University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln Agronomy & Horticulture -- Faculty Publications Agronomy and Horticulture Department 2020 Land-Use Type as a Driver of Large Wildfire Occurrence in the U.S. Great Plains Victoria M. Donovan University of Nebraska-Lincoln, vdonovan2@unl.edu Carissa L. Wonkka University of Nebraska-Lincoln, carissa.wonkka@usda.gov David A. Wedin University of Nebraska-Lincoln, dwedin1@unl.edu Dirac Twidwell University of Nebraska-Lincoln, dirac.twidwell@unl.edu Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/agronomyfacpub Part of the Agricultural Science Commons, Agriculture Commons, Agronomy and Crop Sciences Commons, Botany Commons, Horticulture Commons, Other Plant Sciences Commons, and the Plant Biology Commons Donovan, Victoria M.; Wonkka, Carissa L.; Wedin, David A.; and Twidwell, Dirac, "Land-Use Type as a Driver of Large Wildfire Occurrence in the U.S. Great Plains" (2020). Agronomy & Horticulture -- Faculty Publications. 1346. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/agronomyfacpub/1346 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Agronomy and Horticulture Department at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in Agronomy & Horticulture -- Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. remote sensing ArticleLand-Use Type as a Driver of Large WildfireOccurrence in the U.S. Great PlainsVictoria M. Donovan 1,* , Carissa L. Wonkka 1, David A. Wedin 2 and Dirac Twidwell 11 Department of Agronomy and Horticulture, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, NE 68583, USA;carissa.wonkka@usda.gov (C.L.W.); dirac.twidwell@unl.edu (D.T.)2 School of Natural Resources, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, NE 68583, USA; dwedin1@unl.edu* Correspondence: vdonovan2@unl.eduReceived: 4 May 2020; Accepted: 5 June 2020; Published: 9 June 2020Abstract: Wildfire activity has surged in North America’s temperate grassland biome. Like manybiomes, this system has undergone drastic land-use change over the last century; however, how variousland-use types contribute to wildfire patterns in grassland systems is unclear. We determine if certainland-use types have a greater propensity for large wildfire in the U.S. Great Plains and how thischanges given the percentage of land covered by a given land-use type. Almost 90% of the areaburned in the Great Plains occurred in woody and grassland land-use types. Although grasslandcomprised the greatest area burned by large wildfires, woody vegetation burned disproportionatelymore than any other land-use type in the Great Plains. Wildfires were more likely to occur whenwoody vegetation composed greater than 20% of the landscape. Wildfires were unlikely to occurin croplands, pasture/hay fields, and developed areas. Although these patterns varied by region,wildfire was most likely to occur in woody vegetation and/or grassland in 13 of 14 ecoregions weassessed. Because woody vegetation is more conducive to extreme wildfire behaviour than otherland-use types in the Great Plains, woody encroachment could pose a large risk for increasing wildfireexposure. Regional planning could leverage differential wildfire activity across land-uses to devisetargeted approaches that decrease human exposure in a system prone to fire.Keywords: ecoregions; exposure; grassland; natural disaster; regional planning; woody encroachment1. IntroductionNatural disasters result when human populations are unable to cope with biophysical processesthat push systems to the extreme ranges of variability in system functioning [1–3]. Increases innatural disasters have been recorded globally [2,4], leading to high economic costs and loss of life.Almost 1 million fatalities worldwide resulted from natural disasters between 2004 and 2013 [5]. Thedamages resulting from weather and climatic disasters alone in the United States cost over $1.5 trillionbetween 1980 and 2018 [6]. With increases in the frequency and magnitude of extreme events occurringaround the world [7,8], it is a growing priority to identify patterns and processes associated witha heightened propensity for extreme events so that we can better identify and manage current andfuture risk.Natural disasters resulting from wildfire are increasing [9], fuelling the need to understandpatterns in wildfire in regions experiencing rapid increases in wildfire trends. North America’sgrassland biome saw a surge of large wildfire activity in recent decades [10]. The average numberof large wildfires per year increased from 33 between 1985 and 1994 to 117 between 2005 and 2014while total hectares burned increased by 400% during this time [10]. Multiple Great Plains states,including Texas, Oklahoma, Montana, and North Dakota, were part of wildfire disaster events thateach individually exceeded $1 billion in losses between 2008 and 2018 [6]. The Wildland Fire ExecutiveRemote Sens. 2020, 12, 1869; doi:10.3390/rs12111869 www.mdpi.com/journal/remotesensingRemote Sens. 2020, 12, 1869 2 of 17Council lists the Great Plains as a region that is mostly at low to moderate risk for large, long durationwildfire (Figure 1). While this may still be true relative to the forested west, more large wildfires havebeen occurring across this region than in the historical past [10]. Many of these wildfires have similarduration to large wildfires in the west (e.g., the Rhea fire in Oklahoma burned 14 days in 2018; NationalWildfire Coordinating Group).Remote Sens. 2019, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 2 of 18 Texas, Oklahoma, Montana, and North Dakota, were part of wildfire disaster events that each individually exceeded $1 billion in losses between 2008 and 2018 [6]. The Wildland Fire Executive Council lists the Great Plains as a region that is mostly at low to moderate risk for large, long duration wildfire (Figure 1). While thi may still be true relative to the foreste west, more large wildfires have been occurring across this region than in the historical pas [10]. Many of these wildfir s have similar durati n to large wildfires in the west (e.g., the Rhea fire in Oklahoma burned 14 days in 2018; National Wi dfire Coordinating Group) Figure 1. Areas designated as high risk for large, long‐duration wildfire (red) by the National Cohesive Wildland Fire Management Strategy [11]. The black outline delineates the Great Plains L1 ecoregion. Wildfire used to be frequent in the Great Plains, with an average fire return interval between 2 and 14 years [12]. However, a shift in land management practice from the application of fire by Native Americans to post‐European land management practices of fire suppression almost eradicated large fire from the Great Plains over the last century [12–15], and it is this characterisation of fire that shapes most assessments of current wildfire risk. However, past trends are incapable of predicting current and future risks in systems that are rapidly transitioning and reorganizing [16,17]. Four of the top 10 largest wildfire complexes since 2010 within the conterminous U.S. occurred in the Great Plains, and the largest wildfire on record in the conterminous U.S. occurred in Texas in 2006 [18]. The western United States experienced abrupt increases in wildfire that contrasted with previously recorded wildfire patterns resulting in an altered and more hazardous wildfire regime [19]. Increases in wildfire across the Great Plains could similarly represent a shift in wildfire regime tied to a rapidly changing environment. Understanding recent changes in wildfire in the Great Plains needs to begin with investigations of the dominant constraints on wildfire occurrence and distribution: (1) fuel availability, (2) ignition sources, and (3) climatic and weather conditions conducive to combustion [20–22]. Patterns in ignitions have been documented across the conterminous U.S., with 84% of wildfires started by humans, e.g., [23]. Similarly, climate has been tied to wildfire across western forested regions, e.g., [24,25]. It is well‐established that fire patterns are also strongly limited by fuel type, abundance, and Figure 1. Areas designated as high risk for large, long-duration wildfire (red) by the National CohesiveWildland Fir Management Strate y [11]. The black outline delineates the Great Plains L1 ecoregion.Wildfire used to be frequent in the Great Plains, with an average fire return interval between 2and 14 years [12]. However, a shift in land management practice from the application of fire by NativeAmericans to post-European land management practices of fire suppression almost eradicated largefire from the Great Plains over the last century [12–15], and it is this characterisation of fire that shapesmost assessments of current wildfire risk. However, past trends are incapable of predicting current andfuture risks in systems that are rapidly transitioning and reorganizing [16,17]. Four of the top 10 largestwildfire co plexes since 2010 within the conterminous U.S. occurred in the Great Plains, and the largestwildfire on record in the conterminous U.S. occurred in Texas in 2006 [18]. The western United Statesexperienced abrupt increases in wildfire that contrasted with previously recorded wildfire patternsresulting in an altered and more hazardous wildfire regime [19]. Increases in wildfire across the GreatPlains could similarly represent a shift in wildfire regime tied to a rapidly changing environment.Understanding recent changes in wildfire in the Great Plains needs to begin with investigationsof the dominant constraints on wildfire occurrence and distribution: (1) fuel availability, (2) ignitionsources, and (3) climatic and weather conditions conducive to combustion [20–22]. Patterns inignitions have been documented across the conterminous U.S., with 84% of ildfires started byhumans, e.g., [23]. Similarly, climate has been tie to wildfire across western forested regio s,e.g., [24,25]. It is well-established that fire patterns are also strongly limited by fuel type, abundance,a d distribution [21,26,27]. In fuel-limited systems like grasslands, fuel structure and availabilityhave been shown to constrain fire activity to a greater extent than climate [21,27]. Shifts in wildfireoccurrence have been linked to unintended shifts in fuel composition and contiguity in a number ofgrassland regions (e.g., sagebrush to cheatgrass dominance in western North America [28,29], invasionof jaragua grass in Central America [30,31], and gamba grass invasion in Australia [32,33]).Remote Sens. 2020, 12, 1869 3 of 17Land-use plays a predominant role in shaping wildfire distributions from global to local scalesbecause of strong ties to fuel patterns [20,34]. In the Great Plains, shifting land management practicesover the last century have led to substantial changes in land-use. Historically, the Great Plains wasdominated by grassland interspersed with rare patches of woody vegetation that managed to escapefrequent grassland fires [15,35]. Like many contemporary biomes, human development has nowcreated a patchwork of intact grassland and forested vegetation interspersed with croplands, pastures,and developed areas. Fire suppression combined with extensive tree planting has allowed for recentregional-scale increases in the distribution and cover of woody vegetation [15,36,37]. Understandinghow wildfire is associated with different land-use types across the Great Plains would allow us tobetter deduce the potential exposure of people to the changes in large wildfires in the Great Plains andhow land-use could be utilised to decrease risk of human exposure to wildfire in the future.This study determines how large wildfire (>400 ha) activity is linked to land-use across NorthAmerica’s temperate grassland biome. We expect that large wildfires will be most frequent in intactgrasslands, which are highly pyrogenic and historically hosted a frequent fire cycle in the GreatPlains [12,15,38], and less frequent in woody-dominated land-use types, croplands, and pasturelands. Moreover, Donovan et al. [10] found regional differences in large wildfire trends across GreatPlains ecoregions. For instance, Cross Timbers and Edwards Plateau ecoregions of the Great Plainsexperienced some of the greatest increases in large wildfire number between 1985 and 2014 (3900%and 2600%, respectively), while the number of large wildfires in the Nebraska Sandhills remainedrelatively consistent [10]. We predict that trends in area burned by large wildfires and the degree towhich different land-use types are implicated will vary spatially across Great Plains ecoregions tiedto differences in climate-vegetation relationships. We quantify the percent of area burned by largewildfires of each dominant land-use type at both the Great Plains and ecoregion scale between 1993 and2014. We then contrast this with regional abundance and distribution of land-use types to determineon which land-use types large wildfires were more likely to occur over the last two decades.2. Materials and Methods2.1. DataThe Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) L1 Great Plains ecoregion was used to designatethe boundary of our study area [39]. L3 ecoregions were used to subdivide the Great Plains to assessregional patterns. EPA ecoregion designations are based on similarities in climate, vegetation, land-use,soils, geology, landforms, hydrology, and wildlife [40]. Only ecoregions with 5 or more large wildfireswere included in our analysis, consistent with Donovan et al., [10]. Areas with less than 5 fires wereconsidered to have too few wildfires to assess broad-scale wildfire trends. All ecoregions we assessedhad greater than 5000 ha burned by large wildfires (Table 1). Palmer Drought Severity Index (PDSI)values, used to assess relative dryness of an area, demonstrate that dryness at wildfire initiationaveraged across ecoregions ranged from Near Normal (PDSI of −1.9 to 1.9) to Moderate Drought (PDSIof −2.0 to −2.9) conditions based on U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration PDSIcategories (Table 1). Mean population density per square kilometre ranged from an average of 1 to 90across ecoregions (Table 1).Large wildfire perimeter information (wildfires > 400 ha in size) was collected from 1993 to 2014from the Monitoring Trends in Burn Severity (MTBS) project [41]. MTBS includes 30 m resolutionlarge wildfire data for the entire conterminous United States. Fire perimeters are delineated usingpre- and postfire satellite imagery along with Normalised Burn Ratio (NBR), differenced NormalisedBurn Ratio (dNBR), and Relativized differenced Normalised Burn Ratio (RdNBR) images [41]. MTBScovers both private and public lands, ensuring a continuous spatial distribution of large wildfire data.Moreover, burn areas are collected using a standardized methodology, creating consistency in spatialand temporal reporting across the dataset. MTBS wildfire perimeters have been used to assess wildfiretrends across a number of studies in the U.S., e.g., [7,10,42], though have been found to overestimateRemote Sens. 2020, 12, 1869 4 of 17total area burned by including unburned patches within the fire [43]. Only perimeters classified as“wildfire” by MTBS were included in our analysis. Because MTBS does not map wildfires greater than~400 ha in size (≥1000 acres) in the western U.S., we restricted our analysis to large wildfires >400 ha.Table 1. L1 and L3 ecoregion statistics between 1993 and 2014 in the U.S. Great Plains.Ecoregion EcoregionArea (ha)Number ofWildfires aTotal AreaBurned (ha)Average PDSIat wildfireinitiation bAverage PopulationDensity per km2in 2010cGreat Plains 2.23 × 108 1870 5.04 × 106 −1.46 ± 2.27 SD 16 ± 133 SDCentral Great Plains 2.75 × 107 180 3.17 × 105 −1.98 ± 2.31 SD 12 ± 104 SDCentral Irregular Plains 1.14 × 107 19 1.31 × 104 −2.35 ± 2.20 SD 30 ± 158 SDCross Timbers 8.81 × 106 234 4.39 × 105 −2.78 ± 1.93 SD 35 ± 167 SDEdwards Plateau 7.49 × 106 102 3.84 × 105 −1.47 ± 2.24 SD 12 ± 90 SDFlint Hills 2.79 × 106 49 1.13 × 105 −1.65 ± 2.39 SD 9 ± 87 SDHigh Plains 2.88 × 107 299 7.92 × 105 −1.60 ± 1.76 SD 15 ± 150 SDLake Agassiz Plain 4.51 × 106 60 2.87 × 104 −1.17 ± 2.16 SD 8 ± 87 SDNebraska Sandhills 5.91 × 106 41 8.17 × 104 −0.92 ± 2.56 SD 1 ± 11 SDNorthern Glaciated Plains 1.35 × 107 5 5.10+3 −2.01 ± 1.43 4 ± 52 SDNorthwestern Glaciated Plains 1.74 × 107 63 8.62 × 104 −0.32 ± 1.15 SD 2 ± 35 SDNorthwestern Great Plains 3.58 × 107 414 1.39 × 106 −0.78 ± 2.34 SD 2 ± 35 SDSouthern Texas Plains 5.34 × 106 12 3.11 × 104 0.71 ± 2.26 SD 10 ± 111 SDSouthwestern Tablelands 1.99 × 107 350 1.13 × 106 −1.73 ± 1.99 SD 5 ± 72 SDWestern Gulf Coastal Plain 7.54 × 106 163 2.26 × 105 −0.98 ± 2.53 SD 90 ± 146 SDa The number of wildfires across L3 ecoregion does not sum to the number of wildfires that occurred within the GreatPlains as some wildfires occurred across multiple L3 ecoregion boundaries and thus were counted multiple times.b Palmer Drought Severity Index (PDSI) data was summarized using Google Earth Engine [44] from Abatzoglou et al., [45].c Population data was summarized from 2010 data sets generated by CIESIN, [46] using Google Earth Engine [44].We used 30 m resolution National Land Cover Database (NLCD) land cover classifications for 1992,2001, 2006, and 2011 (all years available at the time this study was conducted) to identify land-use typesacross the Great Plains (https://www.mrlc.gov/). NLCD is the most temporally extensive fine-resolutionland-use classification currently publicly available for the United States. Unlike when merging data setsfrom multiple sources, NLCD data has relatively consistent thematic land-use classes and classificationcriteria across land cover years, making this the most comprehensive and temporally extensive dataset available to assess land-use and large wildfire patterns for this biome.2.2. AnalysisWe created five dominant land-use types across the Great Plains using NLCD information:grassland, woody vegetation, crop, pasture and hay fields, and developed areas (Table S1). Woodyvegetation represented a consolidation of evergreen, deciduous, and mixed forest types along withshrublands (Table S1). NLCD does not distinguish between shrubs, young trees, and trees stunted fromenvironmental conditions (Table S1). Developed areas included regions with constructed materialsincluding parks, single-family homes, and apartment complexes (Table S1). To determine land-use typeabundance across regions, we calculated the average percent cover of each land-use type in the GreatPlains and each L3 ecoregion across the 1992, 2001, 2006, and 2011 NLCD land cover classifications,separated by year.We overlay large wildfire perimeter information from 1993 to 2014 with our land-use informationto calculate the percent of the total area that burned that was composed of different land-use types(Figure 2). In order to sample the most accurate representation of land-use types that burned each year,we extracted land-use information from the 1992 NLCD land cover classification with large wildfiresfrom 1993 to 2001, from the 2001 NLCD land cover classification with large wildfires from 2002 to 2006,from the 2006 NLCD land cover classification with large wildfires from 2007 to 2011, and from the 2011NLCD land cover classification with large wildfires from 2012 to 2014.Remote Sens. 2020, 12, 1869 5 of 17Remote Sens. 2019, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 18 We created five dominant land‐use types across the Great Plains using NLCD information: grassland, woody vegetation, crop, pasture and hay fields, and developed areas (Table S1). Woody vegetation represented a consolidation of evergreen, deciduous, and mixed forest types along with shrublands (Table S1). NLCD does not distinguish between shrubs, young trees, and trees stunted from environmental conditions (Table S1). Developed areas included regions with constructed materials including parks, single‐family homes, and apartment complexes (Table S1). To determine land‐use type abundance across regions, we calculated the average percent cover of each land‐use type in the Great Plains and each L3 ecoregion across the 1992, 2001, 2006, and 2011 NLCD land cover classifications, separated by year. We overlay large wildfire perimeter information from 1993 to 2014 with our land‐use information to calculate the percent of the total area that burned that was composed of different land‐use types (Figure 2). In order to sample the most accurate representation of land‐use types that burned each year, we extracted land‐use information from the 1992 NLCD land cover classification with large wildfires from 1993 to 2001, from the 2001 NLCD land cover classification with large wildfires from 2002 to 2006, from the 2006 NLCD land cover classification with large wildfires from 2007 to 2011, and from the 2011 NLCD land cover classification with large wildfires from 2012 to 2014. Figure 2. The distribution of large wildfire (>400 ha) perimeters (red) across land‐use types (grassland in yellow, woody vegetation in green, crops in orange, pasture/hay fields in brown, and developed areas in grey) in the U.S. Great Plains and level 3 ecoregions designated by the EPA (1 = Northwestern Glaciated Plains, 2 = Northern Glaciated Plains, 3 = Lake Agassiz Plain, 4 = Northwestern Great Plains, i r . The distri ti f lar il fir ( 400 ha) peri eters (re ) acr ss la - s t s ( r ssli ll , t ti i r , cr s i r , st r / fi l s i r , lareas i re ) i t e .S. reat lai s a le el 3 ecore io s esi ate t e (1 ort esterlaciated Plains, 2 orthern laciated Plains, 3 Lake gassiz Plain, 4 Northwestern Great Plains,5 = Nebraska Sandhills, 6 = Western Corn Belt Plains, 7 = High Plains, 8 = Southwestern Tablelands,9 = Central Great Plains, 10 = Central Irregular Plains, 11 = Flint Hills, 12 = Cross Timbers, 13 = EdwardsPlateau, 14 = Texas Blackland Prairies, 15 = Southern Texas Plains, 16 = Western Gulf Coastal Plain).To determine land-use types that have the greatest propensity for large wildfire, we measuredwhich land-use types disproportionately appeared in large wildfire perimeters. We took the differencebetween the percent of the total area burned of each land-use type and the average percent cover ofeach land-use type within the Great Plains and each L3 ecoregion. Values near zero indicate that largewildfire occurrence is not influenced by a given land-use type. Positive values indicate land-use typeswhere large wildfires are more likely to occur, and thus that have a higher propensity for large wildfire.Negative values indicate where large wildfires are less likely to occur, and thus that have a lowerpropensity for large wildfire.The propensity for large wildfire in a given land-use type may be dependent upon its relativecover within an area. We measured the percent cover of each land-use type within each large wildfireperimeter that burned between 1993 and 2014 (n = 1870) in the Great Plains. We used this informationto generate frequency distributions of large wildfire occurrence relative to the percent cover for eachland-use type using 10 bins of land-use type cover ranging from <0 to 100%. This was repeated forRemote Sens. 2020, 12, 1869 6 of 17each L3 ecoregion (wildfire numbers per ecoregion are summarised in Table 1). To determine how thepropensity for large wildfire changes relative to a land-use type’s cover on the landscape, we comparedthese measured fire frequency distributions to null distributions, created by randomly distributing largewildfire across land-use types. In the Great Plains, our null distribution was generated by distributing5000 random points across the Great Plains and creating buffer zones around each point that matchedthe average large wildfire size in the Great Plains (2698 ha). In each L3 ecoregion, we distributed500 random points across the ecoregion and created buffer zones around each point matching theaverage large wildfire size within that ecoregion (Table S2). Within each buffer zone, we measured thepercent cover of each land-use type for each NLCD land cover classification for each year (1992, 2001,2006, and 2011). The number of buffer zones sampled was equal to the number of large wildfires thatoccurred within the Great Plains and each L3 ecoregion. For instance, in the Great Plains, we sampled490 buffer zones (the number of large wildfires that burned in the Great Plains between 1993 and 2001)from the 1992 NLCD land cover classification, 505 (the number of large wildfires that burned in theGreat Plains between 2002 and 2006) from the 2001 NLCD land cover classification, 688 (the number oflarge wildfires that burned in the Great Plains between 2007 and 2011) from the 2006 NLCD land coverclassification, and 187 (the number of large wildfires that burned in the Great Plains between 2012and 2014) from the 2011 NLCD land cover classification. This totalled to 1870 sampled buffer zones(the total number of large wildfires in the Great Plains over our study period). We repeated randomsampling an additional 999 times within the Great Plains and each L3 ecoregion. Data were used togenerate 1000 null frequency distributions. We averaged these frequency distributions to create a singlenull distribution for each land-use type in the Great Plains and each L3 ecoregion. We then subtractedthe values of our generated null frequency distribution from the measured large wildfire frequencydistribution for each land-use type to determine how the relative cover of each land-use type alteredthe propensity for large wildfire. A value near zero indicates that large wildfires are not influenced bythe relative abundance of a given land-use type on a landscape. A positive value indicates that largewildfires are more likely to occur, and thus there is a higher propensity for large wildfire, given therelative abundance of a land-use type. A negative value indicates that large wildfires are less likely tooccur, and thus there is a lower propensity for large wildfire, given the abundance of a land-use type.This comparison was further supplemented with nonparametric Fisher Exact Tests with R statisticalsoftware (version 3.5.2) to determine if there was a significant difference between the measured wildfirefrequency distribution and our generated null distribution. P-values were simulated using MonteCarlo tests with 10,000 replicates.Assumptions associated with our approach need to be articulated. Our assessment is limited bythe assumptions that were used to develop NLCD and MTBS geospatial data sets. It is importantto note that NLCD is unable to provide associated fuel flammability (including fuel availability,condition, and connectivity) or ignition probability. Differences in land-use management (e.g., haying,grazing) exist within and across land-use types in the Great Plains, however, there is no data availableacross this biome that allow us to determine how these patterns influence intrinsic and extrinsic fuelproperties among land-use types. Moreover, our assessment does not directly incorporate patterns inother factors that can influence wildfire distribution, like ignitions, weather, and climate, e.g., [23,24].Thus, our assessment should represent a starting point for more in-depth mechanistic assessments ofties between fuel pattern and large wildfire in the Great Plains.3. Results:3.1. Wildfire and Land-Use in the Great PlainsWoody vegetation and grasslands had the greatest propensity for large wildfire in the Great Plains(Figure 3C). Woody vegetation burned disproportionately more than any other land-use type in theGreat Plains, composing over two times the percent land area in large wildfire perimeters than it did inthe Great Plains as a whole (Figure 3). Large wildfires were more likely to occur in woody vegetationRemote Sens. 2020, 12, 1869 7 of 17and grassland as woody and grassland cover increased on the landscape (Figure 4F,G; p < 0.01, p < 0.01respectively). Large wildfires occurred more frequently when woody cover exceeded 20% (Figure 4G)and when grassland cover exceeded 60% of the landscape (Figure 4F).Croplands had the lowest propensity for large wildfire. While crops were abundant acrossthe Great Plains, they burned over 15 times less than their proportional land coverage (Figure 3).The propensity for large wildfire was lower when crop cover was higher. Large wildfires were morelikely when crop cover made up between >0 to 10% of the landscape (Figure 4H; p < 0.01) but wereunlikely to burn when crop cover exceeded 10% of the landscape. Only five large wildfires occurred inregions where crop made up >90% to 100% of the landscape (Figure 4C).Remote Sens. 2019, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 18 note that NLCD is unable to provide associated fuel flammability (including fuel availability, condition, and connectivity) or ignition probability. Differences in land‐use management (e.g., haying, grazing) exist within and across land‐use types in the Great Plains, however, there is no data available across this biome that allow us to determine how these patterns influence intrinsic and extrinsic fuel properties among land‐use types. Moreover, our assessment does not directly incorporate patterns in other factors that can influence wildfire distribution, like ignitions, weather, and climate, e.g., [23,24]. Thus, our assessment should represent a starting point for more in‐depth mechanistic assessments of ties between fuel pattern and large wildfire in the Great Plains. 3. Results: 3.1. Wildfire and Land‐Use in the Great Plains Woody vegetation and grasslands had the greatest propensity for large wildfire in the Great Plains (Figure 3C). Woody vegetation burned disproportionately more than any other land‐use type in the Great Plains, composing over two times the percent land area in large wildfire perimeters than it did in the Great Plains as a whole (Figure 3). Large wildfires were more likely to occur in woody vegetation and grassland as woody and grassland cover increased on the landscape (Figure 4F,G; p < 0.01, p < 0.01 respectively). Large wildfires occurred more frequently when woody cover exceeded 20% (Figure 4G) and when grassland cover exceeded 60% of the landscape (Figure 4F). Figure 3. (A) The average percent of the U.S. Great Plains coved by grassland vegetation, woodyvegetation, crops, pasture and hay fields, and developed areas based on 1992, 2001, 2006, and 2012National Land Cover Database land cover classifications. (B) The percent of the total area burned inthe Great Plains between 1993 and 2014 that occurred within grassland vegetation, woody vegetation,crops, pasture and hay fields, and developed areas. (C) The propensity for large wildfire, calculatedfrom taking the difference between the percent total area burned and the percent cover of each land-usetype, where a positive value indicates land-use types where wildfires were more likely to occur.Remote Sens. 2020, 12, 1869 8 of 17Remote Sens. 2019, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 18 Figure 3. (A) The average percent of the U.S. Great Plains coved by grassland vegetation, woody vegetation, crops, pasture and hay fields, and developed areas based on 1992, 2001, 2006, and 2012 National Land Cover Database land cover classifications. (B) The percent of the total area burned in the Great Plains between 1993 and 2014 that occurred within grassland vegetation, woody vegetation, crops, pasture and hay fields, and developed areas. (C) The propensity for large wildfire, calculated from taking the difference between the percent total area burned and the percent cover of each land‐use type, where a positive value indicates land‐use types where wildfires were more likely to occur. Figure 4. The number of wildfire perimeters between 1993 to 2014 that contained varying percent cover of (A) grassland, (B) woody vegetation, (C) crops, (D) hay and pasture, and (E) developed areas, as well as the relative propensity for large wildfire of varying land‐use type cover (F–J), calculated by subtracting the null wildfire frequency distribution (random distribution) from the recorded wildfire frequency distribution (A–E), where positive values indicate land‐use types where large wildfires were more likely to occur. Croplands had the lowest propensity for large wildfire. While crops were abundant across the Great Plains, they burned over 15 times less than their proportional land coverage (Figure 3). The propensity for large wildfire was lower when crop cover was higher. Large wildfires were more likely i r 4. The number of wildfire perimeters between 1993 to 2014 that contained varying percent coverof (A) grassland, (B) woody vegetation, (C) crops, (D) hay and pasture, and (E) developed are s, swell as the relative propensity for large wildfire of varying land-use type cover (F–J), calc lates btracting the n ll il fire freq ency istrib tion (ran o istrib tion) fro the recor e il firefrequency distribution (A–E), where positive values indicate land-use types where large wildfires weremore likely to occur.Large wildfires were similarly unlikely to burn in pasture/hay fields and developed areas.Pasture/hay fields burned eight times less than their proportional land coverage in the GreatPlains (Figure 3). Developed areas burned in large wildfires four times less than their proportionalrepresentation in the biome (Figure 3). Almost no large wildfires occurred in locations with highcoverage of pasture/hay fields or developed areas (Figure 4D,E). Four hundred eighty-eight largewildfires occurred in areas where pasture/hay fields covered less than 10% of the landscape, while largewildfire numbers ranged from 0 to 22 when landscape coverage of pasture/hay fields exceeded 10%(Figure 4D). Similarly, over 1000 large wildfires occurred where developed areas covered >0 to 10% ofRemote Sens. 2020, 12, 1869 9 of 17the landscape (Figure 4E); however, almost no large wildfires occurred in locations where developedregions covered greater than 10% of the landscape (numbers ranging from 0 to 20 wildfires; Figure 4E).Regardless of their abundance on the landscape, large wildfires were unlikely to occur in pasture/hayfields or developed areas (Figure 4I,J; p < 0.01; p < 0.01).3.2. Ecoregional DifferencesIn the majority of ecoregions (11 of 14), areas burned by large wildfire were primarily composedof woody vegetation and grassland (Figure 5B). For instance, 96% of the total area burned by largewildfires in the Edwards Plateau was composed of woody vegetation, while 97% of the total area burnedby large wildfires in the Nebraska Sandhills was composed of grassland. Exceptions to this includedthe Lake Agassiz Plain, where crops dominated the total area burned by large wildfires (Figure 5B).Of the land-use types assessed in our study, crop and pasture/hay fields were the most common withinlarge wildfire perimeters in the Northern Glaciated Plains, though they only represented a smallportion of the total area burned by large wildfires (Figure 5B).Remote Sens. 2019, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 18 when crop cover made up between >0 to 10% of the landscape (Figure 4H; p < 0.01) but were unlikely to burn when crop cover exceeded 10% of the landscape. Only five large wildfires occurred in regions where crop made up >90% to 100% of the landscape (Figure 4C). Large wildfires were similarly unlikely to burn in pasture/hay fields and developed areas. Pasture/hay fields burned eight times less than their proportional land coverage in the Great Plains (Figure 3). Developed areas burned in large wildfires four times less than their proportional representation in the biome (Figure 3). Almost no large wildfires occurred in locations with high coverage of pasture/hay fields or developed areas (Figure 4D,E). Four hundred eighty‐eight large wildfires occurred in areas where pasture/hay fields covered less than 10% of the landscape, while large wildfire numbers ranged from 0 to 22 when landscape coverage of pasture/hay fields exceeded 10% (Figure 4D). Similarly, over 1000 large wildfires occurred where developed areas covered >0 to 10% of the landscape (Figure 4E); however, almost no large wildfires occurred in locations where developed regions covered greater than 10% of the landscape (numbers ranging from 0 to 20 wildfires; Figure 4E). Regardless of their abundance on the landscape, large wildfires were unlikely to occur in pasture/hay fields or developed areas (Figure 4I,J; p < 0.01; p < 0.01). 3.2. Ecoregional Differences In the majority of ecoregions (11 of 14), areas burned by large wildfire were primarily composed of woody vegetation and grassland (Figure 5B). For instance, 96% of the total area burned by large wildfires in the Edwards Plateau was compo ed of woo y vegetatio , while 97% of the total area burned by large wildfir s in the Nebraska Sand ills w s composed of grassland. Exceptions to this included the Lake Agassiz Plain, where crops dominated the total area burned by large wildfires (Figure 5B). Of the land‐use types assessed in our study, crop and pasture/hay fields were the most common within large wildfire perimeters in the Northern Glaciated Plains, though they only represented a small portion of the total area burned by large wildfires (Figure 5B). Figure 5. (A) The average percent land coverage of each land‐use type assessed in this study and (B) the percentage of each land‐use type that composed the total area burned within L3 ecoregions that Figure 5. (A) The average percent land coverage of each land-use type assessed in this study and(B) the percentage of each land-use type that composed the total area burned within L3 ecoregionsthat contained ≥5 large wildfires in the U.S. Great Plains between 1993 and 2014. Error bars representstandard error. The percentage of land-use did not always add up to 100% because we only includedpredominant land-use types of the Great Plains in our analysis. Percentages could also slightly exceed100% (i.e., Southern Texas Plains) when there was a higher amount of variation in values averaged tocalculate percent land coverage.Grassland or woody vegetation had the highest propensity for large wildfire in almost everyecoregion (13 of 14; Figure 6). There was a high propensity for large wildfire in grassland vegetation ineight ecoregions, while in four ecoregions (Edwards Plateau, Northwestern Great Plains, SouthwesternTablelands, and Northern Glaciated Plains), wildfire was unlikely to burn in grasslands (Figure 6). In 6of the 14 ecoregions assessed, large wildfires were more likely to occur with greater levels of grasslandcover on the landscape (Figures S1-S14; Table S3). This relationship was bimodal in both Cross Timbersand the Northwestern Great Plains, where large wildfires were more likely to burn in an area whenRemote Sens. 2020, 12, 1869 10 of 17grassland cover was either of low or high dominance (Figures S2, S11). Woody vegetation had ahigh propensity for large wildfire across nine ecoregions, however, in the southern most ecoregions(Southern Texas Plains and Western Gulf Coastal Plain), wildfire was unlikely to occur in woodyvegetation (Figure 6). In 8 of the 14 ecoregions assessed, large wildfires were more likely to occur withgreater levels of woody vegetation cover on the landscape (Figures S1-S14; Table S3). In contrast, in theEdwards Plateau and the Southern Texas Plains, large wildfires were more likely to occur within alandscape when woody cover was at low or high dominance.Remote Sens. 2019, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 18 contained ≥5 large wildfires in the U.S. Great Plains between 1993 and 2014. Error bars represent standard error. The percentage of land‐use did not always add up to 100% because we only included predominant land‐use types of the Great Plains in our analysis. Percentages could also slightly exceed 100% (i.e., Southern Texas Plains) when there was a higher amount of variation in values averaged to calculate percent land coverage. Grassland or woody vegetation had the highest propensity for large wildfire in almost every ecoregion (13 of 14; Figure 6). There was a high propensity for large wildfire in grassland vegetation in eight ecoregions, while in four ecoregions (Edwards Plateau, Northwestern Great Plains, Southwestern Tablelands, and Northern Glaciated Plains), wildfire was unlikely to burn in grasslands (Figure 6). In 6 of the 14 ecoregions assessed, large wildfires were more likely to occur with greater levels of grassland cover on the landscape (Figures S1‐S14; Table S3). This relationship was bimodal in both Cross Timbers and the Northwestern Great Plains, where large wildfires were more likely to burn in an area when grassland cover was either of low or high dominance (Figures S2, S11). Woody vegetation had a high propensity for large wildfire across nine ecoregions, however, in the southern most ecoregions (Southern Texas Plains and Western Gulf Coastal Plain), wildfire was unlikely to occur in woody vegetation (Figure 6). In 8 of the 14 ecoregions assessed, large wildfires were more likely to occur with greater levels of woody vegetation cover on the landscape (Figures S1‐S14; Table S3). In contrast, in the Edwards Plateau and the Southern Texas Plains, large wildfires were more likely to occur within a landscape when woody cover was at low or high dominance. While crops did make up a predominant portion of the total area burned by large wildfires in some ecoregions (for instance, the Lake Agassiz Plain where crop made up 43% of the total area burned; Figure 5), crops consistently had a low propensity for large wildfire across all ecoregions (Figure 6). In the majority of ecoregions, large wildfires were more likely to occur when crops covered between >0 to 10% or >10 to 20% of the landscape. Large wildfire was less likely when crop cover was greater (Figures S1–S14; Table S3). However, in the Lake Agassiz Plain, large wildfires were more likely to occur when crop cover made up less than 50% of the landscape. Figure 6. The relative propensity for large wildfire of grasslands, woody vegetation, crops, pasture/hayfields, and developed areas in U.S. Great Plains L3 ecoregions, calculated by taking the differencebetween the percent total area burned within each L3 ecoregion between 1993 and 2014 and the averagepercent cover of each land-use type in each L3 ecoregion. Positive values indicate land-use types wherewildfires were more likely to occur.While crops did make up a predominant portion of the total area burned by large wildfires insome ecoregions (for instance, the Lake Agassiz Plain where crop made up 43% of the total area burned;Figure 5), crops consistently had a low propensity for large wildfire across all ecoregions (Figure 6).In the majority of ecoregions, large wildfires were more likely to occur when crops covered between>0 to 10% or >10 to 20% of the landscape. Large wildfire was less likely when crop cover was greater(Figures S1–S14; Table S3). However, in the Lake Agassiz Plain, large wildfires were more likely tooccur when crop cover made up less than 50% of the landscape.Pasture/hay fields comprised a large portion of land-use in a number of ecoregions and was thedominant land-use type within the Central Irregular Plains (Figure 5A). Despite this, pasture/hayfields generally had a low propensity for large wildfire (Figure 6). Large wildfires were more likely tooccur when pasture/hay fields made up between >0 to 10% of the landscape in three ecoregions: theCentral Great Plains, Flint Hills, and Northern Glaciated Plains (Figures S1, S5, S9). The propensity forRemote Sens. 2020, 12, 1869 11 of 17large wildfires was lower when pasture/hay cover was greater in all ecoregions except the NorthernGlaciated Plains and the Southern Texas Plains (Figure S9, S12).Developed areas consistently made up less than 7% of the land-use across ecoregions, with theexception of the Western Gulf Coastal Plain (Figure 5A). They also consistently made up less than 7%of the total area burned (Figure 5A). When wildfires occurred in developed areas, they were largelyconcentrated in landscapes that were composed of >0 to 10% developed area (Figure S1–S14; Table S3).However, in all other ecoregions, developed areas had a low propensity for large wildfire, regardlessof landscape coverage (Figure 6; Figures S1–S14).4. DiscussionPropensity of large wildfire was highest in grasslands and woody vegetation in the Great Plains,while developed areas, croplands, and pastures were less likely to burn in large wildfires. We expectedintact grasslands to host the highest number of large wildfires. Grasses in the Great Plains are the mostflammable fuel type that host important feedbacks with fire [15,38,47]. However, although grasslandscomprised the greatest area burned by large wildfires, woody vegetation burned disproportionatelymore than any other land-use type in the Great Plains. In ecoregions that were found to have thegreatest increases in wildfire number and total hectares burned by Donovan et al., [10], wildfires weremost likely to occur in woody vegetation (e.g., Cross Timbers, Southwestern Tablelands, EdwardsPlateau, Northwestern Great Plains) or in woody and grassland vegetation combined (High Plains andCentral Great Plains). This pattern occurred across ecoregions with largely different woody vegetationtypes, including ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa) which dominates the Northwestern Great Plains andoak (Quercus) species which dominate the Cross Timbers [48]. Patches of shrubs or trees generallyhave a lower probability of burning in a fire compared to grassland [49]. One potential explanationcould be that human driven fire suppression is a more dominant driver of large wildfire pattern thandifferences in ignition potential and fire spread between woody and grassland vegetation types inthe Great Plains. Wildfire suppression capabilities can be greatly reduced or ineffective entirely whencrown fire is initiated in woody-dominated fuel types [50,51]. Fire suppression becomes ineffectivewhen flame lengths exceed 3.35 m [50]. Woody vegetation has the potential for flame lengths over90 m, well above this threshold, when crown fires ignite [51]. Grassland fires do not produce suchflame lengths, though can still exhibit flame lengths well above the 3.35 m threshold [52]. Despitegreater ignition and fire spread potential in grasslands, greater ease of suppression could result inproportionally fewer large wildfires in grass- versus woody-dominated land-use types. Other factorslike fragmentation by roads and highways could also play a role by impeding grassland fire spread toa greater extent than woody fires [53].Woody encroachment in the Great Plains is a biome-wide phenomenon tied to fire suppressionand active tree planting [15,54,55]. An ecological regime shift (a persistent shift in system structure,function, and feedbacks [16]) from grassland to woody vegetation may pose a greater risk of wildfireexposure for people in the Great Plains. Human populations and infrastructure are embedded withinboth land-use types within the biome. Because woody fuels are conducive to much more extreme firebehaviour than grasses, when woody fuels ignite, they are more difficult to control and suppress [15].An increasing number of wildfires have been recorded along the wildland urban interface (WUI) inthe United States, where development and wildland vegetation intermingle [56]. Some states in theGreat Plains, like Montana, Wyoming, and New Mexico, have 50 to 100% of their population residingin the wildland urban interface [56]. Areas with higher levels of fragmentation have been shown tomaintain higher woody cover in the southern Great Plains [57]. Urban and exurban sprawl have beensuggested to provide refuges for woody vegetation, allowing it to spread in the absence of controllingprocesses near developed areas [57,58]. We found that large wildfires were more likely to occur whenwoody vegetation comprised greater than 20% of the landscape, suggesting that relatively low levelsof woody encroachment (~20% of the landscape) could be sufficient to increase large wildfire risk.Remote Sens. 2020, 12, 1869 12 of 17Further region-specific investigations tied to wildfire and land-use relationships will allow for a morenuanced understanding of where woody encroachment can increase large wildfire exposure.Unlike in a number of forested regions, agriculture and pastureland were not tied with higherwildfire risk in the Great Plains. This finding differs from regions like central Africa, south-eastAsia, and regions of South America [59–61]. Tropical forests, like those in Indonesia and Brazil, haveexperienced surges in large wildfires associated with slash-and-burn agricultural practices [59,61].In South America, burned area increases when pasture cover exceeds 31% in comparison with thesurrounding rainforest where wildfire frequency tends to be low [62]. We found that large wildfiresburned disproportionately less in pastures, regardless of how much of the landscape they composed,while treed areas burned disproportionately more when they composed greater than 20% of thelandscape. Croplands had a low propensity for wildfire; however, we found that croplands burnedmore than expected when they composed >0 to 10% of the landscape. This could be linked to firesburning along crop edges. Croplands can act as barriers to fire spread [63]. Low occurrence ofwildfire in croplands, pasture/hay field, and developed areas in the Great Plains is likely linked in partto fuel properties that promote lower ignition probabilities and spread rates than native grasslandvegetation in the Great Plains [52]. For instance, high-moisture exotic grasses used in pastures havebeen shown to require four times the wind speed to produce the same rate of fire spread as innative grasses [64]. Similarly, irrigation in croplands and pastures decreases fuel aridity because ofincreases in fuel moisture and effects of local climate [65], making fuels less conducive to wildfire [52].However, irrigation is primarily concentrated in two ecoregions (Figure S15), while crops and pasturesconsistently had a lower propensity for large wildfire across ecoregions (with the exception of pasturesin the Lake Agassiz Plain). There is also higher incentive to extinguish fires in croplands, pastures,and developed areas which could influence the occurrence of wildfire. These findings are consistentwith Andela et al. [66], who found that agricultural conversion and intensification in grassland andsavannah areas has led to declining fire activity globally.Coexisting with wildfire requires strategic regional planning. Knowledge of the differencesin wildfire occurrence across alternative land-use types holds promise for developing targetedmanagement actions that lower the exposure of people and infrastructure to wildfire when it occurs.Large wildfires are an inevitable natural process that need to be reconciled with management andpolicy goals, particularly as society attempts to balance priorities of protecting human safety andeconomic interests with the conservation of intact ecosystems and their services. With increasingwildfires across the Great Plains [10], shifting focus from reducing fire to designing a less vulnerablewildland urban interface will allow for a more sustainable coexistence with fire by allowing fires toburn where ecologically appropriate and avoiding fires in human environments [26,67]. WUI growthrates in the Great Plains are equivalent to the western U.S. [56] and yet there has been relatively littlefocus on wildland urban interface in the Great Plains, where national policy perceives wildfire risk tobe relatively low [11]. New housing was the cause of >80% of wildland urban interface growth in theGreat Plains [56]. Strategic placement of new development near land-use types that infrequently burn(e.g., agricultural lands in the Great Plains) and avoidance of land-use types that burn with higherprobability (e.g., woody vegetation in the Great Plains) could assist in decreasing wildfire risk in theface of rapid increases in large wildfire activity. The spatial arrangement of fuel types across a landscapecan alter the proportion of area burned by fire [68]. Strategic organisation of fuels less conducive to firespread are twice as effective at reducing fire growth compared to random distributions of wildlandfuel management [69]. Targeted fuels management (e.g., mechanical tree removal, prescribed fire, etc.)in developed areas embedded within land-use types with the highest propensity for fire will also helpdecrease exposure of developed areas to wildfire in a system with a long history and dependence onfrequent fire occurrence.Our study represents a necessary first step toward developing ecosystem-specific solutions towildfire in the Great Plains [26,70]. Future assessments should investigate the roles of flammability,ignition probability, weather, and climate in order to better isolate drivers behind region-specificRemote Sens. 2020, 12, 1869 13 of 17patterns in wildfire across land-use types. Fuel load and fuel connectivity can play a large role inthe spread of fire across a landscape, where patchy distributions of fuels can alter fire spread [68].How the spatial arrangement of fuels within and among land-use types alter wildfire occurrenceand spread will be an important line of investigation for future studies. Similarly, fuel moistureis critical to fire potential, largely dictating the amount of fuel available for combustion [52]. Finefuel moisture responds quickly to weather changes [71]. Similarly, climatic patterns across the GreatPlains could cause differing fuel moisture in the same land-use types among regions, altering theprobability of wildfire initiation and spread, e.g., [24]. Wind can alter the propagation of fire [72,73].The distribution and sources of ignitions can similarly differ by location [23] and land-use type whichwill likely influence wildfire distribution across the Great Plains. Our findings provide the baselinedetermination necessary for targeting more spatially explicit and mechanistic analyses to isolate theimpacts of such factors.While we found that land-use may in part drive large wildfire occurrence in the Great Plains, wedid not evaluate climate and ignitions, which are also strong drivers. An increasing number of humanignitions have been recorded across the Great Plains [23]. Changes in climate have been tied to changingwildfires patterns in neighbouring forested systems, e.g., [24,25,74]. However, the relative influence ofclimate, land-use, and ignitions has yet to be compared. Determining the interdependence of thesefactors in shaping large wildfire distribution in the Great Plains will help society prevent wildfiredriven natural disasters under future global change. In complex social-ecological systems like the GreatPlains, changes in human patterns and behaviours can have large impacts on ecosystem processes [20].Continued changes in the number and distribution of ignitions may increase wildfire number or alterhow wildfires are distributed across different land-use types. Drought patterns are predicted to changein the Great Plains under future climate change scenarios [75,76]. Changing precipitation patternscould shift vegetation distribution [77], creating fuels more conducive to ignition and fire spread or inextreme cases could lead to desertification (i.e., absence of fuels [78]). Thus, wildfire risk will likely bealtered by changing social and ecological responses to drought. Future analyses could target areasand land-use types determined by our study to be highly impacted by wildfires with more nuancedassessments of the three major drivers of wildfire occurrence—fuels, climate, and ignitions—so we canbetter prepare for future change.5. ConclusionsWoody vegetation and grassland have the highest propensity for large wildfire in the GreatPlains, while croplands, pastures, and developed areas are less likely to burn in large wildfire. Woodyvegetation burned disproportionately more than any other land-use type, suggesting that it has thehighest propensity for large wildfire in the Great Plains. Our results can be used to assist strategicregional planning with decreasing wildfire risk near human development. While our study representsa necessary first step in understanding changing wildfire patterns in the Great Plains, assessmentstied to weather, climate, and ignitions, along with more detailed assessments of fuel patterns andcharacteristics will be necessary to understand and better prepare for shifting wildfire patterns in theGreat Plains.Supplementary Materials: The following are available online at http://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/12/11/1869/s1.Figure S1. The number of wildfire perimeters and propensity for large wildfire relative to varying percent coverof land-use types in the Central Great Plains. Figure S2. The number of wildfire perimeters and propensity forlarge wildfire relative to varying percent cover of land-use types in the Central Irregular Plains. Figure S3. Thenumber of wildfire perimeters and propensity for large wildfire relative to varying percent cover of land-use typesin the Cross Timbers. Figure S4. The number of wildfire perimeters and propensity for large wildfire relative tovarying percent cover of land-use types in the Edwards Plateau. Figure S5. The number of wildfire perimeters andpropensity for large wildfire relative to varying percent cover of land-use types in the Flint Hills. Figure S6. Thenumber of wildfire perimeters and propensity for large wildfire relative to varying percent cover of land-use typesin the High Plains. Figure S7. The number of wildfire perimeters and propensity for large wildfire relative tovarying percent cover of land-use types in the Lake Agassiz Plain. Figure S8. The number of wildfire perimetersand propensity for large wildfire relative to varying percent cover of land-use types in the Nebraska Sandhills.Remote Sens. 2020, 12, 1869 14 of 17Figure S9. The number of wildfire perimeters and propensity for large wildfire relative to varying percent cover ofland-use types in the Northern Glaciated Plains. Figure S10. The number of wildfire perimeters and propensity forlarge wildfire relative to varying percent cover of land-use types in the Northwestern Glaciated Plains. Figure S11.The number of wildfire perimeters and propensity for large wildfire relative to varying percent cover of land-usetypes in the Northwestern Great Plains. Figure S12. The number of wildfire perimeters and propensity for largewildfire relative to varying percent cover of land-use types in the Southern Texas Plains. Figure S13. The numberof wildfire perimeters and propensity for large wildfire relative to varying percent cover of land-use types in theSouthwestern Tablelands. Figure S14. The number of wildfire perimeters and propensity for large wildfire relativeto varying percent cover of land-use types in the Western Gulf Coastal Plain. Figure S15. Irrigated Lands in the U.S.Great Plains. Table S1. A summary of National Land Cover Database (NLCD) land cover classes consolidated intothe five dominant land-use types analysed in our study, along with NLCD land cover classification descriptions.Table S2. Buffer zone areas, based on the average large wildfire size (>400 ha), used to calculate the percent coverof each dominant land-use type assuming a random distribution of wildfire across each Level 3 ecoregion in theU.S. Great Plains. Table S3. Simulated p-values comparing true count of wildfires across varying percent covercategories relative to the null distribution.Author Contributions: Conceptualization, V.M.D., D.T., C.L.W.; Methodology, V.M.D.; C.L.W.; Formal Analysis,V.M.D.; Investigation, V.M.D.; Writing—Original Draft Preparation, V.M.D.; Writing—Review & Editing, V.M.D.,D.T., C.L.W., D.A.W.; Visualization, V.M.D.; Supervision, D.T.; Funding Acquisition, D.T., D.A.W. All authors haveread and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.Funding: Funding support for this project was provided by the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture(NIFA; M1903198), McIntire Stennis project (1008861), the Nebraska Game & Parks Commission (W-125-R-1),National Science Foundation (OIA-1920938), and the University of Nebraska Agricultural Research Division.Acknowledgments: Wildfire data were generated by the Monitoring Trends in Burn Severity (MTBS) project(www.mtbs.gov), supported by the USDA Forest Service Remote Sensing Applications Center (RSAC) andthe USGS Earth Resource Observation Systems (EROS) Data Center. Land-use data were generated by USGSNational Land Cover Database, sponsored by the Multi-resolution Land Characteristics (MRLC) Consortium(https://www.mrlc.gov/). Ecoregion divisions were generated by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA;www.epa.gov). Population density data were generated by Center for International Earth Science InformationNetwork (CIESIN). Palmer Drought Severity Index data were provided by the University of Idaho, generated byAbatzoglou et al., [45]. Population density and PDSI data can be accessed from the Earth Engine Data Catalog(https://developers.google.com/earth-engine/datasets).Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.References1. Fraterrigo, J.M.; Rusak, J.A. Disturbance-driven changes in the variability of ecological patterns and processes.Ecol. Lett. 2008, 11, 756–770. [CrossRef] [PubMed]2. IPCC. Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation; CambridgeUniversity Press: New York, NY, USA, 2012.3. Sorensen, C.J.; Borbor-Cordova, M.J.; Calvello-Hynes, E.; Diaz, A.; Lemery, J.; Stewart-Ibarra, A.M.Climate variability, vulnerability, and natural disasters: A case study of Zika Virus in Manabi, Ecuadorfollowing the 2016 earthquake. GeoHealth 2017, 1, 298–304. [CrossRef] [PubMed]4. Alexander, D.C. Natural Disasters, 1st ed.; Routledge: London, UK, 1993; ISBN 978-1-351-42923-8.5. IFRC. World Disasters Report 2014-Data. 2014. Available online: http://www.ifrc.org/world-disasters-report-2014/data (accessed on 19 December 2018).6. NOAA. NOAA National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) U.S. Billion-Dollar Weather and ClimateDisasters; 2018. Available online: https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/billions/ (accessed on 19 December 2018).7. Dennison, P.E.; Brewer, S.C.; Arnold, J.D.; Moritz, M.A. Large wildfire trends in the western United States,1984–2011. Geophys. Res. Lett. 2014, 41, 2928–2933. [CrossRef]8. Emanuel, K. Increasing destructiveness of tropical cyclones over the past 30 years. Nature 2005, 436, 686–688.[CrossRef] [PubMed]9. Guha-Sapir, D.; Hargitt, D.; Hoyois, P. Thirty Years of Natural Disasters 1974–2003: The Numbers; PressesUniversitaires de Louvain: Louvain-le-Neuve, Belgium, 2004; ISBN 978-2-930344-71-3.10. Donovan, V.M.; Wonkka, C.L.; Twidwell, D. Surging wildfire activity in a grassland biome. Geophys. Res. Lett.2017, 44, 5986–5993. [CrossRef]11. Wildland Fire Executive Council. The National Strategy: The Final Phase in the Development of the National CohesiveWildland Fire Management Strategy; U.S. Departments of Interior and Agriculture: Washington, DC, USA, 2014.Remote Sens. 2020, 12, 1869 15 of 1712. Guyette, R.P.; Stambaugh, M.C.; Dey, D.C.; Muzika, R.-M. Predicting fire frequency with chemistry andclimate. Ecosystems 2012, 15, 322–335. [CrossRef]13. Frost, C.C. Presettlement fire frequency regimes of the United States: A first approximation. In Proceedingsof the Fire in Ecosystem Management: Shifting the Paradigm from Suppression to Prescription; Pruden, T.L.,Brennan, L.A., Eds.; Tall Timbers Research Station: Talhassee, FL, USA, 1998; Volume 20, pp. 70–81.14. Mouillot, F.; Field, C.B. Fire history and the global carbon budget: A 1◦ × 1◦ fire history reconstruction forthe 20th century. Glob. Change Biol. 2005, 11, 398–420. [CrossRef]15. Twidwell, D.; Rogers, W.E.; Fuhlendorf, S.D.; Wonkka, C.L.; Engle, D.M.; Weir, J.R.; Kreuter, U.P.; Taylor, C.A.The rising Great Plains fire campaign: citizens’ response to woody plant encroachment. Front. Ecol. Environ.2013, 11, e64–e71. [CrossRef]16. Scheffer, M.; Carpenter, S.; Foley, J.A.; Folke, C.; Walker, B. Catastrophic shifts in ecosystems. Nature 2001,413, 591–596. [CrossRef]17. Walsh, J.R.; Carpenter, S.R.; Zanden, M.J.V. Invasive species triggers a massive loss of ecosystem servicesthrough a trophic cascade. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2016, 113, 4081–4085. [CrossRef]18. National Interagency Fire Center (NIFC) Statistics. Available online: https://www.nifc.gov/fireInfo/fireInfo_statistics.html (accessed on 30 January 2017).19. Westerling, A.L. Increasing western US forest wildfire activity: Sensitivity to changes in the timing of spring.Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 2016, 371, 20150178. [CrossRef]20. Bowman, D.M.J.S.; Balch, J.; Artaxo, P.; Bond, W.J.; Cochrane, M.A.; D’Antonio, C.M.; DeFries, R.;Johnston, F.H.; Keeley, J.E.; Krawchuk, M.A.; et al. The human dimension of fire regimes on Earth.J. Biogeogr. 2011, 38, 2223–2236. [CrossRef]21. Krawchuk, M.A.; Moritz, M.A. Constraints on global fire activity vary across a resource gradient. Ecology2011, 92, 121–132. [CrossRef]22. Krawchuk, M.A.; Moritz, M.A.; Parisien, M.-A.; Dorn, J.V.; Hayhoe, K. Global pyrogeography: The currentand future distribution of wildfire. PLoS ONE 2009, 4, e5102. [CrossRef]23. Balch, J.K.; Bradley, B.A.; Abatzoglou, J.T.; Nagy, R.C.; Fusco, E.J.; Mahood, A.L. Human-started wildfiresexpand the fire niche across the United States. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2017, 114, 2946–2951. [CrossRef]24. Abatzoglou, J.T.; Williams, A.P. Impact of anthropogenic climate change on wildfire across western US forests.Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2016, 113, 11770–11775. [CrossRef]25. Littell, J.S.; McKenzie, D.; Peterson, D.L.; Westerling, A.L. Climate and wildfire area burned in western U.S.ecoprovinces, 1916–2003. Ecol. Appl. 2009, 19, 1003–1021. [CrossRef]26. Moritz, M.A.; Batllori, E.; Bradstock, R.A.; Gill, A.M.; Handmer, J.; Hessburg, P.F.; Leonard, J.; McCaffrey, S.;Odion, D.C.; Schoennagel, T.; et al. Learning to coexist with wildfire. Nature 2014, 515, 58–66. [CrossRef]27. Pausas, J.G.; Paula, S. Fuel shapes the fire–climate relationship: Evidence from Mediterranean ecosystems.Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 2012, 21, 1074–1082. [CrossRef]28. Coates, P.S.; Ricca, M.A.; Prochazka, B.G.; Brooks, M.L.; Doherty, K.E.; Kroger, T.; Blomberg, E.J.; Hagen, C.A.;Casazza, M.L. Wildfire, climate, and invasive grass interactions negatively impact an indicator species byreshaping sagebrush ecosystems. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2016, 113, 12745–12750. [CrossRef]29. Pilliod, D.S.; Welty, J.L.; Arkle, R.S. Refining the cheatgrass–fire cycle in the Great Basin: Precipitation timingand fine fuel composition predict wildfire trends. Ecol. Evol. 2017, 7, 8126–8151. [CrossRef]30. D’Antonio, C.M.; Vitousek, P.M. Biological invasions by exotic grasses, the grass/fire cycle, and global change.Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 1992, 23, 63–87. [CrossRef]31. Johnson, N.C.; Wedin, D.A. Soil carbon, nutrients, and mycorrhizae during conversion of dry tropical forestto grassland. Ecol. Appl. 1997, 7, 171–182. [CrossRef]32. Rossiter, N.A.; Setterfield, S.A.; Douglas, M.M.; Hutley, L.B. Testing the grass-fire cycle: Alien grass invasionin the tropical savannas of northern Australia. Divers. Distrib. 2003, 9, 169–176. [CrossRef]33. Setterfield, S.A.; Rossiter-Rachor, N.A.; Hutley, L.B.; Douglas, M.M.; Williams, R.J. Turning up the heat:The impacts of Andropogon gayanus (gamba grass) invasion on fire behaviour in northern Australiansavannas. Divers. Distrib. 2010, 16, 854–861. [CrossRef]34. Butsic, V.; Kelly, M.; Moritz, M. Land use and wildfire: A review of local interactions and teleconnections.Land 2015, 4, 140–156. [CrossRef]35. Wells, P.V. Scarp woodlands, transported grassland soils, and concept of grassland climate in the Great PlainsRegion. Science 1965, 148, 246–249. [CrossRef]Remote Sens. 2020, 12, 1869 16 of 1736. Briggs, J.M.; Knapp, A.K.; Blair, J.M.; Heisler, J.L.; Hoch, G.A.; Lett, M.S.; McCarron, J.K. An ecosystem intransition: Causes and consequences of the conversion of mesic grassland to shrubland. BioScience 2005, 55,243–254. [CrossRef]37. Van Auken, O.W. Causes and consequences of woody plant encroachment into western North Americangrasslands. J. Environ. Manag. 2009, 90, 2931–2942. [CrossRef]38. Bond, W.J.; Woodward, F.I.; Midgley, G.F. The global distribution of ecosystems in a world without fire. NewPhytol. 2005, 165, 525–538. [CrossRef]39. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). US Level III Ecoregions without State Boundaries; EPA GIS AgencyCentral Support: Research Triangle Park, NC, USA, 2012.40. Omernik, J.M. Ecoregions of the conterminous United States. Ann. Assoc. Am. Geogr. 1987, 77, 118–125.[CrossRef]41. MTBS Project (USDA Forest Service/U.S. Geological Survey). MTBS Data Access: National Geospatial Data;MTBS Project (USDA Forest Service/U.S. Geological Survey): Washington, DC, USA, 2017.42. Cattau, M.E.; Wessman, C.; Mahood, A.; Balch, J.K. Anthropogenic and lightning-started fires are becominglarger and more frequent over a longer season length in the U.S.A. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 2020, 29, 668–681.[CrossRef]43. Sparks, A.M.; Boschetti, L.; Smith, A.M.; Tinkham, W.T.; Lannom, K.O.; Newingham, B.A. An accuracyassessment of the MTBS burned area product for shrub–steppe fires in the northern Great Basin, United States.Int. J. Wildland Fire 2015, 24, 70–78. [CrossRef]44. Gorelick, N.; Hancher, M.; Dixon, M.; Ilyushchenko, S.; Thau, D.; Moore, R. Google Earth Engine:Planetary-scale geospatial analysis for everyone. Remote Sens. Environ. 2017, 202, 18–27. [CrossRef]45. Abatzoglou, J.T.; Barbero, R.; Wolf, J.W.; Holden, Z.A. Tracking Interannual streamflow variability withdrought indices in the U.S. Pacific Northwest. J. Hydrometeorol. 2014, 15, 1900–1912. [CrossRef]46. Center for International Earth Science Information Network—CIESIN—Columbia University.Gridded Population of the World, Version 4 (GPWv4): Population Density, Revision 11; NASA Socioeconomic Dataand Applications Center (SEDAC): Palisades, NY, USA, 2018.47. Gagnon, P.R.; Passmore, H.A.; Platt, W.J.; Myers, J.A.; Paine, C.E.T.; Harms, K.E. Does pyrogenicity protectburning plants? Ecology 2010, 91, 3481–3486. [CrossRef]48. Hoagland, B.; Butler, I.; Johnson, F.; Glenn, S. The Cross Timbers. In Savannas, Barrens, and Rock Outcrop PlantCommunities of North America; Anderson, R.C., Fralish, J.S., Baskin, J.M., Eds.; Cambridge University Press:Cambridge, UK, 1999; pp. 231–245.49. Ratajczak, Z.; Nippert, J.B.; Hartman, J.C.; Ocheltree, T.W. Positive feedbacks amplify rates of woodyencroachment in mesic tallgrass prairie. Ecosphere 2011, 2, 1–14. [CrossRef]50. Andrews, P.L.; Rothermel, R.C. Charts for Interpreting Wildland Fire Behavior Characteristics; U.S. Departmentof Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station: Ogden, UT, USA, 1982.51. Rothermel, R.C. Predicting Behavior and Size of Crown Fires in the Northern Rocky Mountains; U.S. Departmentof Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station: Ogden, UT, USA, 1991.52. Payne, S.J.; Andrews, P.L.; Laven, R.D. Introduction to Wildland Fire, 2nd ed.; John Wiley & Sons:New York, NY, USA, 1996.53. Wilson, A.A.G. Width of firebreak that is necessary to stop grass fires: Some field experiments. Can. J. For.Res. 1988, 18, 682–687. [CrossRef]54. Donovan, V.M.; Burnett, J.L.; Bielski, C.H.; Birgé, H.E.; Bevans, R.; Twidwell, D.; Allen, C.R. Social–ecologicallandscape patterns predict woody encroachment from native tree plantings in a temperate grassland.Ecol. Evol. 2018, 8, 9624–9632. [CrossRef]55. Ratajczak, Z.; Nippert, J.B.; Collins, S.L. Woody encroachment decreases diversity across North Americangrasslands and savannas. Ecology 2012, 93, 697–703. [CrossRef]56. Radeloff, V.C.; Helmers, D.P.; Kramer, H.A.; Mockrin, M.H.; Alexandre, P.M.; Bar-Massada, A.; Butsic, V.;Hawbaker, T.J.; Martinuzzi, S.; Syphard, A.D.; et al. Rapid growth of the US wildland-urban interface raiseswildfire risk. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2018, 115, 3314–3319. [CrossRef]57. Scholtz, R.; Polo, J.A.; Tanner, E.P.; Fuhlendorf, S.D. Grassland fragmentation and its influence on woodyplant cover in the southern Great Plains, USA. Landsc. Ecol. 2018. [CrossRef]Remote Sens. 2020, 12, 1869 17 of 1758. Coppedge, B.R.; Engle, D.M.; Fuhlendorf, S.D.; Masters, R.E.; Gregory, M.S. Urban sprawl and juniperencroachment effects on abundance of wintering passerines in Oklahoma. In Avian Ecology and Conservationin an Urbanizing World; Marzluff, J.M., Bowman, R., Donnelly, R., Eds.; Springer: Boston, MA, USA, 2001;pp. 225–242. ISBN 978-1-4613-5600-4.59. Cochrane, M.A. Fire science for rainforests. Nature 2003, 421, 913–919. [CrossRef]60. Eva, H.; Lambin, E.F. Fires and land-cover change in the tropics: A remote sensing analysis at the landscapescale. J. Biogeogr. 2000, 27, 765–776. [CrossRef]61. Cochrane, M.A. Spreading like Wildfire: Tropical Forest Fires in Latin America and the Caribbean; United NationsEnvironment Programme (UNEP): Mexico City, Mexico, 2002.62. Aldersley, A.; Murray, S.J.; Cornell, S.E. Global and regional analysis of climate and human drivers of wildfire.Sci. Total Environ. 2011, 409, 3472–3481. [CrossRef]63. Duncan, B.W.; Schmalzer, P.A. Anthropogenic influences on potential fire spread in a pyrogenic ecosystem ofFlorida, USA. Landsc. Ecol. 2004, 19, 153–165. [CrossRef]64. McGranahan, D.A.; Engle, D.M.; Fuhlendorf, S.D.; Miller, J.R.; Debinski, D.M. An invasive cool-season grasscomplicates prescribed fire management in a native warm-season grassland. Nat. Areas J. 2012, 32, 208–214.[CrossRef]65. Qian, Y.; Huang, M.; Yang, B.; Berg, L.K. A modeling study of irrigation effects on surface fluxes andland–air–cloud interactions in the southern Great Plains. J. Hydrometeorol. 2013, 14, 700–721. [CrossRef]66. Andela, N.; Morton, D.C.; Giglio, L.; Chen, Y.; Werf, G.R.; van der Kasibhatla, P.S.; DeFries, R.S.; Collatz, G.J.;Hantson, S.; Kloster, S.; et al. A human-driven decline in global burned area. Science 2017, 356, 1356–1362.[CrossRef]67. Schoennagel, T.; Balch, J.K.; Brenkert-Smith, H.; Dennison, P.E.; Harvey, B.J.; Krawchuk, M.A.; Mietkiewicz, N.;Morgan, P.; Moritz, M.A.; Rasker, R.; et al. Adapt to more wildfire in western North American forests asclimate changes. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2017, 114, 4582–4590. [CrossRef]68. Kerby, J.D.; Fuhlendorf, S.D.; Engle, D.M. Landscape heterogeneity and fire behavior: Scale-dependentfeedback between fire and grazing processes. Landsc. Ecol. 2007, 22, 507–516. [CrossRef]69. Finney, M.A.; Seli, R.C.; McHugh, C.W.; Ager, A.A.; Bahro, B.; Agee, J.K. Simulation of long-termlandscape-level fuel treatment effects on large wildfires. Int. J. Wildland Fire 2007, 16, 712. [CrossRef]70. Murphy, B.P.; Yocom, L.L.; Belmont, P. Beyond the 1984 Perspective: Narrow focus on modern wildfiretrends underestimates future risks to water security. Earths Future 2018, 6, 1492–1497. [CrossRef]71. Matthews, S. Dead fuel moisture research: 1991–2012. Int. J. Wildland Fire 2014, 23, 78–92. [CrossRef]72. Morandini, F.; Silvani, X.; Rossi, L.; Santoni, P.-A.; Simeoni, A.; Balbi, J.-H.; Louis Rossi, J.; Marcelli, T. Firespread experiment across Mediterranean shrub: Influence of wind on flame front properties. Fire Saf. J. 2006,41, 229–235. [CrossRef]73. Viegas, D.X. Slope and wind effects on fire propagation. Int. J. Wildland Fire 2004, 13, 143–156. [CrossRef]74. Westerling, A.L.; Hidalgo, H.G.; Cayan, D.R.; Swetnam, T.W. Warming and earlier spring increase westernU.S. forest wildfire activity. Science 2006, 313, 940–943. [CrossRef]75. Bouchard, M.; Butman, D.; Hawbaker, T.; Li, Z.; Lui, J.; Lui, S.; McDonald, C.; Reker, R.; Sayler, K.; Sleeter, B.;et al. Baseline and Projected Future Carbon Storage and Greenhouse-Gas Fluxes in the Great Plains Region of theUnited States; U.S. Geological Survey: Reston, VA, USA, 2011.76. Wehner, M.; Easterling, D.R.; Lawrimore, J.H.; Heim, R.R.; Vose, R.S.; Santer, B.D. Projections of futuredrought in the continental United States and Mexico. J. Hydrometeorol. 2011, 12, 1359–1377. [CrossRef]77. Weltzin, J.F.; McPherson, G.R. Changing Precipitation Regimes and Terrestrial Ecosystems: A North AmericanPerspective; University of Arizona Press: Tucson, AZ, USA, 2003; ISBN 0-8165-2247-2.78. Seager, R.; Ting, M.; Held, I.; Kushnir, Y.; Lu, J.; Vecchi, G.; Huang, H.-P.; Harnik, N.; Leetmaa, A.; Lau, N.-C.Model projections of an imminent transition to a more arid climate in southwestern North America. Science2007, 316, 1181–1184. [CrossRef]© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open accessarticle distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

South Texas Wildlife

Abstract

Extracted data

South Texas Wildlife

Abstract

Extracted data

Related items

Related items