derived from a combination of variables (meteo, indices and mixed) show higher AUC.bg values than the single index based on logistic models throughout, with greater differences for the sn fire regime. The values of the single index models range from 0.67 to 0.76, with the highest value for FWI in w and sa fire regimes and the DC in the sn regime. Similar results are found when comparing single indices and best models for both logistic and Maxent with higher values for Maxent models derived from combination of variables (see S2 Fig. for details).
Mean performance values of the best Maxent models (black) for the variable combinations compared to the logistic models (grey) of single indices for each fire regime.
The better performances of the best Maxent compared to logistic models are confirmed when selecting the first 10 best models for each case and each regime: all best models are Maxent according to each combination of variables (meteo, indices and mixed) for all regimes except for w and sa of meteo variables (S2 Table).
Most of the differences in AUC.bg shown in Fig. 4 (and S2 Fig.) are highly significant (Table 4 and S3 Table). The statistical significance is particularly clear in w and sn, in which all logistic models based on single indices are statistically different from the best Maxent models based on combinations of variables. A single exception exists regarding the FWI and FFMC in w compared to the best meteo model (Table 4). A slightly different situation exists with regards to the sa regime in which no statistical significance is reported for most of the indices compared with the best Maxent meteo model and the FWI and FFMC for all groups of explanatory variables.
Similar results emerge from the comparison of the best logistic with the best Maxent models with combinations of variables and single indices models based on the two different approaches (see S3 Table).
The comparison of the best models (Table 5) reveals that Maxent meteo models are significantly different only from the best logistic meteo model for sn, while the best Maxent indices models are statistically different from the best logistic meteo and mixed models in w and from the best logistic indices model in sa. Finally, the best mixed Maxent models show significant differences with respect to the best logistic meteo model for w and sn, and the best logistic indices model for sa (see S4 Table for more details).
Discussion
The aim of this study was to develop and test a method for developing a new fire weather danger ratings approach. To this purpose we modelled the fire occurrences in homogeneous fire regime conditions in Ticino, a low to intermediate fire prone region in the Swiss Alps using meteorological parameters, fire weather indices or a combination of both as inputs. Our results highlight that considering fire occurrence as response variables and combining meteorological-based input parameters allows a better characterization of the meteorological “fire niche” and increases the performance and reliability of the related predictive models.
When selecting variables from different pools (meteo and indices) to build models, the predictive power is additionally enhanced. Interestingly, also the option of using only meteorological variables allows us to obtain performances equivalent to the Canadian FWI in w and sa regimes, and much higher than every single index in sn, opening new perspectives for cases where the indices can not be calculated.
The modelling approach based on Maxent resulted in slightly improved model performance and a reduction in the number of variables selected in the best models with respect to the classical logistic approach. Elith et al. [30] have also come to similar conclusions, demonstrating that Maxent models outperform logistic regressions fitted using generalised linear models when dealing with species distribution studies. The better predictive power of Maxent compared to the generalized linear model is also reported by other authors [61], [62], [63], [64], [65]. Bar Massada et al. [34] in particular have already applied a Maxent approach to the field of forest fires, highlighting the advantages of the Maxent approach over logistic models when dealing with fire ignition distribution modelling.
The best Maxent models were also found to be reliable and robust as demonstrated by mean performance values greater than 0.75 and the low variability among the folds of the k-fold cross-validation. When looking at the different fire regimes, it becomes evident that factors influencing final model robustness are basically the number of fire events available and the specificity of the meteorological conditions leading to fire ignition. Thus, for instance, the w fire regime enabled the development of a robust model (see performance range of k-folds AUC.bg in Table 3) thanks to the fairly high number of fires available and the quite specific meteorological characteristics when fires occur, often related to foehn conditions and mainly in the months of March and April (70% of the w fires). In case of lightning fires, model robustness mostly depends on the very high specificity and the absolutely dominant influence of meteorological conditions at the time of fire ignition, specifically the dry preceding period and thunderstorms without heavy rainfall at the moment of ignition (77.6% of the sn fires are in July and August). Human activities have only a very indirect influence indeed, in terms of fuel build up as a function of land use in case of lightning-induced fires [39], [66]. Less efficient models resulted for the sa regime because of both the low number of fires available and the unspecific characteristics of the human-induced fire ignitions during the hot summer period. As a result, the relative performance values are lower than in other regimes and its range is very broad.
The presented method is very flexible and can be easily applied also in more fire prone regions displaying high fire occurrences and a significant number of large fires by setting for instance the criterion of a minimum of area burnt to assign the presence attribute to a fire day. Doing so, you turn the fire danger rating into a system for predicting any “target-size” fire days, so to adapt it to the local operational needs.
Conclusion
The described approach combines a number of variables for identifying the daily suitable meteorological conditions for fires. However, while the resulting index fits best the meteorological and pyrological characteristics of the region under analysis, it is not directly applicable to different regions. For this reason the proposed approach needs to be applied for every region of interest, assuming that suitable historical fire data and detailed and consistent meteorological data are available. Our approach also implies the need to update the model selection, and therefore the index calculation, in case of changes in the pyrological environment under consideration, specifically new legislation and significant socio-economic changes. Thanks to the fire niche approach, however, acceptable fire weather indices can be developed and operationally run starting from fairly small fire numbers, which is often the case in low-to-moderate fire prone regions. In case of fire prone regions with high fire occurrence and a significant number of large fires, the present rating approach should be adapted to the local operational needs, considering for example only fires with a minimum area in order to predict large or target-size fire days.
Supporting Information
S1 Fig. Mean AUC.bg and AUC values of the test cases for the logistic best models and the w, sa and sn fire regimes.
The upper row represents the best models according to the AUC.bg.test, while the lower refers to the AUC.test. Symbols refer to the different combination of variables: circle for meteo, triangle for indices and square for mixed.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0116875.s001
(DOC)
S2 Fig. The mean performance values of the test cases for each fire regime.
The plots show the comparison between the Maxent (empty black symbols) and the logistic models (full grey symbols) for all variable combinations and single indices for w, sa and sn regimes.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0116875.s002
(DOC)
S1 Table. Best models for the logistic and Maxent modelling approaches.
Variable selection and mean AUC.bg value of the test cases of the k-folds are reported for each best model.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0116875.s003
(DOC)
S2 Table. The ten best models for each regime and combination of variables.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0116875.s004
(DOC)
S3 Table. Results of the Wilcoxon rank sum tests for the best and the single indices models.
The results are referred to the comparison between the best models based on the different variables combination and the models on the single indices using the logistic (a) and Maxent (b) approaches.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0116875.s005
(DOC)
S4 Table. Results of the Wilcoxon rank sum tests for the best models.
The results are referred to the comparison between the best models based on the different variables combination using the logistic (a) and Maxent (b) approaches.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0116875.s006
(DOC)
Author Contributions
Conceived and designed the experiments: GBP CR MC. Performed the experiments: AD GBP. Analyzed the data: AD GBP MC. Wrote the paper: AD MC GBP CR.
References
- 1. Cardille JA, Ventura SJ, Turner MG (2001) Environmental and social factors influencing wildfires in the Upper Midwest, United States. Ecological Applications 11: 111–127.
- 2. Mermoz M, Kitzberger T, Veblen TT (2005) Landscape influences on occurrence and spread of wildfires in Patagonian forests and shrublands. Ecology 86: 2705–2715.
- 3. Krebs P, Pezzatti GB, Mazzoleni S, Talbot LM, Conedera M (2010) Fire regime: history and definition of a key concept in disturbance ecology. Theory in Biosciences 129: 53–69. pmid:20502984
- 4. Cumming SG (2001) Forest type and wildfire in the Alberta boreal mixedwood: what do fires burn? Ecological Applications 11: 97–110.
- 5.
Dube OP (2007) Fire Weather and Land Degradation. In: Sivakumarvand Ndegwa Ndiangui M.V.K. (Eds.) Climate and Land Degradation. Springer, Berlin. pp. 106–132.
- 6. Krawchuk MA, Cumming SG, Flannigan MD, Wein RW (2006) Biotic and abiotic regulation of lightning fire initiation in the mixedwood boreal forest. Ecology 87: 458–468. pmid:16637370
- 7. Syphard AD, Radeloff VC, Keeley JE, Hawbaker TJ, Clayton MK, et al. (2007) Human influence on California fire regimes. Ecological Applications 17: 1388–1402. pmid:17708216
- 8. Gustafson EJ, Zollner PA, Sturtevant BR, He HS, Mladenoff DJ (2004). Influence of forest management alternatives and land type on susceptibility to fire in northern Wisconsin, USA. Landscape Ecology 19: 327–341.
- 9. Zumbrunnen T, Menendez P, Bugmann H, Conedera M, Gimmi U, et al. (2012) Human impacts on fire occurrence: a case study of hundred years of forest fires in a dry alpine valley in Switzerland. Regional Environmental Change 12: 935–949.
- 10. Pezzatti GB, Zumbrunnen T, Bürgi M, Ambrosetti P, Conedera M (2013) Fire regime shifts as a consequence of fire policy and socio-economic development: An analysis based on the change point approach. Forest Policy and Economics 29: 7–18.
- 11. Wotton BM (2009) Interpreting and using outputs from the Canadian forest fire danger rating system in research applications. Environmental and Ecological Statistics 16: 107–131.
- 12. Sharples JJ, McRae RHD, Weber RO, Gill AM (2009) A simple index for assessing fire danger rating. Environmental Modelling and Software 24: 764–774.
- 13. Taylor SW, Alexander ME (2006) Science, technology, and human factors in fire danger rating: the Canadian experience. International Journal of Wildland Fire 15: 121–135.
- 14. Stocks BJ, Lawson BD, Alexander ME, Van Wagner CE, McAlpine RS, et al. (1989) The Canadian Forest Fire Danger Rating System: an overview. The Forestry Chronicle 65: 450–457.
- 15.
Van Wagner CE (1987) Development and Structure of the Canadian Forest Fire Weather Index System. Ottawa, ON, Canadian Forest Service, Technical Report 35.
- 16.
Fogarty LG, Pearce HG, Catchpole WR, Alexander ME (1998) Adoption vs. adaptation: lessons from applying the Canadian Forest Fire Danger Rating System in New Zealand. In Proceedings, 3rd International Conference on Forest Fire Research and 14th Fire and Forest Meteorology Conference, Luso, Coimbra, Portugal. pp. 1011–1028.
- 17.
Taylor SW (2001) Considerations for applying the Canadian Forest Fire Danger Rating System in Argentina. Natural Resources Canada, Canadian Forest Service, Contract report. (Pacific Forestry Centre: Victoria, BC).
- 18. Dimitrakopoulos AP, Mitsopoulos ID, Gatoulas K (2010) Assessing ignition probability and moisture of extinction in a Mediterranean grass fuel. International Journal of Wildland Fire 19(1): 29–34.
- 19. Mölders N (2010) Comparison of Canadian Forest Fire Danger Rating System and National Fire Danger Rating System fire indices derived from Weather Research and Forecasting (WRF) model data for the June 2005 Interior Alaska wildfires. Atmospheric Research 95(2–3): 290–306.
- 20. Tian XR, McRae DJ, Jin JZ, Shu LF, Zhao FJ, et al. (2011) Wildfires and the Canadian Forest Fire Weather Index system for the Daxinganling region of China. International Journal of Wildland Fire 20(8): 963–973.
- 21. Sturm T, Fernandes PM, Sumrada R (2012) The Canadian fire weather index system and wildfire activity in the Karst forest management area, Slovenia. European Journal of Forest Research 131: 829–834.
- 22. Hardy CC, Hardy CE (2007) Fire danger rating in the United States of America: an evolution since 1916. International Journal of Wildland Fire 16: 217–231.
- 23. Vega-Garcia C, Woodard PM, Titus SJ, Adamowicz WL, Lee BS (1995) A logit model for predicting the daily occurrence of human-caused forest fires. International Journal of Wildland Fire 5(2): 101–111.
- 24. Mandallaz D, Ye R (1997) Prediction of forest fires with Poisson models. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 27(10): 1685–1694.
- 25. de Vicente J, Crespo F (2012) A new wildland fire danger index for a Mediterranean region and some validation aspects. International Journal of Wildland Fire 21(8): 1030–1041.
- 26. Viegas DX, Bovio G, Ferreira A, Nosenzo A, Sol B (1999) Comparative study of various methods of fire danger evaluation in southern Europe. International Journal of Wildland Fire 9: 235–246.
- 27. Eastaugh CS, Vacik A (2012) Fire size/frequency modelling as a means of assessing wildfire database reliability. Austrian Journal of Forest Science 129(3–4): 222–241.
- 28. Holsten A, Dominic AR, Costa L, Kropp JP (2013) Evaluation of the performance of meteorological forest fire indices for German federal states. Forest Ecology and Management 287: 123–131.
- 29. Phillips SJ, Anderson RP, Schapire RE (2006) Maximum entropy modelling of species geographic distributions. Ecological Modelling 190: 231–259.
- 30. Elith J, Graham CH, Anderson RP, Dudík M, Ferrier S, et al. (2006) Novel methods improve prediction of species’ distributions from occurrence data. Ecography 29: 129–151. pmid:16622301
- 31. Hernandez PA, Graham CH, Master LL, Albert DL (2006) The effect of sample size and species characteristics on performance of different species distribution modelling methods. Ecography 29: 773–785.
- 32. Siljander M (2009) Predictive fire occurrence modelling to improve burned area estimation at a regional scale: A case study in East Caprivi, Namibia. International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation 11(6): 380–393.
- 33. Viedma O, Angeler DG, Moreno JM (2009) Landscape structural features control fire size in a Mediterranean forested area of central Spain. International Journal of Wildland Fire 18: 575–583.
- 34. Bar Massada A, Syphard AD, Stewart SI, Radeloff VC (2012) Wildfire ignition-distribution modelling: a comparative study in the Huron—Manistee National Forest, Michigan, USA. International Journal of Wildland Fire 22(2): 174–183.
- 35. Spinedi F, Isotta F (2004) Il clima del Ticino negli ultimi 50 anni. Dati statistiche e società 4: 4–39.
- 36. Conedera M, Corti G, Piccini P, Ryser D, Guerini F, et al. (2004) La gestione degli incendi boschivi in Canton Ticino: tentativo di una sintesi storica. Schweizerische Zeitschrift für das Forstwesen 155: 263–277.
- 37. Ellenberg H, Klötzli F (1972) Waldgesellschaften und Waldstandorte der Schweiz Mitt Schweiz Anst Forst Versuchswes 48: 587–930.
- 38. Pezzatti GB, Bajocco S, Torriani D, Conedera M (2009) Selective burning of forest vegetation in Canton Ticino (Southern Switzerland). Plant Biosystems 143(3): 609–620.
- 39.
Conedera M, Cesti G, Pezzatti GB, Zumbrunnen T, Spinedi F (2006) Lightning induced fires in the Alpine region: an increasing problem. In Viegas, D.X. (Ed.), 5th International Conference on Forest Fire Research. University of Coimbra, Figueira da Foz, Portugal.
- 40.
Allen RG, Pereira LS, Raes D, Smith M (1998) Crop evapotranspiration: guidelines for computing crop water requirements. FAO.
- 41.
McCullagh P, Nelder JA (1989) Generalized Linear Models, 2nd ed. Chapman & Hall, London.
- 42. Austin MP (2002) Spatial prediction of species distribution: an interface between ecological theory and statistical modelling. Ecological Modelling 157: 101–118.
- 43. Guisan A, Edwards TC Jr, Hastie T (2002) Generalized linear and generalized additive models in studies of species distributions: setting the scene. Ecological Modelling 157: 89–100.
- 44.
Franklin J (2010) Mapping Species Distributions. Cambridge University Press, New York.
- 45. Warren DL, Seifert SN (2011) Ecological niche modelling in Maxent: The importance of model complexity and the performance of model selection criteria. Ecological Applications 21: 335–342. pmid:21563566
- 46. Renard Q, Pelissier R, Ramesh BR, Kodandapani N (2012) Environmental susceptibility model for predicting forest fire occurrence in the western Ghats of India. International Journal of Wildland Fire 21: 368–379.
- 47. Parisien MA, Moritz MA (2009) Environmental controls on the distribution of wildfire at multiple spatial scales. Ecological Monographs 79(1): 127–154.
- 48.
R Core Team (2013) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. URL http://www.R-project.org/.
- 49. Bradley AP (1997) The use of the area under the roc curve in the evaluation of machine learning algorithms. Pattern Recognition 30: 1145–1159.
- 50. Hanley JA, McNeil BJ (1982) The meaning and use of the area under a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. Radiology 143: 29–36. pmid:7063747
- 51. Pontius RG Jr, Parmentier B (2014) Recommendations for using the Relative Operating Characteristic (ROC). Landscape Ecology 29(3): 367–382.
- 52. Lobo JM, Jiménez-Valverde A, Real R (2008) AUC: A misleading measure of the performance of predictive distribution models. Global Ecology and Biogeography 17: 145–151.
- 53. Fielding AH, Bell JF (1997) A review of methods for the assessment of prediction errors in conservation presence/absence models. Environmental Conservation 24: 38–49.
- 54.
Deleo JM (1993) Receiver operating characteristic laboratory (ROCLAB): software for developing decision strategies that account for uncertainty. In Proceedings of the Second International Symposium on Uncertainty Modelling and analysis. IEEE, Computer Society Press, College Park, MD. pp. 318–325.
- 55. Zweig MH, Campbell G (1993) Receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) plots: A fundamental evaluation tool in clinical medicine. Clinical Chemistry 39: 561–577. pmid:8472349
- 56. Pearce J, Ferrier S (2000) Evaluating the predictive performance of habitat models developed using logistic regression. Ecological Model 133: 225–245.
- 57. Wiley EO, McNyset KM, Peterson AT, Robins CR, Stewart AM (2003) Niche modelling and geographic range predictions in the marine environment using a machine-learning algorithm. Oceanography 16: 120–127.
- 58.
Kohavi R (1995) A study of cross-validation and bootstrap for accuracy estimation and model selection. In Proceedings of the 14th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence—Volume 2, Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc., San Francisco, CA, USA. pp. 1137–1143.
- 59.
Hastie T, Tibshirani R, Friedman J (2009) The Elements of Statistical Learning: Prediction, Inference and Data Mining. Second edition. Springer-Verlag, New York, USA.
- 60. Francois D, Rossi F, Wertz V, Verleysen M (2007) Resampling methods for parameter-free and robust features election with mutual information. Neurocomputing 70(7–9): 1276–1288.
- 61. Gibson L, Barrett B, Burbidge A (2007) Dealing with uncertain absence sin habitat modelling: a case study of a rare ground-dwelling parrot. Diversity and Distribution 13(6): 704–713.
- 62. Elith J, Graham CH (2009) Do they? How do they? Why do they differ? On finding reasons for differing performances of species distribution models. Ecography 32: 66–77.
- 63. Roura-Pascual N, Brotons L, Peterson A, Thuiller W (2009) Consensual predictions of potential distributional areas for invasive species: a case study of Argentine ants in the Iberian Peninsula. Biological Invasions 11: 1017–1031.
- 64. Tognelli MF, Roig-Junent SA, Marvaldi AE, Flores GE, Lobo JM (2009) An evaluation of methods for modelling distribution of Patagonian insects. Revista Chilena de Historia Natural 82: 347–360.
- 65. Marini M, Barbet-Massin M, Lopes L, Jiguet F (2010) Predicting the occurrence of rare Brazilian birds with species distribution models. Journal of Ornithology 151(4): 857–866.
- 66. Reineking B, Weibel P, Conedera M, Bugmann H (2010) Environmental determinants of lightning-v. human—induced forest fire ignitions differ in a temperate mountain region of Switzerland. International Journal of Wildland Fire 19: 541–557.
- 67.
Chandler C, Cheney P, Thomas P, Trabaud L, Williams D (1983) Fire in Forestry. Bd. 1, John Wiley and Sons, New York.
- 68. Baumgartner A, Klemmer L, Raschke E, Waldmann G (1967) Waldbrände in Bayern 1950 bis 1959. Mitteilungen aus der Staatsforstverwaltung Bayerns 36: 57–79.
- 69.
Fosberg MA (1978) Weather in wildland fire management: the fire weather index. In Proceedings of the Conference on Sierra Nevada Meteorology, Lake Tahoe, California. Boston.
- 70.
Keetch JJ, Byram GM (1968) A Drought Index for Forest Fire Control. Southeastern Forest Experiment Station, Asheville, North Carolina.
- 71.
McArthur AG (1967) Fire behaviour in Eucalypt forests. Department of National Development, Forestry and Timber Bureau Leaflet 107, Canberra, ACT.
- 72. Munger TT (1916) Graphic method of representing and comparing drought intensities. Monthly Weather Review 44: 642–643.
- 73. Orieux A (1974) Conditions météorologiques et incendies en région méditerranéenne. Revue forestière française n° spécial Incendies de forêt: 122–129.
- 74.
Nesterov VG (1949) Combustibility of the forest and methods for its determination (in Russian). USSR State Industry Press.
- 75. Sharples JJ, McRae RHD, Weber RO, Gill AM (2009) A simple index for assessing fuel moisture content. Environmental Modelling and Software 24(5): 637–646.