Search

Spotting is thought to increase wildfire rate of spread (ROS) and in some cases become the main mechanism for spread. The role of spotting in wildfire spread is controlled by many factors including fire intensity, number of and distance between spot fires, weather, fuel characteristics and topography. Through a set of 30 laboratory fire experiments on a 3 m x 4 m fuel bed, subject to air flow, we explored the influence of manually ignited spot fires (0, 1 or 2), the presence or absence of a model hill and their interaction on combined fire ROS (i.e. ROS incorporating main fire and merged spot fires). During experiments conducted on a flat fuel bed, spot fires (whether 1 or 2) had only a small influence on combined ROS. Slowest combined ROS was recorded when a hill was present and no spot fires were ignited, because the fires crept very slowly downslope and downwind of the hill. This was up to, depending on measurement interval, 5 times slower than ROS in the flat fuel bed experiments. However, ignition of 1 or 2 spot fires (with hill present) greatly increased combined ROS to similar levels as those recorded in the flat fuel bed experiments (depending on spread interval). The effect was strongest on the head fire, where spot fires merged directly with the main fire, but significant increases in off-centre ROS were also detected. Our findings suggest that under certain topographic conditions, spot fires can allow a fire to overcome the low spread potential of downslopes. Current models may underestimate wildfire ROS and fire arrival time in hilly terrain if the influence of spot fires on ROS is not incorporated into predictions.

Many houses are at risk of being destroyed by wildfires. While previous studies have improved our understanding of how, when and why houses are destroyed by wildfires, little attention has been given to how these fires started. We compiled a dataset of wildfires that destroyed houses in New South Wales and Victoria and, by comparing against wildfires where no houses were destroyed, investigated the relationship between the distribution of ignition causes for wildfires that did and did not destroy houses. Powerlines, lightning and deliberate ignitions are the main causes of wildfires that destroyed houses. Powerlines were 6 times more common in the wildfires that destroyed houses data than in the wildfires where no houses were destroyed data and lightning was 2 times more common. For deliberate- and powerline-caused wildfires, temperature, wind speed, and forest fire danger index were all significantly higher and relative humidity significantly lower (P < 0.05) on the day of ignition for wildfires that destroyed houses compared with wildfires where no houses were destroyed. For all powerline-caused wildfires the first house destroyed always occurred on the day of ignition. In contrast, the first house destroyed was after the day of ignition for 78% of lightning-caused wildfires. Lightning-caused wildfires that destroyed houses were significantly larger (P < 0.001) in area than human-caused wildfires that destroyed houses. Our results suggest that targeting fire prevention strategies around ignition causes, such as improving powerline safety and targeted arson reduction programmes, and reducing fire spread may decrease the number of wildfires that destroy houses.

Smoke from bushfires is an emerging issue for fire managers because of increasing evidence for its public health effects. Development of forecasting models to predict future pollution levels based on the relationship between bushfire activity and current pollution levels would be a useful management tool. As a first step, we use daily thermal anomalies detected by the MODIS Active Fire Product (referred to as “hotspots”), pollution concentrations, and meteorological data for the years 2002 to 2008, to examine the statistical relationship between fire activity in the landscapes and pollution levels around Perth and Sydney, two large Australian cities. Resultant models were statistically significant, but differed in their goodness of fit and the distance at which the strength of the relationship was strongest. For Sydney, a univariate model for hotspot activity within 100 km explained 24% of variation in pollution levels, and the best model including atmospheric variables explained 56% of variation. For Perth, the best radius was 400 km, explaining only 7% of variation, while the model including atmospheric variables explained 31% of the variation. Pollution was higher when the atmosphere was more stable and in the presence of on-shore winds, whereas there was no effect of wind blowing from the fires toward the pollution monitors. Our analysis shows there is a good prospect for developing region-specific forecasting tools combining hotspot fire activity with meteorological data.

Previous investigations into the factors associated with house loss in wildfires have focused on the house construction and its immediate environment (e.g. gardens). Here, we examine how nearby native forest and other houses can influence house loss. Specifically, we used a sample of 3500 houses affected by the Victorian bushfires of February 7th 2009 to explore how the amount of forest, proportion of forest burned by crown fire and the number of nearby houses affected house loss and how far from the house this influence was exerted. These fires were the most destructive in Australian history and so represent the extreme of fire risk. Using generalized linear modeling we found that the probability of house loss increased with forest extent and the proportion burnt by crown fire and this relationship was strongest for forest measured 1 km from the houses. Houses were more likely to be destroyed if there were other houses within 50 m and if they were on a slope. A model containing these variables predicted house loss with 72% accuracy. Our findings have three important implications: i) management to change the occurrence of crown fire will be effective in reducing house loss; ii) this management may be required up to 1 km away from houses in some situations (a much larger zone than is currently used); iii) high density of houses may increase risk of loss. Given the potentially large width of this management zone and the hazard from nearby houses, it may be more sensible to concentrate on modification of buildings to reduce their vulnerability.