Science of the Total Environment 631–632 (2018) 1304–1310

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Science of the Total Environment

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/scitotenv

Fire danger index efficiency as a function of fuel moisture and

fire behavior
Fillipe Tamiozzo Pereira Torres a,⁎, Joyce Machado Nunes Romeiro a, Ana Carolina de Albuquerque Santos a,
Ricardo Rodrigues de Oliveira Neto a, Gumercindo Souza Lima a, José Cola Zanuncio b
a
Departmento de Engenharia Florestal, Universidade Federal de Viçosa, Viçosa, Minas Gerais, Brazil
b
Entomologia/BIOAGRO, Universidade Federal de Viçosa, Viçosa, Minas Gerais, Brazil

H I G H L I G H T S G R A P H I C A L A B S T R A C T

• Fire danger index performance was

evaluated based on fuel moisture and
fire behavior.
• Controlled burns of four plots per day
were performed over 80 days.
• The Telicyn and Nesterov index pre-
sented lower correlation with the vari-
ables.
• The EVAP/P index had an influence on
the largest number of fuel variables
and fire behavior.
• This method can be applied even in
areas without records or with only un-
reliable forest fire data.

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Assessment of the performance of forest fire hazard indices is important for prevention and management strat-
Received 24 July 2017 egies, such as planning prescribed burnings, public notifications and firefighting resource allocation. The objec-
Received in revised form 8 March 2018 tive of this study was to evaluate the performance of fire hazard indices considering fire behavior variables
Accepted 10 March 2018
and susceptibility expressed by the moisture of combustible material. Controlled burns were carried out at differ-
Available online xxxx
ent times and information related to meteorological conditions, characteristics of combustible material and fire
behavior variables were recorded. All variables analyzed (fire behavior and fuel moisture content) can be ex-
plained by the prediction indices. The Brazilian EVAP/P showed the best performance, both at predicting mois-
Keywords: ture content of the fuel material and fire behavior variables, and the Canadian system showed the best
Controlled burns performance to predicting the rate of spread. The coherence of the correlations between the indices and the var-
Fine fuel moisture iables analyzed makes the methodology, which can be applied anywhere, important for decision-making in re-
Weather indices
gions with no records or with only unreliable forest fire data.
© 2018 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Forest fires are considered a major disturbance in forest ecosystems.

⁎ Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: tamiozzo@ufv.br (F.T.P. Torres), joyce.romeiro@ufv.br
(J.M.N. Romeiro), ana.albuquerque@ufv.br (A.C.A. Santos), ricardo.rodrigues@ufv.br
(R.R. de Oliveira Neto), gslima@ufv.br (G.S. Lima), zanuncio@ufv.br (J.C. Zanuncio).
Their occurrence can lead to considerable ecological and economic im-
pacts as well as global CO2 emissions comparable to those from fossil
fuel combustion (Bowman et al., 2009). Of the three principal factors
(weather, fuel, and topography) that likely influence where and why

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.03.121
0048-9697/© 2018 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
 F.T.P. Torres et al. / Science of the Total Environment 631–632 (2018) 1304–1310
fires start and spread, weather is generally considered the most dy-
namic (Jolly et al., 2015). Weather affects indirectly the fire propagation
by influencing fuel moisture and, directly, via wind direction
(Rothermel, 1972; Finney, 2005). Fire spreads faster with warm, dry
and windy weather (Holsinger et al., 2016).
The fire danger level has been estimated using mathematical
models, based on meteorological data. Calculation methods lead to a
numerical index that is translated as a level of alarm which rises with
the increase in probability of fire occurrence conditions (Hamadeh
et al., 2017).
The wide range of climates and factors controlling ignition makes it
difficult to define a universal fire danger index (Pérez-Sánchez et al.,
2017). The selection or verification of the best fire danger index for a
given area should be based on statistical criteria. The efficiency of dan-
ger indices has been compared with methods using each day of the
dataset usually classified according to “fire-days” or “no-fire-days” (in
some cases additionally “multiple-fire-days” and “large-fire-days”)
(Schunk et al., 2017). Fire indices in Austria are compared to a median
linear model, based on the percentage of occurrences or non-
occurrences of fires (Arpaci et al., 2013), and the Skill Score method
compares the efficiency of these indices in Brazil (Nunes et al., 2010;
Torres et al., 2017a). Percentages of burned area, fires per day, fire clas-
ses, etc. (Viegas et al., 1999) and the distance from Mahalanobis
(Crotteau et al., 2013; Pérez-Sánchez et al., 2017) are used to compare
fire hazard indices in Europe.
There are no updated records for fire occurrences that provide
knowledge of forest fire regimes in Brazil. Only a few forestry companies
have maintained a reliable record of occurrences over the years (Tetto
et al., 2015). “Fire-day” or “no-fire-day” categories may not be univer-
sally applicable if fire occurrences are nonexistent or have a low number
of records (Schunk et al., 2017). Additionally, the association of the
index values, or their classes, with occurrences or non-occurrences of
fire may not portray the actual fire behaviour, since they do not predict
human intervention (ignitions). The influence of man on ignition was
seen in N95% and 98% of forest fires in Europe (San-Miguel-Ayanz
et al., 2013) and Brazil (Torres et al., 2017b), respectively, showing the
effects of human activity. A fire will not occur without the initial flame
to start the combustion reaction, even with factors favorable to
ignition and fire propagation (Torres et al., 2014). Maximum danger
does not necessarily determine the presence of fire and days classified
as a minimum danger may have fire occurrences due to human
intervention.
Fire danger weather indices should correlate with the moisture
content of the fuel, the main ignition factor and fire propagation
(Pyne et al., 1996). The estimation of the moisture content is the
key factor for fire indices because the humidity of the fuel deter-
mines the probability of ignition and the propagation of the fires
(Pérez-Sánchez et al., 2017). For this reason, modeling and valida-
tion of fuel moisture in relation to meteorological parameters has
been studied (Matthews et al., 2010; Resco de Dios et al., 2015;
Slijepcevic et al., 2015), and a review of fire danger, as well as fire
behavior modeling systems and their development, was made in
Australia, Europe and USA (Fujioka et al., 2008).
The moisture content of the combustible material is an indepen-
dent parameter for assessing the performance of fire hazard indices
and is related to meteorological elements. This parameter represents
a direct, physical and nominal scale measurement of the fire hazard
(meteorological and site specific). In addition, it allows a greater va-
riety of statistical analyses beyond binary classifications (“fire-day”
or “no-fire-day”) independent of causes of human origin, that can
be unevenly distributed at spatial and fire hazard levels (Schunk
et al., 2017).
The objective of this study was to evaluate the performance of
different fire danger indices considering the behavioral variables and
susceptibility to fire expressed by the moisture of the combustible
material in southeastern Brazil.
1305
2. Materials and methods
This study was conducted at the campus of the Federal University of
Viçosa (UFV) in Viçosa, Minas Gerais, Brazil (Fig. 1) in an area with 10-
year old hybrid Eucalyptus urophylla and Eucalyptus grandis, spaced 3
× 3 m, aspect of 302° (Northwest) and slope (10°) with uniform relief
and fuel conditions. The region and much of southeastern Brazil have
Cwa climate, according to Koppen (wet summers and dry winters)
(Torres and Machado, 2011).
During 80 days defined at random, between July 1, 2016 and
November 30, 2016, controlled burnings were performed in four plots
per day in different periods: period 1 beginning at 09:00 am; period 2
beginning at 11:00 am; period 3 beginning at 1:00 p.m. and period 4
beginning at 3:00 p.m., with the purpose of simulating a time of the
year (winter and spring) and the schedule of higher fire danger
(Torres et al., 2017b). After the plots were burned, new plots were
used in the experiment, therefore, the plots were burned only once.
For the analysis, it was used the average of the four burnings of the
day, thus it was utilized 80 samples.
The area of each plot was 20 m2 (2 m × 10 m) centralized between
the planting lines (Fig. 2) where observation and measurement of com-
bustible material and meteorological variables were evaluated as well
as fire behavior during burning.
2.1. Fuel
The combustible material, deposited on the ground, was character-
ized by height, amount, type and humidity. These data were obtained
from the forest plantation floor with 2 quadrats of 2500 cm2 (50 cm
× 50 cm), randomly placed in each plot, where the combustible material
was collected and analyzed as: 1 - height of the material layer deposited
on the forest floor, measured before and after (Residual fuel), by mea-
suring the combustible material in demarcated plots, with a ruler, at
the four corners of the template used. The variable depth of burning
was estimated by the difference between the height of the bed before
and after burning; 2 - amount (kg): the total fuel material was collected
before and after each burn, 3 - type: the material was separated into four
categories (Brown et al., 1982): material with a diameter between 0 and
0.64 cm (CI), 0.64 to 2.54 cm (CII), 2.54 to 7.62 cm (CIII) and N7.62 cm
(CIV). The CI class was subdivided into three subclasses: CI-V- living or-
ganic material (grasses), CI-M- miscellaneous- dead organic material
composed mostly of eucalyptus leaves, grasses, duff, etc., CI-L wood
b0.64 cm diameter; 4 - moisture, collected material was placed in an
oven at 75 °C until constant weight was achieved to determine the
weight of dried matter. The fuel moisture was obtained by the differ-
ence between the initial weight and the dry matter of the samples
from the same random quadrats within the plot. In order not to interfere
with the burning, these samples were collected attached to the plots,
having the same conditions of the material inside the plots. In addition
to the moisture of each fuel class, the total fuel moisture was also deter-
mined (UCT). The material consumed by burning (available fuel or CD)
was obtained by the difference between the weight before (total fuel)
and after burning (residual fuel). The samples were collected, weighed
and returned to the site so as not to interfere with the burning. The var-
iable “depth of burning” (PQ) was estimated by the difference between
the depth of the forest floor before and after burning, by measuring with
a ruler at the burn site.
2.2. Fire behavior variables
The fire behavior variables, observed during the burning of each plot,
were: 1- rate of spread (VP), obtained visually, determining the time re-
quired for the fire line to travel distances of 1 m demarcated in each plot
in the direction of its length (10 m); 2- height of flames (Hch) - average
height of flames at each meter of advance of fire line, obtained with
ruler. These observations allowed the obtention of the parameters: 1-
1306 F.T.P. Torres et al. / Science of the Total Environment 631–632 (2018) 1304–1310

Fig. 1. Study area and climatological normal.

fire intensity (I) with the Byram (1959) equation: I = H ∗ w ∗ VP, being: I
= fire intensity in kw.m−1.s−1, H = calorific value of the wet material
in Kcal.kg−1, w = weight of fuel available in kg.m−2, VP = rate of
spread in m.s−1. The calorific value was determined in PARR adiabatic
calorimeter model 1108. The calorific value of the wet material (real cal-
orific value) was estimated from the equation of Countryman (1977): H
= Hd [(100 − U/7) / 100 + U], being: H = calorific value of the wet
matter, in Kcal.kg−1, Hd = calorific value of the dry matter, in Kcal.
kg−1, U = percentage of moisture in weight of the fuel. 2- heat per
unit area (CA) defined by the equation: CA = I/VP, where: CA = heat re-
leased in kcal.m−2, I = fire intensity in kw.m−1.s−1, VP = rate of spread
in m.s−1. 3- lethal scorch height (Hcl) with the equation: Hcl = [(3.94
∗ I7/6) / (0.107 ∗ I + WS3)0.5 (60-T)], being: Hcl = scorch height in me-
ters, I = fire intensity in k.m−1.s−1, WS = wind speed in m.s−1, T = air
temperature in °C. The analyzed variables are presented in Table 1.

2.3. Weather

The meteorological conditions (precipitation and evaporation) dur-

ing the experimental period were monitored at the UFV Weather

Table 1
Variables used in a study.

Variables Description

UCI-M Miscellaneous moisture (%)

UCI-V Live fuel moisture (%)
UCI-L Class 1 fuel moisture (%)
UCII Class 2 fuel moisture (%)
UCT Total fuel moisture (%)
PQ Depth of burning (cm)
VP Rate of spread (m/s)
Hch Height of flames (cm)
CD Fuel available (g)
I Fire intensity (kw.m−1)
Ca Heat per unit area (kcal.m−2)
Hcl Lethal scorch height (cm)
Hd Calorific value of dry matter (Kcal.kg−1)
H Calorific value of wet matter (Kcal.kg−1)
Fig. 2. Experimental design.
 F.T.P. Torres et al. / Science of the Total Environment 631–632 (2018) 1304–1310 1307

Table 2 not satisfy the distribution: inverse (x−1 2 3

i ), quadratic (xi ), cubic (xi ), log-
Fire danger indices used, country of origin, input parameters and references. arithm neperian (ln(xi)) and inverse of logarithm neperian ( ln (xi)−1).
Index abbrev. Index name Origin Input data Reference Subsequently, multiple regressions were adjusted for the variables
FFMC Fine fuel moisture code Canada T, RH, P, W van Wagner
obtained with the burning and the fuels used as a function of the risk in-
DMC Duff moisture code Canada T, RH, P (1987) dices. The forward Stepwise method was used to select or exclude each
DC Drought code Canada T, P variable. At each iteration the significance of the variable was defined by
ISI Initial spread index Canada T, RH, P, W analyzing the statistical significance at 5% probability of the test Fparcial of
BUI Buildup index Canada T, RH, P
the coefficient associated with the variable for the model. In cases
FWI Fire weather index Canada T, RH, P, W
Nesterov Nesterov Russia T, RH, P Torres et al. where the presence of multicollinearity occurred the variable was re-
Telicyn Telicyn Russia T, RH, P (2017a) moved from the model. With this method the following model was ad-
FMA Monte Alegre índex Brazil RH, P justed:
FMA+ Monte Alegre altered index Brazil RH, P, W
P-EVAP P-EVAP Brazil P, E
EVAP/P EVAP/P Brazil P, E yi ¼ b0i þ b11 x11 þ … þ bij xij þ εi:
T: temperature (°C), RH: relative humidity (%), P: precipitation (mm/24 h), W: wind speed
(m/s), E: Evaporation (mm). where: yi are the independent variables obtained with the fire behavior
and the fuels used, xij are the j fire risk indices to be related to the yi var-
iables, bij are the parameters to be estimated for each equation and εi is
the random error of the model where e~N(μ,θ2).
Station, which is 1 km far from the site of the burning and has the same
altitude and exposure of the site. Meteorological observations were also 3. Results
made within the forest plantation (air temperature and relative humid-
ity, wind speed and direction) during burning near the plots. Measure- Table 3 shows the minimum, maximum, mean, variance and stan-
ments were taken at the beginning and end of each burn. dard deviation values for the data collected and the calculated indices.
A great variation of the data is observed, with the humidity of finer
2.4. Fire danger indices fuels varying more than coarser fuels, and the live fuel presents greater
moisture. The variables of fire behavior also show great variation.
Twelve fire danger indices created in Canada, Russia and Brazil, with In period 1 (09:00 am), during 5 days of experiment, the flames self-
different meteorological input data were used (Table 2). The indices are extinguished before burning the whole plot, due to high fuel moisture.
calculated daily since 2007. For the analysis, it was used values of the The same happened for period 2 (11:00 am) during 4 days; period 3
days of burns. (01:00 pm) during 3 days, and period 4 (03:00 pm) during 2 days of ex-
periment (Table 4). The days and times with more humidity made it diffi-
2.5. Comparison of index efficiency cult to burn the plots, the indices in these days presented no or small risk
for the occurrence of fire. It was also observed that the days that did not
The normality of the data distributions (fuel conditions and fire be- burn are in the second half of spring and all plots burned during the winter.
havior variables) was previously analyzed with the Lilliefors test. The Therefore, fourteen plots entered the statistical analysis with zero values
normality test statistic is given by: for fire behavior, but their fuel humidity data continued to be used.
All plots presented CI and CII class samples. Only one sample had a
Dn ¼ Max j F ðxi Þ−F n ðxi Þ j CIV and six had CIII class samples. Both class samples (CIV and CIII)
were excluded from the analysis due to low representativity.
where Dn is the maximum distance between the standardized observed The evaluation of the moisture of the combustible material varied
cumulative probability distributions F(xi) and the theoretical cumula- between the indices depending on the analyzed variables. The
tive distribution Fn(xi) with significance analyzed at 5% probability. Brazilian EVAP/P showed the best performance, both at predicting
The following transformations were tested on the variables that did moisture content of the fuel material and fire behavior variables, and

Table 3
Descriptive statistics of fuel data used for burning, burning data and calculated fire risk indices.

Statistics Explanatory variables

FFMC DMC DC ISI BUI FWI Nesterov Telicyn FMA FMA+ P-EVAP EVAP/P

Minimum 16.0 3.0 118.0 0.8 6.0 1.9 262.0 1.2 2.8 6.8 −159.0 4.2
Maximum 94.0 163.0 459.0 11.8 173.0 42.3 25,243.3 66.1 138.5 320.0 −2.7 143.4
Average 85.5 79.2 377.9 6.8 96.7 22.5 6061.4 13.8 43.3 134.6 −46.4 54.0
Variance 296.0 2653.9 7515.0 13.7 2403.3 163.7 51,897,572.5 262.2 1733.9 10,854.3 2009.7 2015.8
Standard deviation 17.2 51.5 86.7 3.7 49.0 12.8 7204.0 16.2 41.6 104.2 44.8 44.9

Statistics Independent variables

Fuel moisture Fire behaviour

UCI-M UCI-V UCI-L UCII UCT CD PQ VP Hch I Ca Hcl

Minimum 11.4 35.0 11.1 11.3 12.6 0.7 1.1 0.00175 9.1 13.8 1974.8 1.2
Maximum 91.2 123.9 64.3 46.3 77.1 3.2 6.0 0.03501 142.5 370.9 13,176.2 17.7
Average 34.4 80.9 23.6 23.6 34.8 1.8 3.7 0.01942 76.6 153.4 6282.8 7.0
Variance 772.9 699.6 198.1 117.4 473.8 0.8 3.3 0.00013 1866.9 14,335.5 13,499,798.3 25.7
Standard deviation 27.8 26.5 14.1 10.8 21.8 0.9 1.8 0.01161 43.2 119.7 3674.2 5.1
Number os samples 320 320 320 320 320 320a 320a 320a 320a 320a 320a 320a
a
In fourteen of these plots these variables received zero values because they did not burn.
1308 F.T.P. Torres et al. / Science of the Total Environment 631–632 (2018) 1304–1310

Table 4
Days and plots that have not burned, weather conditions and values of fire hazard indexes.

Date Period f/nfa UCT T RH Dwrb FFMC DMC DC ISI BUI FWI FMA FMA+ Nesterov Telicyn P-EVAP EVAP/P

10/24/2016 1 nf 93.9 21.8 86 2 83 32 391 2 53 6 4 25 262 1 −3 6

2 nf 83.6 26.8 64 2
3 nf 64.6 27 63 2
4 f 58.8 28.1 57 2
11/07/2016 1 nf 82.3 21.5 79 2 73 27 405 1 47 2 3 4 300 1 −4 4
2 nf 79.1 23.5 66 2
3 nf 70.0 23.5 69 2
4 nf 79.0 23.5 73 2
11/10/2016 1 nf 53.9 21.9 84 5 83 32 426 3 54 9 7 26 787 4 −14 15
2 nf 57.1 24.2 73 5
3 f 39.2 24 71 5
4 f 29.3 26.5 71 5
11/14/2016 1 nf 88.7 23.7 86 0 16 3 176 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2 nf 71.7 25.5 80 0
3 nf 67.0 27 77 0
4 nf 81.0 27 72 0
11/29/2016 1 nf 63.92 24 79 6 90 19 118 7 28 12 0 26 0 0 −18 18
2 f 47.31 30.05 57 6
3 f 46.57 30.75 55 6
4 f 36.77 31.6 51 6
a
Fire/non fire.
b
Days without rain.

the Canadian system showed the best performance to predicting the
Rate of spread (Table 5).
4. Discussion
The high R2 values of the models, generated to explain the relations
between the fire hazard indices and the analyzed variables, show that
the use of combustible material moisture and fire behavior variables
can be used to compare the efficiency of forest fire hazard indices in
any location. It facilitates decision making by increasing confidence in
the results and can be used in regions without records or with unreliable
forest fire data. The literature also indicates the possibility of automated
measurements of fine fuel moisture, saving time in obtaining the results
(Schunk et al., 2017).
The days and times with burning that did not complete the course
were those of greatest fuel moisture (above 53%) due to the greater en-
ergy requirement for the combustion process (Rothermel, 1972).
The separation of the combustible material shows the low represen-
tativity of the thicker classes of this material, CIV and CIII, and indicated
homogenous samples. This aided in understanding the correlations,
since the response of heterogeneous materials to the meteorological
changes is broader, making analyses more complex. The separation of
the combustible material into classes allows us to understand the re-
sponses between the indices analyzed, since the materials index with
different dimensions varies according to weather conditions (Brown
and Bevins, 1986).
EVAP/P (UCI-M, UCI-L, UCII and UCT), P-EVAP (UCI-M, UCII and
UCT), FWI (UCI-M, UCI-L and UCT) and DMC (UCI-V) were the only in-
dices with significance in the models obtained for fuel moisture. EVAP/P
was the lowest p-value in all models, except for the living material (UCI-
V). The single index correlated with the UCI-V was DMC (duff moisture
code) because of this, despite significant, its R2 was the lowest among all
analyzes, which can be explained by the greater complexity mecha-
nisms of water loss and retention in relation to dead fuels (Brown and
Bevins, 1986).
The only indices that showed a correlation with UCII (time lag of
10 h) were P-EVAP and EVAP/P, which can be explained by the decrease
in relative humidity of air as the fuel diameter increases (Brown and
Bevins, 1986).
The non-correlation of the dead material (UCI-M) with DMC (duff
moisture code) and the correlation with FWI (fire intensity), although
not expected, is similar to that reported in Germany (Schunk et al.,
2017). The non-correlation of the FFMC with the fuel moisture was
not expected because it represents the moisture content of litter and
other cured fine fuels in a forest stand (van Wagner, 1987).
All variables analyzed - fire behavior and fuel moisture content - can
be explained by the prediction indices, with EVAP/P (UCI-M, UCI-L, UCII,
UCT, Hch, I, Ca and Hcl) and FWI (UCI-M, UCI-L, UCT, VP and I) indices
being the most present in equations generated. The higher efficiency
of the EVAP/P at predicting fuel moisture and fire behavior was probably
because it seems to demonstrate better the relationship between loss
and moisture gain. EVAP/P did not correlate with only three parame-
ters: UCI-V, VP and CD. The non-correlation with UCI-V is explained
by the fact that living material behaves differently in relation to atmo-
spheric humidity (Alves et al., 2009). The non-correlation with VP and
CD is due to the fact that EVAP/P does not take into account wind veloc-
ity and combustible material, respectively.
The components of the Canadian system also showed efficiency at
predicting fuel moisture - except for CII - and fire behavior - except for
PQ, CD and CA. The non-correlation of DC (drought code) with the
fuel humidity and fire behavior variables is due to the slow response
of this component to variations in weather conditions (Schunk et al.,
2017). The efficiency of the indices in relation to fire behavior showed
greater correlations between the depth of burns (PQ) and Nesterov
and FMA+. The rate of spread most correlated with ISI (initial spread
index) and FWI (the lower p-values) was also expected to express the
joint effect of the wind and the moisture of the fine combustible
material.
The relationships between indices of danger and fire behavior and
fuel moisture (Aguado et al., 2007; Pereira et al., 2012; Schunk et al.,
2017) are little studied. This justifies research comparing the efficiency
of fire hazard indices in different regions.
Unfortunately, the literature is scarce in studies that use fire behav-
ior and humidity of combustible material to compare efficiency be-
tween indices of danger. The few ones found are restricted to the
Canadian System both using fuel humidity (Abbott et al., 2007;
Aguado et al., 2007) or fire behavior (Haines et al., 1983), or compare
a small number of indices (FMA e FMA+) as Pereira et al. (2012).
Comparing the efficiency of fire hazard indices with the moisture
content, Schunk et al. (2017) determined that FWI was the most effi-
cient for southeastern Germany.
The traditional approach that compares the indices with the days of
fire occurrence or non-occurrence, also showed the higher efficiency of
FWI and FMA+ indices in relation to the percentage of occurrences
Table 5
Coefficients of the multiple regressions and p-value obtained with the fit of the model yi = b0i + b11x11 + … + bijxij + εi., where yi are the burning data and the fuels used and xij are the fire risk indices and coefficient of determination R2 adjusted for
each equation.

F.T.P. Torres et al. / Science of the Total Environment 631–632 (2018) 1304–1310
Y Marked (*) correlations are significant at p b 0.05000 and (p-value) below Adjusted R2

Intercept FFMC 1/(DMC) DC 1/(ISI) 1/(BUI) FWI Nesterov Telicyn FMA 1/(FMA+) 1/(P-EVAP) 1/(EVAP/P)

UCI-M 12.462* 39.400 −289.621* 86.334* 842.170* 0.94

(0.55928) (0.00160) (0.009232) (0.000001)
UCI-V3 1.027* 0.231 0.78
(0.000006) (0.146301)
UCI-L 82.106* −0.731 −88.418* 26.367 294.695* 0.87
(0.072151) (0.007089) (1.139007) (0.000192)
3
UCII 1.1642* 0.310* 0.87
(0.041983) (00000001)
UCT 12.305* 556.674 28.689 −208.225* 69.681* 556.028* 0.89
(0.073835) (0.168371) (0.017308) (0.049841) (0.001423)
Ln(PQ) −0.669 0.1298 −0.704 −0.366* −0.957* −0.259 0.93
(0.162176) (0.192822) (0.112240) (0.007184) (0.002289) (0.215933)
Ln(VP) −21.677* 0.190* 68.271* 12.238* −53.9017* 0.90
(0.07271) (0.000687) (0.000088) (0.000009)
Ln(Hch) 0.305* 0.3985 0.661 −0.667 −29.000* −0.587* 0.93
(0.006131) (0.096103) (0.158660) (0.103399) (0.006131) (0.000510)
1/ln(CD) −2.121 2.596* 0.720 0.468 0.91
(0.072274) (0.038579) (0.151473) (0.344538)
1/(I) −0.0127* −0.0757* 0.5026* 0.0001* 0.220* 0.95
(0.017524) (0.005780) (0.006759) (0.000656)
1/(CA) 0.0001* 0.002* 0.86
(0.000001)
1/(Hcl) 0.52123* −13.424* −0.0010* 20.7355* 0.3885 2.5542* 0.89
(0.000558) (0.026340) (0.000004) (0.182171) (0.23523)

Only normal distributed variables representations are reported in the table.

1309
1310 F.T.P. Torres et al. / Science of the Total Environment 631–632 (2018) 1304–1310
during days with (95% and 93.7%) and with no risk (5.1% and 6.4%) of
fire for the study area (Torres et al., 2017a). In Juiz de Fora, 160 km
away from the studied site, the EVAP/P index was the most efficient
(Torres and Ribeiro, 2008).
In São Paulo state, the FWI was highlighted as the most efficient
index, followed by the Telicyn Logarithmic Index, then the Nesterov
and finally the FMA (Torres et al., 2017a). Also, a study from the state
of Minas Gerais, Coronel Fabriciano municipality, 138 km away from
Viçosa, identified the EVAP/P and P-EVAP indices as the most efficient
(Torres et al., 2017a). In their work, Holsten et al. (2013) reported
that, for Germany, apart from the FWI, Angstron and Nesterov indices,
the Canadian index was the most effective for the country, while the
Nesterov index had the lowest efficiency.
5. Conclusions
The performance of forest fire hazard indices, from the measure-
ment of the moisture of combustible material and values obtained dur-
ing controlled burning, can be observed. The higher correlation of the
indices with the moisture of the combustible material facilitates the
identification of the most efficient index according to location. The
choice of the most efficient index for each situation is important for
the management of forest fires, such as planning prescribed burnings,
public notifications and firefighting resource allocation.
Acknowledgements
Dr. Phillip John Villani (The University of Melbourne, Australia)
revised and corrected the English language used in this manuscript.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.03.121.
References
Abbott, K.N., Alexander, M.E., MacLean, D.A., Leblon, B., Beck, J.A., Staples, G.C., 2007.
Predicting forest floor moisture for burned and unburned Pinus banksiana forests
in the Canadian northwest territories. Int. J. Wildland Fire 16:71–80. https://doi.
org/10.1071/WF06021.
Aguado, I., Chuvieco, E., Borén, R., Nieto, H., 2007. Estimation of dead fuel moisture con-
tent from meteorological data in Mediterranean areas. Applications in fire danger as-
sessment. Int. J. Wildland Fire 16:390–397. https://doi.org/10.1071/WF06136.
Alves, M.V.G., Batista, A.C., Soares, R.V., Koehler, H.S., Pereira, J.F., 2009. Fuel moisture
modeling based on meteorological variables. Floresta 39:167–174. https://doi.org/
10.5380/rf.v39i1.13736.
Arpaci, A., Eastaugh, C.S., Vacik, H., 2013. Selecting the best performing fire weather indi-
ces for Austrian ecoregions. Theor. Appl. Climatol. 114:393–406. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s00704-013-0839-7.
Bowman, D.M.J.S., Balch, J.K., Artaxo, P., Bond, W.J., Carlson, J.M., Cochrane, M.A., et al.,
2009. Fire in the earth system. Science 324:481–484. https://doi.org/10.1126/
science.1163886.
Brown, J., Bevins, C., 1986. Surface Fuel Loadings and Prediced Fire Behavior for Vegeta-
tion Types in the Northern Rocky Mountains. Research Note INT-358. USDA Forest
Service, Ogden.
Brown, J., Oberheu, R., Johnston, C., 1982. Inventorying Surface Fuels and Handbook for
inventorying surface fuels and biomass in the interior west. Research Note INT-129.
USDA Forest Service, Ogden.
Byram, G.M., 1959. Combustion of forest fuels. In: Davis, K.P. (Ed.), Forest Fire: Control
and Use. McGraw-Hill, New York.
Countryman, C.M., 1977. The Nature of Heat. Portland, Pacific Southwest Forest and Range
Experiment Station.
Crotteau, J.S., Morgan Varner, J., Ritchie, M.W., 2013. Post-fire regeneration across a fire
severity gradient in the southern cascades. For. Ecol. Manag. 287:103–112. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2012.09.022.
Finney, M.A., 2005. The challenge of quantitative risk analysis for wildland fire. For. Ecol.
Manag. 211:97–108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2005.02.010.
Fujioka, F.M., Gill, A.M., Viegas, D.X., Wotton, B.M., 2008. Fire danger and fire behavior
modeling systems in Australia, Europe, and North America. In: Bytnerowicz, A.,
Arbaugh, M., Riebau, A., Andersen, C. (Eds.), Dev. Environ. Sci. vol. 8. Elsevier B.V.:
pp. 471–497. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1474-8177(08)00021-1.
Haines, D.A., Main, W.A., Frost, J.S., Simard, A.J., 1983. Fire-danger rating and wildfire oc-
currence in the northeastern United States. For. Sci. 29, 679–696.
Hamadeh, N., Karouni, A., Daya, B., Chauvet, P., 2017. Using correlative data analysis to de-
velop weather index that estimates the risk of forest fires in Lebanon & Mediterra-
nean: assessment versus prevalent meteorological indices. Case Stud. Fire Saf.:8–22
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csfs.2016.12.001.
Holsinger, L., Parks, S.A., Miller, C., 2016. Weather, fuels, and topography impede wildland
fire spread in western US landscapes. For. Ecol. Manag. 380:59–69. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.foreco.2016.08.035.
Holsten, A., Dominic, A.R., Costa, L., Kropp, J.P., 2013. Evaluation of the performance of me-
teorological forest fire indices for German federal states. For. Ecol. Manag. 287:
123–131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2012.08.035.
Jolly, W.M., Cochrane, M.A., Freeborn, P.H., Holden, Z.A., Brown, T.J., Williamson, G.J., et al.,
2015. Climate-induced variations in global wildfire danger from 1979 to 2013. Nat.
Commun. 6, 7537. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms8537.
Matthews, S., Gould, J., McCaw, L., 2010. Simple models for predicting dead fuel moisture
in eucalyptus forests. Int. J. Wildland Fire 19:459–467. https://doi.org/10.1071/
WF09005.
Nunes, J.R.S., Fier, I.S.N., Soares, R.V., Batista, A.C., 2010. Desempenho da fórmula de Monte
Alegre (FMA) e da fórmula de Monte Alegre alterada (FMA +) no Distrito Florestal de
Monte Alegre. Floresta 40, 319–326.
Pereira, J.F., Batista, A.C., Soares, R.V., 2012. Forest fuel moisture variation in terms of forest
fire danger index. Cerne 18, 371–376.
Pérez-Sánchez, J., Senent-Aparicio, J., Díaz-Palmero, J.M., Cabezas-Cerezo, J.D., 2017. A
comparative study of fire weather indices in a semiarid south-eastern Europe region.
Case of study: Murcia (Spain). Sci. Total Environ. 590–591:761–774. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.03.040.
Pyne, S.K., Andrews, P.L., Laven, R.D., 1996. Introduction to Wildland Fire. John Wiley &
Sons, New York.
Resco de Dios, V., Fellows, A.W., Nolan, R.H., Boer, M.M., Bradstock, R.A., Domingo, F., et al.,
2015. A semi-mechanistic model for predicting the moisture content of fine litter.
Agric. For. Meteorol. 203:64–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2015.01.002.
Rothermel, R.C., 1972. A mathematical model for predicting fire spread in wildland fuels.
Research Paper INT-115 Ogden: USDA Forest Service.
San-Miguel-Ayanz, J., Schulte, E., Schmuck, G., Camia, A., 2013. The European forest fire in-
formation system in the context of environmental policies of the European Union.
Forest Policy Econ. 29:19–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2011.08.012.
Schunk, C., Wastl, C., Leuchner, M., Menzel, A., 2017. Agricultural and forest meteorology
fine fuel moisture for site- and species-specific fire danger assessment in comparison
to fire danger indices. Agric. For. Meteorol. 234–235:31–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
agrformet.2016.12.007.
Slijepcevic, A., Anderson, W.R., Matthews, S., Anderson, D.H., 2015. Evaluating models to
predict daily fine fuel moisture content in eucalypt forest. For. Ecol. Manag. 335:
261–269. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2014.09.040.
Tetto, A.F., Soares, R.V., Batista, A.C., Wendling, W.T., 2015. Forest fires supressed by Klabin
of Parana in the period 1965–2009. Cerne 21:345–351. https://doi.org/10.1590/
01047760201521031682.
Torres, F.T.P., Machado, P.J.O., 2011. Introdução à Climatologia. Cengage Learning, São
Paulo.
Torres, F.T.P., Ribeiro, G.A., 2008. Índices de risco de incêndios florestais em Juiz de Fora/
MG. Floram 15 (2), 24–34.
Torres, F.T.P., Ribeiro, G.A., Martins, S.V., Lima, G.S., 2014. Susceptibility mapping of the oc-
currence of vegetation fire in the urban area of Ubá - MG. Revista Árvore 38:811–817.
https://doi.org/10.1590/S0100-67622014000500005.
Torres, F.T.P., Lima, G.S., Martins, S.V., Valverde, S.R., 2017a. Analysis of efficiency of fire
danger indices in forest fire prediction. Revista Árvore 41:1–10. https://doi.org/
10.1590/1806-90882017000200009.
Torres, F.T.P., Lima, G.S., Costa, A.G., Félix, G.A., Silva-Júnior, M.R., 2017b. Forest fire statis-
tics in Brazilian Conservation Units from 2008 to 2012. Floresta 46:531–542. https://
doi.org/10.5380/rf.v46i3.44199.
van Wagner, C.E., 1987. Development and structure of the canadian forest fire weather
index system. Forestry Technical Report. vol. 35. Ontario, Canadian Forest Service.
Viegas, D.X., Bovio, G., Ferreira, A., Nosenzo, A., Sol, B., 1999. Comparative study of various
methods of fire danger evaluation in southern Europe. Int. J. Wildland Fire 9:235.
https://doi.org/10.1071/WF00015.