Abstract
Wildland fires have a multitude of ecological effects in forests, woodlands, and savannas across the globe. A major focus of past research has been on tree mortality from fire, as trees provide a vast range of biological services. We assembled a database of individual-tree records from prescribed fires and wildfires in the United States. The Fire and Tree Mortality (FTM) database includes records from 164,293 individual trees with records of fire injury (crown scorch, bole char, etc.), tree diameter, and either mortality or top-kill up to ten years post-fire. Data span 142 species and 62 genera, from 409 fires occurring from 1981-2016. Additional variables such as insect attack are included when available. The FTM database can be used to evaluate individual fire-caused mortality models for pre-fire planning and post-fire decision support, to develop improved models, and to explore general patterns of individual fire-induced tree death. The database can also be used to identify knowledge gaps that could be addressed in future research.
Measurement(s) | plant morphology trait • tree mortality • fire • tree fire injury • wildfire |
Technology Type(s) | digital curation |
Factor Type(s) | year of data collection • geographic location of fire • tree fire injury |
Sample Characteristic - Organism | trees |
Sample Characteristic - Environment | forest ecosystem |
Sample Characteristic - Location | Cascades Region • Blue Mountains • Far Northern Rockies • Sierra Nevada • Piedmont Province • Region of Piedmont • Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Floristic Province • Northern Rocky Mountains Provincial Park |
Machine-accessible metadata file describing the reported data: https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.12369293
Background & Summary
Wildfires burn millions of forested hectares annually, influencing regional and global carbon storage, wildlife habitat, hydrology, species diversity, and forest structure, along with human society and economy. Wildland fires directly kill trees, but also interact with other stressors and disturbances to cause additional delayed tree mortality1. The impact of a fire on a forest ecosystem (i.e., fire severity) is often quantified by the proportion of fire-caused tree mortality. Likewise, the severity of a fire regime—the aggregated impact of many fires over time—is often described by the range of variability in proportion of trees killed by fire2,3. Because of the economic and ecological importance of fire-caused tree mortality, a great deal of work has gone into developing predictive models of mortality and integrating those models into decision support systems for management4,5. The most commonly utilized models are based on empirical data: field observations of fire injury and subsequent individual tree mortality in the years following fire. Sometimes injury from fire is measured directly (e.g., crown scorch), while other measurements may be a proxy for injury that can be quickly assessed (e.g., char on bark as a proxy for cambium injury). Measurements of fire-caused injuries used in many individual tree mortality models include percentage crown volume scorched, percentage crown length scorched, percentage crown volume killed, bark char height, and cambium kill rating5,6,7,8. Many models also use measurements of tree resistance to fire, particularly bark thickness, which scales positively with tree diameter but at different rates among species4,5.
The most commonly implemented empirical model predicting post-fire tree mortality was developed by Ryan and Reinhardt9 and amended by Ryan and Amman10. This model relies on three parameters to predict probability of mortality within three years of a fire: tree species, injury to the tree crown (in the form of percentage volume of crown scorched by fire), and tree diameter (used to calculate bark thickness). This model has been implemented in many decision support systems predicting post-fire tree mortality, including the First Order Fire Effects Model (FOFEM)11,12, the Fire and Fuels Extension to the Forest Vegetation Simulator (FFE-FVS)13, and BehavePlus14. Within these decision support systems, the model predicts probability of tree mortality. No differentiation is made between obligate seeders and species capable of resprouting; therefore, mortality predictions are more accurately top-kill predictions for resprouting species. Additional models have been developed that account for species’ unique fire resistance traits (e.g., protected buds15,16), biotic consumers7,17,18, and abiotic stress19,20,21. Models of post-fire tree mortality and top-kill in landscape-scale models and Dynamic Global Vegetation Models (DGVMs) generally employ simplified approaches to modeling fire injury, but still rely on plant functional traits, such as bark thickness, to make mortality predictions for species’ groups22,23,24.
There have been numerous studies conducted to improve ecological understanding of the many factors that contribute to post-fire tree mortality, and to build predictive models with greater accuracy4,5. In an effort to capture the data from these individual studies to facilitate more expansive analyses and to identify knowledge gaps, we assembled the largest and most comprehensive collection of observations of fire-caused individual tree mortality and top-kill in the United States, the Fire and Tree Mortality (FTM) database (https://doi.org/10.2737/RDS-2020-0001)25 (Fig. 1). The purpose of the FTM database is to provide access to data on individual tree mortality or top-kill from wildland and prescribed fire. The FTM database allows for large-scale evaluation of existing post-fire-mortality models over large geographic and climatic ranges for numerous species. Observational data cover the full range of fire injuries and a large proportion of tree sizes for many species, but they also reveal where data are scant or non-existent. By pooling individual datasets and ensuring comparability among variables, it becomes feasible to explore general patterns of fire-induced tree death and top-kill, to develop improved models, and to identify data gaps to inform future research.
Methods
Soliciting data contributions
To construct our FTM database, authors Cansler, Hood, Varner, and van Mantgem conducted a literature search for publications reporting on post-fire tree mortality and contacted corresponding authors, related investigators, and managers to inquire if they were willing to contribute data. We also posted data requests on electronic mailing lists, professional management and science exchange networks, and with technical working groups. We identified and obtained archived datasets or entered them manually from archived copies. Lastly, we coordinated with the National Park Service fire ecology program to include the agency’s Fire Effects Monitoring data26.
Data aggregation and standardization
We developed the FTM database with standardized field observations from 41 contributed databases from researchers, managers, and archived datasets. Some datasets already contained aggregated data from more than one previous study27,28. At a minimum, datasets had to contain measurements of individual trees, stem diameter, fire injury, and post-fire status of above-ground stems (i.e., alive or dead). Post-fire injury measurements were collected either in the same season of the fire, or one to two years after fire. Tree diameter and height measurements were recorded either before the fire, or one to two years after fire. For the majority of cases, status of aboveground stems was recorded one to three years after fire; for some trees, status was re-evaluated in the years following fire. A tree or stem was considered dead when no green foliage remained in the crown. For obligate-seeding species, tree status almost always represents the true status of the individual: when the main stem dies, the tree dies. The exception is where the stem splits at or below breast height (BH, 1.37 m); in this situation, stems are considered separate trees, each with its own status. For species that resprout from the base or root structures, tree status in the FTM database represents survival of the main stem (i.e., top-kill). Resprouting from below-ground structures or above-ground epicormic buds are not captured in the database. We included any tree where post-fire status was measured within 10 years of the fire, noting the post-fire year(s) of status assessment. Only trees that were recorded as alive before the fire were included in the database. Many datasets included variables beyond the required minimum; we retained many variables on fire-caused injuries and biotic agents from the original datasets.
For all contributed datasets, we verified and changed all variable names and units for consistency and labelled the levels of categorical variables. We used summary tables and data visualization to identify outliers, impossible values, and duplicate records. We corresponded with data contributors when additional clarification was needed (Fig. 2). Because many of the contributed datasets were used previously for research, error checking and quality control procedures (QA/QC) had been conducted on much of the data prior to transfer to this project. For most datasets, few errors were found during the QA/QC process. Two large datasets from the National Park Service Fire Effects Monitoring Program26 and the Fire and Fire Surrogate Study28 contained longitudinal data from many sites. In these datasets, we corrected more errors after extensive checking. In the NPS dataset, we identified and removed individual tree records that were likely duplicates. For example, where two records in the same plot shared the same tag number and species, and a similar tree diameter at breast height ("DBH"; 1.37 m above ground), one record was dropped. Likewise, in the Fire and Fire Surrogate dataset (particularly from sites in the Southern USA), some tagged trees were identified as different species in sequential measurements. In these instances we retained the most recent species code, assuming that identities were corrected over time. For all datasets, we enforced consistency in coding of status (live/dead). If a tree was alive in the final assessment year, it was coded as live in previous years. If a tree was dead, it was coded as dead in subsequent years. If a tree re-burned in a second fire and post-fire injury and status information were available following the fire, a new record (row) was made for the tree after the second fire. Database contributors were able to check and offer corrections following the data standardization procedures.
Data collection and processing workflows for individual-tree data and fire-location data used to generate the data outputs. For individual-tree data, we performed quality control measures and developed standardized fields and data from 41 contributed datasets (i.e., datasets 1 through 41). At a minimum, contributed datasets had to contain measurements of individual trees, stem diameter, fire injury, and post-fire status of above-ground stems (i.e., alive or dead). Contributed datasets sometimes contained observations from multiple fires, sites, or studies. Contributed datasets contained post-fire injury measurements and tree status collected either in the same season of the fire, or one to two years after fire. In some datasets tree status was re-evaluated in multiple years following fire. We then combined tree data into a single file. Because locations in contributed datasets were provided at different scales (e.g., tree, plot, research site, and fire) we standardized all location data in the FTM database to the scale of a fire event. QA/QC = Quality assurance and quality control. MTBS = Monitoring Trends in Burn Severity https://www.mtbs.gov.
Standardization of taxa
We standardized all scientific nomenclature and species acronyms to follow the PLANTS Database http://plants.usda.gov. Data represent 142 species and 62 genera (Online-only Table 1). Some trees were unidentified or identified only to genus (14 genera; Online-only Table 1). In some instances, trees were identified to genus, but data contributors noted that the tree could be only one of two species. In total, there are three such identifiers: Abies grandis or A. lasiocarpa, Pinus jeffreyi or P. ponderosa, and Picea pungens or P. engelmannii (Online-only Table 1). Finally, some contributed datasets contained unidentified trees that were alive before the fire. We retained those records and with them, a code for “unknown tree”, but we caution that unidentified trees may have been removed from other datasets during earlier quality control steps. In total, the FTM database has 161 unique tree identifier codes.
Calculating injury variables
The FTM database includes several tree injury variables (Table 1). If variables were measured or visually estimated in the field, then we used field-based observations rather than calculated values. When these variables were not measured in the field, if possible, we calculated derived variables from those measured in the field. Specifically, we calculated:
where \(C{L}_{pre}\) is pre-fire crown length (m), \(HT\) is tree height (m), and \(HC{B}_{pre}\) is the pre-fire height of the base of the crown. If \(HT\) or HCB were measured before the fire, we used pre-fire height and crown base height. Otherwise, \(HT\) and \(CB{H}_{pre}\) were measured post-fire, either the season after the fire or within two years. \(HT\) measurements taken more than two years after the fire were coded as “NA” (not available) and were not used. Studies have established the validity of reconstructing the pre-fire living portion of the crown after fire to estimate pre-fire height and crown base height29,30.
Likewise:
where \(C{L}_{post}\) is post-fire crown length (m), \(HT\) is tree height (m), and \(HC{B}_{post}\) is the post-fire height of the base of the crown.
Using the pre- and post-fire crown length, we could calculate the length and percentage of crown length scorched:
and
where CLSmeters = crown length scorched measured in meters, CLSpercent = percentage crown length scorched, CLpre = pre-fire crown length (m), and CLpost = post-fire crown length (m). If CLSmeters was measured in the field, we used that measurement of injury, instead of the change from pre-fire to post-fire crown base height for subsequent calculations.
For studies that separated crown injury as scorch, kill, or consumed, we included the amount of crown consumed in all calculations of crown scorch or crown kill.
For trees without observed crown volume scorched values, we followed the equation in the FOFEM Help manual12 (derived from Peterson and Ryan)31.
where CVSpercent = percentage crown volume scorched, \(CL{S}_{meters}\) = crown length scorched, and \(C{L}_{pre}\) = pre-fire crown length. Because this calculation includes assumptions about tree crown architecture, it may introduce error. Thus in a separate column we coded whether the \(CV{S}_{percent}\) value was based on field observation or derived from the canopy volume equation.
Likewise, for trees with observations of crown length killed (\(CL{K}_{meters}\)), but not percentage crown volume killed (\(CV{K}_{percent}\)), we calculated \(CV{K}_{percent}\) using the same equation form as in Eq. 5, above:
Where calculations produced an impossible value (<0 or >100) we assigned the value a code of “NA” (see “Usage Notes” below).
Damage to tree stems was measured in several ways. The most common method measured the amount (e.g., height, circumference, or percentage) of char on the tree’s bark (Table 1). Char is blackened residue of bark resulting from incomplete combustion and is a coarse indicator of the duration of bole exposure to flames and heat from the fire. Cambium kill rating (CKR) is an estimate of the amount of cambium kill and stem injury from fire15,32. Measurements of CKR require removing a small sample of bark at four locations at a tree’s base to determine if the underlying vascular meristematic tissue was killed by the fire. CKR is the number of quadrants (0-4) with dead cambium.
Presence or absence of beetles that are primary mortality agents on a given tree species are used in some species-specific post-fire mortality models5,27. These beetle species include Dendroctonus ponderosae (mountain pine beetle) on Pinus spp.; D. valens (red turpentine beetle), D. ponderosae, D. brevicomis (western pine beetle) or Ips spp. (engraver beetles) on Pinus ponderosa; and D. pseudotsugae (Douglas-fir beetle) on Pseudotsuga menziesii. Individual studies may have collected more detailed beetle-attack data, but for the FTM database, we simplified all attack data as presence or absence. Some studies noted presence or absence of primary bark beetles without identifying the species: thus, we combined all presence/absence information for identified and unidentified primary bark beetles into a single “beetle” variable. When studies identified beetles to species, we included species-level presence/absence information. We also included presence/absence information for a few beetle species that are not primary agents of mortality, but have been used as predictors in some models27, such as ambrosia beetle (subfamilies Scolytinae and Platypodinae) and D. valens.
Tree identification, plot design, and study purpose
This database was developed for modeling tree mortality and top-kill at the individual-tree scale. In the FTM_trees.csv file we provide plot and tree number identification information to maintain consistency between the FTM database and the original contributed dataset. This ensures that each tree in the FTM database can be connected to its original record. Additionally, plot numbers and fire names can be used to track how observations are spatially grouped. We also provide study design information, including whether sampling was conducted at the individual-tree scale or if fixed-area or variable-radius plots were used. For fixed-area plots we define plot size and the minimum DBH sampled. For variable-radius plots, we provide the BA factor used. Finally, we provide standardized descriptions of the purpose(s) of the original studies.
Fire locations
We standardized the fire location and year-of-fire data for all observations to a consistent datum and geographic coordinate system (GCS WGS84; Fig. 2). Because locations in contributed datasets were provided at different scales (e.g., tree, plot, research site, and fire) we standardized all location data in the FTM database to the scale of a fire event. If tree or plot coordinates were provided, we took the average of those coordinates to provide a centroid for the fire event. If only research site coordinates were provided, but multiple fires occurred with different start dates, we replicated those coordinates for each fire event. If a fire name and year were provided without associated geographic coordinates, we searched the Monitoring Trends in Burn Severity database https://www.mtbs.gov for the fire, downloaded the fire geospatial data, and used the coordinates of the centroid of the fire perimeter. In instances where fires were not large enough to be in the MTBS database and we lacked coordinates, we used fire perimeter data from the local land management agency to identify fire locations. All fire-location data were uploaded to Google Earth Pro33, and the available high-resolution pre-fire and post-fire imagery and Google Earth database of place names were used to verify the fire occurrence and location. Errors or discrepancies in fire locations and dates were corrected through correspondence with data contributors.
Bark thickness coefficients
We provide data to calculate bark thickness for most of the species in the FTM database, following the method used in FOFEM 6.4. Specifically, bark thickness is estimated from a linear relationship with DBH and a species-specific barkthickness coefficient. FOFEM provides bark thickness coefficients for 192 tree species. If a species is absent, FOFEM users can substitute a species with similar bark thickness for modeling, or use one of the 24 bark-thickness relationships provided at the genus level. For species lacking a species-level bark thickness coefficient in FOFEM, we provide a coefficient from a morphologically similar species or the genus (if available). Of 159 taxa identifiers in the database, we include bark thickness coefficients for 148.
Data Records
The FTM database is available for download from the USDA Forest Service Research Data Archive25. The FTM database includes standardized field observations of fire injury and survival from 164,293 individual trees. Of these, 6,670 trees have records relating to two separate fires, resulting in a total of 170,963 observations. The data span 21 states and include 409 prescribed fires and wildfires from 1981 to 2016 (Fig. 1). The data represent 142 species and 62 genera; 97.3% of the trees are identified to species and 99.7%, to genus.The archived data product consists of a metafile in both HTML and XML formats, a TIFF file showing the geographic locations of fires, and five separate data files:
-
Dataset_citations.csv: Comma-delimited ASCII text file containing the main citation for each contributed dataset in the Fire and Tree Mortality (FTM) database.
-
Dataset_primary_contacts.csv: Comma-delimited ASCII text file containing dataset names as they appear in the FTM database and the associated primary contact information.
-
FTM_fires.csv: Comma-delimited ASCII text file containing fire names, year, dataset contact, and location for fires in the FTM database.
-
FTM_trees.csv: Comma-delimited ASCII text file containing tree-level records of fire injury, tree size, and bark beetle attack.
-
Species_BarkThickness.csv: Comma-delimited ASCII text file containing the list of species found in the FTM database and the bark thickness information used to evaluate FOFEM version 6.4 model accuracy.
Figure 3 shows the common fields and connections among each of the five data files.
Technical Validation
The data used to build the FTM database primarily come from high-quality data sources that have been used in other analyses and peer-reviewed publications, or from long-term institutional monitoring studies. The majority of individual-tree observations are derived from peer-reviewed studies6,7,8,15,17,18,27,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,69,70,71,72,73,74. Data were contributed by corresponding authors, or came from archived datasets from completed projects28,40,75,76,77,78. Twelve additional datasets were not peer reviewed, but were summarized in professional reports or theses79,80,81,82 or represent ongoing research or monitoring by land management professionals26,83,84,85,86,87,88,89. The contributed database with the largest sample of fires is from the National Park Service Fire Effects Monitoring Program, a long-term institutional monitoring program in which permanent field plots are resampled on a standardized schedule with trained staff and established quality controls26. These studies and monitoring projects were designed for a range of purposes, listed in the FTM_Fires.csv file, including modelling post-fire tree mortality6,7,15,17,18,40,42,47,48,50,58,71,74,79,90,91,92, understanding the effectiveness of prescribed fire at reducing fuel loading, future fire severity, restoring historical forest structure38,39,56,57,59,60,61,66,67,69,82,93, tracking post-fire successional dynamics43,45,59,62,63,90,94, developing remote sensing indices to understand landscape fire effects46,70,95, carbon emission modeling65, plant physiological research36,53,54,55, and research on interactions between fire and bark beetles4,7,10,18,34,35,37,41,43,44,49,51,81. The file Dataset_citations.csv provides the primary citations for each contributed dataset in the FTM database.
Usage Notes
We developed the FTM database to validate existing models of individual-stem and tree-scale post-fire tree mortality96 and to support development of new models. Researchers may find additional uses for these data, but we urge caution in their use. For any use, researchers should consider possible sources of error. Despite multiple procedures for quality control, there are likely to be errors of observation and calculation present in the final FTM database. For example, many post-fire injury measurements, such as crown volume scorch, are subjective field estimates, and may vary among observers (although consistency within a study is likely to be higher than consistency across studies). Data from studies that included repeated measurements over time will be more accurate than those based on a single post-fire measurement. Common errors that can be identified and corrected through repeated measurements include misidentified species, duplicate or missing records, incorrect diameter measurements, and incorrect tree status (e.g., mistakenly identifying trees as dead). We excluded trees that were dead prior to fires, and we excluded ingrowth that reached minimum measurement sizes after the fire that were recorded in longitudinal datasets. For studies where plots were measured post-, but not pre-fire, there may be errors in pre-fire status if trees that died shortly before the fire were erroneously coded as alive. Any calculations of carbon stores from this dataset could only include pre-fire live carbon, since contributed datasets did not consistently include measurements of trees that were dead before the fire, and therefore we did not include any trees that were dead before the fire in the database.
Crown injury variables derived from field observations are also susceptible to errors. Most derived variables are based on simple calculations (detailed above) and after each calculation we checked for impossible values. If found, these were coded as “NA”. The most common error of this sort occurred when pre-fire crown base height was slightly higher than post-fire crown base height (resulting in a negative value for crown length scorch). This error likely reflects varying precision in the measurement of crown base height before and after the fire, but it could also reflect a data collection or data entry error. For crown volume scorch and crown volume killed (Eqs. 5 and 6), the equation, based on assumptions of tree crown shape and crown length, may introduce error. For transparency, we coded which observations were based on field observations and which were derived from the crown volume equation. Percentages of crown length and crown volume are positively correlated but are not the same or interchangeable15, and models using field-based measurements perform better96. In addition, users should be aware that observations of crown scorch typically imply that the scorched portions of the crown are killed by the fire (i.e., bud kill or crown kill). However, this is not always true for species with large buds or epicormic sprouting4. Thus, the FTM database crown scorch values should be understood to represent the proportion of the tree’s leaves that were killed by fire, but not the extent of bud mortality or the potential for branch recovery. For studies that differentiated between crown scorch and crown kill levels, the percentage of crown scorched must always be greater than or equal to the percentage of crown killed.
For tree mortality and top-kill modelling, we note three limitations in particular. First, because different combinations of injury variables were measured in each study, there are many missing values in the FTM database. Second, tree status observations decline—particularly observations of live trees—as time since fire increases (Fig. 4). Because we extrapolated tree status for years when plots were not measured, modeling of plot-scale proportional mortality would not be an appropriate use of the data. Third, in building empirical models, it is important to consider the data range for the variables used, and not simply for the individual variables, but for the combined predictor space represented in the dataset97 (Fig. 5).
Number of tree-status observations (n) by years since fire for live (L) and dead (D) trees. Only species with ≥200 samples are shown. We filled in missing values for tree status when possible (e.g., dead trees remained dead after monitoring ceased; live trees were coded as live in previous years). The longer the time since fire, the more likely a database will contain only dead trees for a given species.
The FTM database includes information on sampling design, and where applicable, plot size and minimum tree diameter sampled. The best use for the fire-scale and plot-scale identifiers is understanding and accounting for the spatial aggregation or nesting of many of the observations (e.g., by using hierarchical or mixed-effects models)98. Although plot-level metrics, such as stem density, basal area, or stand density index can be generated from some datasets, we did not develop the FTM database explicitly for plot-level modeling. Plot-level measurements can be used to quantify variation in forest structure or intensity of competition, but with caution due to variation in how trees were sampled among studies. There are several possible types of unaccounted variation in plot-level statistics: (1) individual tree records that were incomplete and removed from contributed datasets before transfer to the current study; (2) undocumented procedures for subsampling different tree diameter classes; and (3) undocumented exclusion of species (e.g., angiosperms) or growth forms (e.g., tall woody shrubs or hardwoods) that would have influenced stem densities or indices of competition.
Plots were not the sampling units in all contributed datasets. For many studies—particularly physiology and bark beetle studies—the individual tree was the sampling unit. In other studies, plots were used to structure the sampling, but not all trees were measured within a plot (e.g., only the first three stems of a given species or size class were sampled or only a particular species was sampled). When trees were fully censused within a plot, the minimum DBH differed among studies (noted in the FTM_fires.csv file), thus cross-study comparisons of plot-level statistics must be made with caution.
Because the FTM database was developed to support individual-tree scale modeling, we devoted considerable effort to identifying incomplete or duplicate records. These were detectable only in datasets with repeated measurements (e.g., National Park Service datasets). However, optimizing for complete and non-duplicate records may produce erroneous plot-level metrics (e.g., tree density). Finally, for all datasets, tree locations within plots were not recorded, thus indices of neighborhood competition at the individual-tree scale (or any finer scale than the plot) cannot be calculated. Users can refer to the primary literature contained in Dataset_citations.csv for additional information on study designs and dataset contents.
Pooling data from across the United States incorporates taxa that are not well represented in previous studies, such as junipers and oaks. Nevertheless, geographic and taxonomical gaps remain. Data are primarily from the western USA, with some representation of the southeastern USA (Fig. 1). Gymnosperms are better represented than angiosperms (Online-only Table 1). We encourage researchers to identify geographic or taxonomic gaps in the existing data and to target sampling to fill those gaps. We plan to update the FTM database as additional data are collected and made available from the USA and internationally.
Code availability
Fire and Tree Mortality Database (FTM) is available from Forest Service Research Data Archive https://doi.org/10.2737/RDS-2020-0001. All reformatting of contributed data was completed in R version 3.6.199. Original contributed data are only available by contacting data contributors. The code used to reformat the data may be obtained contacting C. A. Cansler.
References
Kane, J. M., Varner, J. M., Metz, M. R. & van Mantgem, P. J. Characterizing fire-disturbance interactions and their potential impacts on tree mortality in western U.S. forests. For. Ecol. Manage. 405, 188–199 (2017).
Rollins, M. G. & Frame, C. K. The LANDFIRE Prototype Project: Nationally Consistent and Locally Relevant Geospatial Data for Wildland Fire Management. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-175. (U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, 2006).
LANDFIRE Mapping Team. LANDFIRE/GAP Land Cover Map Unit Descriptions. Modified by GAP/USGS to incorporate descriptions for all LANDFIRE Map Units, and the 2015 NVC Hierarchy Jan. 4, 2016. Based on NatureServe Ecological Systems Version 1.13 Data Date: Oct. 23, 2009. 1377 (2016).
Hood, S. M., Varner, J. M. M., van Mantgem, P. & Cansler, C. A. Fire and tree death: understanding and improving modeling of fire-induced tree mortality. Environ. Res. Lett. 13, 113004 (2018).
Woolley, T., Shaw, D. C., Ganio, L. M. & Fitzgerald, S. A review of logistic regression models used to predict post-fire tree mortality of western North American conifers. Int. J. Wildl. Fire 21, 1 (2012).
Grayson, L. M., Progar, R. A. & Hood, S. M. Predicting post-fire tree mortality for 14 conifers in the Pacific Northwest, USA: Model evaluation, development, and thresholds. For. Ecol. Manage. 399, 213–226 (2017).
Hood, S. & Bentz, B. Predicting postfire Douglas-fir beetle attacks and tree mortality in the northern Rocky Mountains. Can. J. For. Res 37, 1058–1069 (2007).
Keyser, T. L. et al. Short-term stem mortality of 10 deciduous broadleaved species following prescribed burning in upland forests of the Southern US. Int. J. Wildl. Fire 27, 42 (2018).
Ryan, K. C. & Reinhardt, E. D. Predicting postfire mortality of seven western conifers. Can. J. For. Res 18, 1291–1297 (1988).
Ryan, K. & Amman, G. Interactions between fire-injured trees and insects in the Greater Yellowstone Area. Plants their Environ. Proc. First Bienn. Sci. Conf. Gt. Yellowstone Ecosyst., 259–271, https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/barkbeetles/169/ (1994).
Reinhardt, E., Keane, R. E. & Brown., J. K. First Order Fire Effects Model: FOFEM 4.0 User’s Guide. General Technical Report INT-GTR-344, USDA Forest Service (1997).
Lutes, D., Keane, R. E. & Reinhardt, E. D. FOFEM 6.0 User Guide. (USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: Fort Collins, CO, 2012).
Reinhardt, E. & Crookston, N. L. Fire and Fuels Extension to the Forest Vegetation Simulator. Gen. Tech. Rep. - Rocky Mt. Res. Station. USDA For. Serv. (2003).
Andrews, P. L. Current status and future needs of the BehavePlus Fire Modeling System. Int. J. Wildl. Fire 23, 21–33 (2014).
Hood, S. M., Smith, S. L. & Cluck, D. R. Predicting mortality for five California conifers following wildfire. For. Ecol. Manage. 260, 750–762 (2010).
Menges, E. S. & Deyrup, M. A. Postfire survival in south Florida slash pine: Interacting effects of fire intensity, fire season, vegetation, burn size, and bark beetles. Int. J. Wildl. Fire 10, 53–63 (2001).
Sieg, C. H. et al. Best predictors for postflre mortality of ponderosa pine trees in the intermountain west. For. Sci 52, 718–728 (2006).
Breece, C., Kolb, T., Dickson, B., Mcmillin, J. & Clancy, K. Prescribed fire effects on bark beetle activity and tree mortality in southwestern ponderosa pine forests. For. Ecol. Manage. 255, 119–128 (2008).
van Mantgem, P. J., Falk, D. A., Williams, E. C., Das, A. J. & Stephenson, N. L. Pre-fire drought and competition mediate post-fire conifer mortality in western U.S. National Parks. Ecol. Appl. 28, 1730–1739 (2018).
van Mantgem, P. J. et al. Climatic stress increases forest fire severity across the western United States. Ecol. Lett. 16, 1151–1156 (2013).
Nesmith, J. C. B., Das, A. J., Hara, K. L. O. & Mantgem, P. J. V. The influence of prefire tree growth and crown condition on postfire mortality of sugar pine following prescribed fire in Sequoia National Park. 919, 910–919 (2015).
Keane, R. E., Loehman, R. A. & Holsinger, L. M. The FireBGCv2 landscape fire and succession model: a research simulation platform for exploring fire and vegetation dynamics. (U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station), https://doi.org/10.2737/RMRS-GTR-255 (2011).
Thonicke, K. et al. The influence of vegetation, fire spread and fire behaviour on biomass burning and trace gas emissions: Results from a process-based model. Biogeosciences 7, 1991–2011 (2010).
Sturtevant, B. R., Scheller, R. M., Miranda, B. R., Shinneman, D. & Syphard, A. Simulating dynamic and mixed-severity fire regimes: A process-based fire extension for LANDIS-II. Ecol. Modell, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2009.07.030 (2009).
Cansler, C. A. et al. Fire and Tree Mortality Database (FTM). Forest Service Research Data Archive https://doi.org/10.2737/RDS-2020-0001 (2020).
US Department of the Interior National Park Service. Fire Monitoring Handbook. 274 (2003).
Hood, S. & Lutes, D. Predicting post-fire tree mortality for 12 western us conifers using the first order fire effects model (FOFEM). Fire Ecol 13, 66–84 (2017).
McIver, J. D. et al. Data for National Fire and Fire Surrogate study: environmental effects of alternative fuel reduction treatments. Forest Service Research Data Archive https://doi.org/10.2737/RDS-2016-0009 (2016).
Hood, S., Bentz, B., Gibson, K., Ryan, K. & DeNitto, G. Assessing post-fire Douglas-fir mortality and Douglas-fir beetle attacks in the northern Rocky Mountains. USDA Forest Service - General Technical Report RMRS-GTR, https://doi.org/10.2737/RMRS-GTR-199 (2007).
Ryan, K. C. In Proceedings of the symposium: Fire, its field effects, 19–21 October 1982, Jackson, Wyoming. 1–11 (Intermountain Fire Council, Missoula, MT, 1982).
Peterson, D. L. & Ryan, K. C. Modeling postfire conifer mortality for long-range planning. Environ. Manage. 10, 797–808 (1986).
Hood, S. M., Cluck, D. R., Smith, S. L. & Ryan, K. C. Using bark char codes to predict post-fire cambium mortality. Fire Ecol. 4, 57–73, ST-Using bark char codes to predict post- (2008).
Google Inc. Google Earth Pro. Version 7.1.1.188. (2013).
Agne, M. C., Woolley, T. & Fitzgerald, S. Fire severity and cumulative disturbance effects in the post-mountain pine beetle lodgepole pine forests of the Pole Creek Fire. For. Ecol. Manage. 366, 73–86 (2016).
Andrus, R. A., Veblen, T. T., Harvey, B. J. & Hart, S. J. Fire severity unaffected by spruce beetle outbreak in spruce-fir forests in southwestern Colorado. Ecol. Appl. 26, 700–711 (2016).
Lombardero, M. J., Ayres, M. P. & Ayres, B. D. Effects of fire and mechanical wounding on Pinus resinosa resin defenses, beetle attacks, and pathogens. For. Ecol. Manage. 225, 349–358 (2006).
Santoro, A. E., Lombardero, M. J., Ayres, M. P. & Ruel, J. J. Interactions between fire and bark beetles in an old growth pine forest. For. Ecol. Manage. 144, 245–254 (2001).
Harrod, R. J., Peterson, D. W., Povak, N. A. & Dodson, E. K. Thinning and prescribed fire effects on overstory tree and snag structure in dry coniferous forests of the interior Pacific Northwest. For. Ecol. Manage, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2009.05.011 (2009).
Battaglia, M. A., Smith, F. W. & Shepperd, W. D. Can prescribed fire be used to maintain fuel treatment effectiveness over time in Black Hills ponderosa pine forests? For. Ecol. Manage. 256, 2029–2038 (2008).
Brown, J. K. & DeByle, N. V. Fire damage, mortality, and suckering in aspen. Can. J. For. Res 17, 1100–1109 (1987).
Davis, R. S., Hood, S. & Bentz, B. J. Fire-injured ponderosa pine provide a pulsed resource for bark beetles. Can. J. For. Res. Can. Rech. For. 42, 2022–2036 (2012).
Engber, E. A. & Varner, J. M. Predicting Douglas-fir Sapling Mortality Following Prescribed Fire in an Encroached Grassland. Restor. Ecol 20, 665–668 (2012).
Harvey, B. J., Donato, D. C., Romme, W. H. & Turner, M. G. Influence of recent bark beetle outbreak on fire severity and postfire tree regeneration in montane Douglas-fir forests. Ecology 94, 2475–2486 (2013).
Harvey, B. J., Donato, D. C. & Turner, M. G. Recent mountain pine beetle outbreaks, wildfire severity, and postfire tree regeneration in the US Northern Rockies. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 111, 15120–5 (2014).
Harvey, B. J., Donato, D. C., Romme, W. H. & Turner, M. G. Fire severity and tree regeneration following bark beetle outbreaks: The role of outbreak stage and burning conditions. Ecol. Appl., https://doi.org/10.1890/13-1851.1 (2014).
Harvey, B. J., Donato, D. C. & Turner, M. G. Drivers and trends in landscape patterns of stand-replacing fire in forests of the US Northern Rocky Mountains (1984–2010). Landsc. Ecol., https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-016-0408-4 (2016).
Hood, S. M., McHugh, C. W., Ryan, K. C., Reinhardt, E. & Smith, S. L. Evaluation of a post-fire tree mortality model for western USA conifers. Int. J. Wildl. Fire 16, 679 (2007).
McHugh, C. W. & Kolb, T. E. Ponderosa pine mortality following fire in northern Arizona. Int. J. Wildl. Fire 12, 7 (2003).
McHugh, C. W., Kolb, T. E. & Wilson, J. L. Bark Beetle Attacks on Ponderosa Pine Following Fire in Northern Arizona. Environ. Entomol. 32, 510–522 (2003).
Kobziar, L., Moghaddas, J. & Stephens, S. L. Tree mortality patterns following prescribed fires in a mixed conifer forest. Can. J. For. Res 36, 3222–3238 (2006).
Lerch, A. P., Pfammatter, J. A., Bentz, B. J. & Raffa, K. F. Mountain pine beetle dynamics and reproductive success in post-fire lodgepole and ponderosa pine forests in Northeastern Utah. PLoS One 11, 1–22 (2016).
McDaniel, V. L., Perry, R. W., Koerth, N. E. & Guldin, J. M. Evaluation of FOFEM Fuel Loads and Consumption Estimates in Pine-Oak Forests and Woodlands of the Ouachita Mountains in Arkansas, USA. For. Sci 62, 307–315 (2016).
O’Brien, J. J., Hiers, J. K., Mitchell, R. J., Varner, J. M. & Mordecai, K. Acute physiologicaal stress and mortality following fire in a long-unburned longleaf pine ecosystem. Fire Ecol. 6, 1–12 (2010).
Perrakis, D. D. B., Agee, J. K. & Eglitis, A. Effects of Prescribed Burning on Mortality and Resin Defenses in Old Growth Ponderosa Pine (Crater Lake, Oregon): Four Years of Post-Fire Monitoring. Nat. Areas J 31, 14–25 (2011).
Perrakis, D. D. & Agee, J. K. Seasonal fire effects on mixed-conifer forest structure and ponderosa pine resin properties. Can. J. For. Res 36, 238–254 (2006).
Trappe, M. J. et al. Interactions among prescribed fire, soil attributes, and mycorrhizal community structure at Crater Lake National Park, Oregon, USA. Fire Ecol 5, 30–50 (2009).
Prichard, S. J., Peterson, D. L. & Jacobson, K. Fuel treatments reduce the severity of wildfire effects in dry mixed conifer forest, Washington, USA. Can. J. For. Res 40, 1615–1626 (2010).
Ganio, L. M. & Progar, R. A. Mortality predictions of fire-injured large Douglas-fir and ponderosa pine in Oregon and Washington, USA. For. Ecol. Manage. 390, 47–67 (2017).
Roccaforte, J. P. et al. Delayed tree mortality, bark beetle activity, and regeneration dynamics five years following the Wallow Fire, Arizona, USA: Assessing trajectories towards resiliency. For. Ecol. Manage. 428, 20–26 (2018).
Huffman, D. W. et al. Effectiveness of fuel reduction treatments: Assessing metrics of forest resiliency and wildfire severity after the Wallow Fire, AZ. For. Ecol. Manage. 334, 43–52 (2014).
Roccaforte, J. P. et al. Forest structure and fuels dynamics following ponderosa pine restoration treatments, White Mountains, Arizona, USA. For. Ecol. Manage., https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2014.11.001 (2015).
Stoddard, M. T., Huffman, D. W., Fulé, P. Z., Crouse, J. E. & Sánchez Meador, A. J. Forest structure and regeneration responses 15 years after wildfire in a ponderosa pine and mixed-conifer ecotone, Arizona, USA. Fire Ecol., https://doi.org/10.1186/s42408-018-0011-y (2018).
Stoddard, M. T., Sánchez Meador, A. J., Fulé, P. Z. & Korb, J. E. Five-year post-restoration conditions and simulated climate-change trajectories in a warm/dry mixed-conifer forest, southwestern Colorado, USA. For. Ecol. Manage., https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2015.07.007 (2015).
Korb, J. E., Fulé, P. Z. & Stoddard, M. T. Forest restoration in a surface fire-dependent ecosystem: An example from a mixed conifer forest, southwestern Colorado, USA. For. Ecol. Manage., https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2012.01.002 (2012).
Rogers, B. M. et al. Quantifying fire-wide carbon emissions in interior Alaska using field measurements and Landsat imagery. J. Geophys. Res. G Biogeosciences, https://doi.org/10.1002/2014JG002657 (2014).
Safford, H. D., Stevens, J. T., Merriam, K., Meyer, M. D. & Latimer, A. M. Fuel treatment effectiveness in California yellow pine and mixed conifer forests. For. Ecol. Manage. 274, 17–28 (2012).
Stevens, J. T., Safford, H. D. & Latimer, A. M. Wildfire-contingent effects of fuel treatments can promote ecological resilience in seasonally dry conifer forests. Can. J. For. Res 44, 843–854 (2014).
Das, A. J., Stephenson, N. L. & Davis, K. P. Why do trees die? Characterizing the drivers of background tree mortality. Ecology 97, 2616–2627 (2016).
van Mantgem, P. J., Stephenson, N. L., Knapp, E., Battles, J. & Keeley, J. E. Long-term effects of prescribed fire on mixed conifer forest structure in the Sierra Nevada, California. For. Ecol. Manage., https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2010.12.013 (2011).
McCarley, T. R. et al. Landscape-scale quantification of fire-induced change in canopy cover following mountain pine beetle outbreak and timber harvest. For. Ecol. Manage., https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2017.02.015 (2017).
Varner, J. M. et al. Overstory tree mortality resulting from reintroducing fire to long-unburned longleaf pine forests: the importance of duff moisture. Can. J. For. Res 37, 1349–1358 (2007).
Thies, W. G., Westlind, D. J., Loewen, M. & Brenner, G. Prediction of delayed mortality of fire-damaged ponderosa pine following prescribed fires in eastern Oregon, USA. Int. J. Wildl. Fire 15, 19–29 (2006).
Hanula, J. L., Meeker, J. R., Miller, D. R. & Barnard, E. L. Association of wildfire with tree health and numbers of pine bark beetles, reproduction weevils and their associates in Florida. For. Ecol. Manage. 170, 233–247 (2002).
McDaniel, V. L. et al. Tree mortality following a drought-year lightning ignition in the Ouachita Mountains, Arkansas: 2 years postburn. Proc. 18th Bienn. South. Silvic. Res. Conf. 206–213 (2016).
Brown, J. K. & Debyle, N. V. Aspen Mortality and Response. Supplement to Study Plan No. 2108-103 and 1751-24. Fire as a management tool in the western aspen ecosystem - Prescription development and postburn vegetative response in western Wyoming. USDA Forest Service (1982).
Schwilk, D. W. et al. The National Fire and Fire Surrogate study: effects of fuel reduction methods on forest vegetation structure and fuels. Ecol. Appl. 19, 285–304 (2009).
Finney, M. A. Fire-related mortality in ponderosa pine in eastern Montana. Unpublished Report INT-93800-RJVA. (USDA Forest Service, RMRS Fire Sciences Laboratory, Missoula., 1999).
Hanula, J. L. Unpublished data. Post-fire tree data from the 1998 Oak fire, FL, USA. (2018).
Stuever, M. Fire induced mortality of Rio Grande Cottonwood. (M.S. Thesis. Department of Biology, University of New Mexico, 1997).
Weiss, S. A. & Corace, R. G. III Rapid Ecological Assessment of Forest Cover and Fire Effects at Driggs River Road Prescribed Fire. (2014).
Ayres, M. P., Lombardero, M. J., Ayres, B. D., Shumate, A. M. & Santoro, A. E. The biology and management of bark beetles in old growth pine forests of Itasca State Park. Gt. Lakes Inst. Pine Ecosyst. Res. 128 pp. (1999).
Cram, D. S., Baker, T. T. & Boren, J. C. Wildland Fire Effects in Silviculturally Treated vs. Untreated Stands of New Mexico and Arizona. Res. Pap. RMRS-RP-55. USDA For. Serv. Rocky Mt. Res. Stn. 28 (2006).
Kopper, K. E. Unpublished data. Rapid Assessment Plots from the 2016 Paradise fire, Olympic National Park, WA, USA. (2017).
Hood, S. M. Unpublished data on file at USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory. (2019).
Dickinson, D. M. Unpublished data. Post-fire tree data from the WWETAC project in the Carlton Complex fire, WA, USA. (2019).
Coleman, T. W. Unpublished data. Post-fire tree injury data from the 2013 Mountain wildfire and 2015 Wooded Hill prescribed fire, CA, USA. (2018).
Cluck, D. R. Unpublished data. Post-fire tree data from 2013 fires in California. (2018).
Kreye, J., Cronan, J., Ottmar, R., Restaino, J. & Pulido-Chavez, F. Pre- and post-burn fuel characterization and tree mortality assessment for the Forest Resiliency Burning Pilot. Report to the Washington Department of Natural Resources. (2017).
Roccaforte, J. P. Evaluating treatment effectiveness following the 2014 San Juan Fire, White Mountains, Arizona. ERI Fact Sheets. Ecological Restoration Institute, Northern Arizona University. 3 p. (2016).
Battaglia, M., Smith, F. W. & Shepperd, W. D. Predicting mortality of ponderosa pine regeneration after prescribed fire in the Black Hills, South Dakota, USA. Int. J. Wildl. Fire 18, 176–190 (2009).
Ryan, K. C. & Amman, G. D. Bark Beetle Activity and Delayed Tree Mortality in the Greater Yellowstone Area Following the 1988 Fires. Ecol. Implic. fire Gt. Yellowstone Proceedings. Int. Assoc. Wildliand Fire, Fairland, WA 151–158 (1996).
Keyser, T. L., Smith, F. W., Lentile, L. B. & Shepperd, W. D. Modeling postfire mortality of ponderosa pine following a mixed-severity wildfire in the Black Hills: The role of tree morphology and direct fire effects. For. Sci 52, 530–539 (2006).
Fiedler, C. E., Metlen, K. L. & Dodson, E. K. Restoration treatment effects on stand structure, tree growth, and fire hazard in a ponderosa pine/douglas-fir forest in Montana. For. Sci. 56, 18–31 (2010).
Harvey, B. J., Donato, D. C. & Turner, M. G. High and dry: Post-fire tree seedling establishment in subalpine forests decreases with post-fire drought and large stand-replacing burn patches. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr 25, 655–669 (2016).
McCarley, T. R. et al. Multi-temporal LiDAR and Landsat quantification of fire-induced changes to forest structure. Remote Sens. Environ., https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2016.12.022 (2017).
Cansler, C. A., Hood, S. M., Mantgem, P. van & Varner, J. M. A large database supports the use of simple models of post-fire tree mortality in the continental United States. In prep. Fire Ecol.
Shearman, T. M., Varner, J. M., Hood, S. M., Cansler, C. A. & Hiers, J. K. Modelling post-fire tree mortality: Can random forest improve discrimination of imbalanced data? Ecol. Modell 414, 108855 (2019).
Gelman, A. & Hill, J. Data Analysis Using Regression and Multilevel/Hierarchical Models. (Cambridge University Press, 2006).
R Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Version 3.1.2 (2014-10-31). (2014).
Ryan, K. C. & Noste, N. V. Evaluating prescribed fires. in Proceedings - symposium and workshop on wilderness fire. Missoula, MT, 15-18 November 1983. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-182. (eds. Lotan, J., Kilgore, B. M., Fischer, W. C. & Mutch, R. W.) 230–238 (U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, 1985).
Acknowledgements
We acknowledge funding from the Joint Fire Science Program under project JFSP 16-1-04-8. Additional support was provided by USDA Forest Service Forest Health Protection, USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, the National Fire Plan, and our current institutions. Comments from Erik Jules, and two anonymous reviewers improved this manuscript. Any use of trade, firm, or product names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. The FTM database would not exist without the hard work of hundreds of individuals who collected data in the field. Thank you.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
C. Alina Cansler solicited data contributions, co-developed the database structure, reformatted all contributed data, developed the fire-location database, entered and formatted hard-copy data, and co-wrote the manuscript. Sharon M. Hood conceived of the database idea, solicited data contributions, provided input into the database structure and development, co-wrote the manuscript and provided data. Phillip J. van Mantgem and J. Morgan Varner co-developed the project, solicited data contributions, provided input into the database structure and development, assisted with reformatting contributed data, contributed to writing the manuscript, and provided data. Michelle C. Agne, Robert A. Andrus, Matthew P. Ayres, Jonathan D. Bakker, Michael A. Battaglia, Barbara J. Bentz, Carolyn R. Breece, Daniel R. Cluck, Tom W. Coleman, R. Greg Corace III, Douglas S. Cram, James B. Cronan, Adrian J. Das, Ryan S. Davis, Darci M. Dickinson, Jim L. Hanula, Brian J. Harvey, MaryBeth Keifer, Tara L. Keyser, Leda N. Kobziar, Karen E. Kopper, Andrew P. Lerch, Virginia L. McDaniel, Joseph J. O’Brien, Daniel D.B. Perrakis, Susan J. Prichard, Robert A. Progar, John P. Roccaforte, Brendan M. Rogers, Carolyn H. Sieg, Rebecca J. Smith, Mary Steuver, Jens T. Stevens, Nicole M. Vaillant and Douglas J. Westlind, oversaw data collection and analysis of original data, contributed data to the database, helped inform data reformatting, reviewed the FTM database, and contributed to the manuscript. Timothy M. Shearman, Lindsay M. Grayson and Micah Wright helped conduct and inform data reformatting. Bruce D. Ayres, James K. Brown, W. Wallace Covington, Joseph E. Crouse, Stephen A. Fitzgerald, Lisa M. Ganio, Charles B. Halpern, J. Kevin Hiers, David W. Huffman, Tom E. Kolb, Crystal A. Kolden, Jason R. Kreitler, Jesse K. Kreye, Andrew M. Latimer, Maria J. Lombardero, Charles W. McHugh, Joel D. McMillin, Jessica J. Page, David W. Peterson, Kenneth F. Raffa, Elizabeth D. Reinhardt, Joe C. Restaino, Kevin C. Ryan, Hugh D. Safford, Alyson E. Santoro, Alice M. Shumate, Sheri Smith, Nathan L. Stephenson, Michael T. Stoddard, Walter G. Thies, Shelby A. Weiss and Travis J. Woolley oversaw original data collection and analysis and contributed to the manuscript.
Corresponding authors
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Online-only Table
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ applies to the metadata files associated with this article.
About this article
Cite this article
Cansler, C.A., Hood, S.M., Varner, J.M. et al. The Fire and Tree Mortality Database, for empirical modeling of individual tree mortality after fire. Sci Data 7, 194 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-020-0522-7
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-020-0522-7