Search

Live fuel moisture content (LFMC) is one of the most important fuel properties and a critical parameter for wildland fire danger rating estimation and fire behavior analysis. Direct ground measurement of live fuel moisture content has disadvantages of high cost and limited spatial distribution extent. This paper presents an algorithm to retrieve live fuel moisture content from multiple bands of MODIS measurements. We analyzed the physical relationship between surface reflectance and live fuel moisture content using simulated MODIS measurements of diverse leaf samples, derived approximate inversion models, and proposed a semi-physical approach for live fuel moisture retrieval employing multiple MODIS bands. Using simulated MODIS measurements, the correlation coefficients between the true LFMC and estimated LFMC with our inversion models are 0. 7738, 0. 8397, 0. 9560 and 0. 9576 respectively. For validation, we tested our inversion method with woody live fuel moisture measurements at fire weather stations in Georgia. The correlation coefficients between measured LFMC and estimated LFMC with our inversion models are 0. 5727, 0. 6522, 0. 7551, and 0. 7737 respectively. Both model simulation and station measurements demonstrated advantages of our approach in accuracy. Our study suggests the potential for near real-time applications of live fuel moisture. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Research has shown that remote sensing techniques can be used for assessing live fuel moisture content (LFMC) from space. The need for dynamic monitoring of the fire risk environment favors the use of fast, site-specific, empirical models for assessing local vegetation moisture status, albeit with some uncertainties. These uncertainties may affect the accuracy of decisions made by fire managers using remote sensing derived LFMC. Consequently, the analysis of these LFMC retrieval uncertainties and their impact on applications, such as fire spread prediction, is needed to ensure the informed use of remote sensing derived LFMC measurements by fire managers. The Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge, one of the most fire-prone regions in the southeastern United States was chosen as our study area. Our study estimates the uncertainties associated with empirical site specific retrievals using NDWI (Normalized Difference Water Index; (R 0. 86 − R 1. 24) / (R 0. 86 + R 1. 24)) and NDII (Normalized Difference Infrared Index; (R 0. 86 − R 1. 64) / (R 0. 86 + R 1. 64)) that are simulated by coupled leaf and canopy radiative transfer models. In order to support the findings from those simulations, a second approach estimates uncertainties using actual MODIS derived indices over Georgia Forestry Commission stations that provide NFDRS model estimates of LFMC. Finally, we used the FARSITE surface fire behavior model to examine the sensitivity of fire spread rates to live fuel moisture content for the NFDRS high pocosin and southern rough fuel models found in Okefenokee. This allowed us to evaluate the effectiveness of satellite based LFMC estimations for use in fire behavior predictions. Sensitivity to LFMC (measured as percentage of moisture weight per unit dry weight of fuel) was analyzed in terms of no-wind no-slope spread rates as well as normalized spread rates. Normalized spread rates, defined as the ratio of spread rate at a particular LFMC to the spread rate at LFMC of 125 under similar conditions, were used in order to make the results adaptable to any wind-slope conditions. Our results show that NDWI has a stronger linear relationship to LFMC than NDII, and can consequently estimate LFMC with lesser uncertainty. Uncertainty analysis shows that 66% of NDWI based LFMC retrievals over non-sparsely vegetated regions are expected to have errors less than 32, while 90% of retrievals should be within an error margin of 56. In pocosin fuel models, under low LFMC conditions (<100), retrieval errors could lead to normalized spread rate errors of 6. 5 which may be equivalent to an error of 47 m/h in no-wind no-slope conditions. For southern rough fuel models, when LFMC <175, LFMC retrieval errors could amount to normalized spread rate errors of 0. 6 or an equivalent error of 9. 3 m/h in no-wind no-slope conditions. These spread rate error estimates represent approximately the upper bound of errors resulting from uncertainties in empirical retrievals of LFMC over forested regions. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]