机械清除林区道路两侧可燃物降低火灾风险效果评估——以塞罕坝机械林场为例

doi:10.11707/j.1001-7488.LYKX20240806

林业科学 ›› 2025, Vol. 61 ›› Issue (12): 135-145.doi: 10.11707/j.1001-7488.LYKX20240806

• 研究论文 • 上一篇

机械清除林区道路两侧可燃物降低火灾风险效果评估——以塞罕坝机械林场为例

闫凯达¹,周暖阳¹,司莉青¹,赵凤君^1,*(),张建华²,邹全程³,彭志杰²,韩冬²,徐健楠³,李笑笑¹,张师渊¹

1. 国家林业和草原局森林保护学重点实验室　中国林业科学研究院森林生态环境与自然保护研究所　北京100091
2. 塞罕坝机械林场　围场 068466
3. 国家林业和草原局林草调查规划院　北京 100714

收稿日期:2024-12-31 修回日期:2025-03-21 出版日期:2025-12-25 发布日期:2026-01-08
通讯作者: 赵凤君 E-mail:zhaofj@caf.ac.cn
基金资助:
国家林业和草原局揭榜挂帅项目“三北工程攻坚战关键技术研发”（202401）；中国林业科学研究院基本科研业务费专项(CAFYBB2024ZA004)；国家自然科学基金项目（32271895）。

Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Mechanical Clearance of Combustible Materials on Both Sides of Forest Roads on Reducing Wildfire Risk: a Case Study in Saihanba Mechanical Forest Farm

Kaida Yan¹,Nuanyang Zhou¹,Liqing Si¹,Fengjun Zhao^1,*(),Jianhua Zhang²,Quancheng Zou³,Zhijie Peng²,Dong Han²,Jiannan Xu³,Xiaoxiao Li¹,Shiyuan Zhang¹

1. Key Laboratory of Forest Protection of National Forestry and Grassland Administration　Ecology and Nature Conservation Institute, Chinese Academy of Forestry　Beijing 100091
2. Saihanba Mechanized Forest Farm　Weichang 068466
3. Academy of Inventory and Planning ofNational Forestry and Grassland Administration　Beijing 100714

Received:2024-12-31 Revised:2025-03-21 Online:2025-12-25 Published:2026-01-08
Contact: Fengjun Zhao E-mail:zhaofj@caf.ac.cn

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

目的: 评估机械清除林区道路两侧易燃细小可燃物对降低火灾风险的效果，探讨其影响火行为的机制，为制定科学的可燃物管理措施提供理论与数据支持。方法: 在塞罕坝机械林场秋季防火期前，通过样地调查与室内试验，测定机械清除前后可燃物的关键参数（高度、载量、含水率等），采用BehavePlus火行为模型模拟不同环境情景下清除前后的潜在火行为特征。结果: 首先，机械清除措施成效显著，道路两侧可燃物的平均高度从0.65 m大幅降至0.18 m，近60%样地的可燃物载量降低50%以上。其次，清除操作直接导致各项火行为指标急剧下降，地表火蔓延速度、单位面积热量、火线强度和火焰长度平均降幅分别达73.00%、43.75%、84.81%和57.98%。尤为重要的是，在可燃物高度较高（如1.0 m）的情况下，清除措施降低火行为的效果更为突出，各项关键指标降幅最高可超过95%。此外，割除后的可燃物若被进一步清理，其降低火灾风险的效果优于仅割除而未清理的方式。模型模拟也证实，在高风速、低含水率和高坡度的极端环境条件下，机械清除能够显著抑制火行为。结论: 机械清除能有效减少道路两侧易燃细小可燃物的高度和载量，显著抑制潜在火行为并降低火灾风险。建议在未来的管理中，应结合区域生态特性，灵活调整清除强度与时间安排，以实现火灾风险最小化与生态系统稳定性的双重目标。

关键词: 林区道路, 可燃物管理, 细小可燃物, 极端火环境, 机械清除, 火行为, BehavePlus

Abstract:

Objective: This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of mechanically removing highly flammable fine fuels on both sides of the road in reducing wildfire risk, and to investigate the mechanisms through which this practice influences fire behavior. The findings are intended to provide theoretical and data-driven support for developing scientific fuel management strategies. Method: Prior to the autumn fire prevention period in the Saihanba Mechanical Forest Farm, field plot surveys and laboratory experiments were conducted to measure key fuel parameters (e.g., height, load, moisture content) before and after mechanical removal. The BehavePlus fire behavior modeling system was used to simulate potential fire behavior characteristics before and after removal in various environmental scenarios. Result: Firstly, the mechanical removal treatment was highly effective. The average fuel height along the roadsides was significantly reduced from 0.65 m to 0.18 m. Fuel load decreased by more than 50% in nearly 60% of the sample plots. Secondly, the removal operation directly led to a sharp decline in all fire behavior indicators. The average rates of decrease for surface fire rate of spread, heat per unit area, fireline intensity, and flame length reached 73.00%, 43.75%, 84.81%, and 57.98%, respectively. Notably, the mitigating effect on fire behavior was more pronounced in areas with initially higher fuel heights (e.g., 1.0 m), where the reduction in key fire behavior indicators could exceed 95%. Furthermore, the practice of subsequently clearing the mowed fuels away had superior risk reduction compared to simply mowing without removal. Model simulations also confirms that mechanical removal significantly suppresses fire behavior even under extreme environmental conditions characterized by high wind speed, low fuel moisture content, and steep slopes. Conclusion: Mechanical removal effectively reduces the height and load of flammable fine fuels both sides of forest roads, thereby significantly inhibiting potential fire behavior and lowering wildfire risk. For future management, it is recommended to flexibly adjust the intensity and timing of removal operations based on regional ecological characteristics to achieve the dual objectives of minimizing wildfire risk and maintaining ecosystem stability.

Key words: forest roads, fuel management, fine fuels, extreme fire environment, mechanical removal, fire behavior, BehavePlus

中图分类号:

S762

闫凯达,周暖阳,司莉青,赵凤君,张建华,邹全程,彭志杰,韩冬,徐健楠,李笑笑,张师渊. 机械清除林区道路两侧可燃物降低火灾风险效果评估——以塞罕坝机械林场为例[J]. 林业科学, 2025, 61(12): 135-145.

Kaida Yan,Nuanyang Zhou,Liqing Si,Fengjun Zhao,Jianhua Zhang,Quancheng Zou,Zhijie Peng,Dong Han,Jiannan Xu,Xiaoxiao Li,Shiyuan Zhang. Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Mechanical Clearance of Combustible Materials on Both Sides of Forest Roads on Reducing Wildfire Risk: a Case Study in Saihanba Mechanical Forest Farm[J]. Scientia Silvae Sinicae, 2025, 61(12): 135-145.

图/表 11

图1

表1

表2

表3

表4

表5

表6

图2

图3

图4

图5

参考文献 0

	丁永全, 舒立福, 吴　松, 等. 塞罕坝林场不同林型地表枯落物特性及对应火险特征研究. 西南林业大学学报, 2021, 41 (4): 111- 118.
	Ding Y Q, Shu L F, Wu S, et al. Characteristics of litter and corresponding fire risk of different forest types in Saihanba Forestry Center. Journal of Southwest Forestry University, 2021, 41 (4): 111- 118.
	李笑笑, 赵凤君, 舒立福, 等. 2002—2023年中国森林火灾火源特征分析. 陆地生态系统与保护学报, 2024, 4 (6): 47- 55.
	Li X X, Zhao F J, Fu L F, et al. Analysis of ignition sources characteristics of forest fire in China from 2002 to 2023. Terrestrial Ecosystem and Conservation, 2024, 4 (6): 47- 55.
	王小雪, 王　恒, 张俊飞, 等. 塞罕坝林区华北落叶松径向生长对气候变化的响应. 林业与生态科学, 2022, 37 (2): 192- 197.
	Wang X X, Wang H, Zhang J F, et al. Response of the radial growth of Larix principis-rupprechtii to climate change in Saihanba Forestry Farm. Forestry and Ecological Science, 2022, 37 (2): 192- 197.
	闫凯达, 赵凤君, 司莉青, 等. 林火阻隔带和阻隔体系研究进展. 林业科学, 2025, 61 (1): 197- 208.
	Yan K D, Zhao F J, Si L Q, et al. Research progress on forest firebreaks and firebreak systems. Scientia Silvae Sinicae, 2025, 61 (1): 197- 208.
	袁　业, 孙国龙, 苑美燕, 等. 2017. 塞罕坝植物物种丰富度海拔分布格局. 安徽农业大学学报, 44(3): 496–501.
	Yuan Y, Song G L, Yuan M Y, 2017. Distributional patterns of plant species richness along an elevational gradient in Saihanba. Journal of Anhui Agricultural University, 44(3): 496–501. ［in Chinese］
	Andrews P L. Current status and future needs of the BehavePlus fire modeling system. International Journal of Wildland Fire, 2014, 23 (1): 21- 33. doi: 10.1071/WF12167
	Banerjee T. Impacts of forest thinning on wildland fire behavior. Forests, 2020, 11 (9): 918. doi: 10.3390/f11090918
	Benali A, Sá A C L, Pinho J, et al. 2021. Understanding the impact of different landscape-level fuel management strategies on wildfire hazard in central Portugal. Forests. 12(5): 522.
	Carratt S A, Flayer C H, Kossack M E. Pesticides, wildfire suppression chemicals, and California wildfires: A human health perspective. Current Topics in Toxicology, 2017, 13, 1- 12.
	Chen X, Wang M, Li B, et al. Effects of fuel removal on the flammability of surface fuels in Betula platyphylla in the wildland–urban interface. Fire, 2024, 7, 261. doi: 10.3390/fire7070261
	Cruz M G, Alexander M E, Fernandes P M. Evidence for lack of a fuel effect on forest and shrubland fire rates of spread under elevated fire danger conditions: implications for modelling and management. International Journal of Wildland Fire, 2022, 31 (5): 471- 479. doi: 10.1071/WF21171
	Davim D A, Rossa C G, Pereira J M, et al. Evaluating the effect of prescribed burning on the reduction of wildfire extent in Portugal. Forest Ecology and Management, 2022, 519, 120302. doi: 10.1016/j.foreco.2022.120302
	Gabriels D, Horn R, Villagra M M, et al. 2020. Methods for assessment of soil degradation. Boca Raton: CRC Press.
	Huang H, Ooka R, Liu N A, et al. Experimental study of fire growth in a reduced-scale compartment under different approaching external wind conditions. Fire Safety Journal, 2009, 44 (3): 311- 321. doi: 10.1016/j.firesaf.2008.07.005
	Johnston J D, Olszewski J H, Miller B A, et al. Mechanical thinning without prescribed fire moderates wildfire behavior in an Eastern Oregon, USA ponderosa pine forest. Forest Ecology and Management, 2021, 501, 119674. doi: 10.1016/j.foreco.2021.119674
	Kane J M, Varner J M, Knapp E E. Novel fuelbed characteristics associated with mechanical mastication treatments in northern California and south-western Oregon, USA. International Journal of Wildland Fire, 2009, 18 (6): 686- 697. doi: 10.1071/WF08072
	Keeley J E. Fire intensity, fire severity and burn severity: a brief review and suggested usage. International Journal of Wildland Fire, 2009, 18 (1): 116- 126. doi: 10.1071/WF07049
	Mansoor S, Farooq I, Kachroo M M. Elevation in wildfire frequencies with respect to the climate change. Journal of Environmental Management, 2022, 301, 113769. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.113769
	North M, Brough A, Long J, et al. Constraints on mechanized treatment significantly limit mechanical fuels reduction extent in the Sierra Nevada. Journal of Forestry, 2015, 113 (1): 40- 48. doi: 10.5849/jof.14-058
	Ritter S M, Hoffman C M, Battaglia M A, et al. Vertical and horizontal crown fuel continuity influences group-scale ignition and fuel consumption. Fire, 2023, 6 (8): 321. doi: 10.3390/fire6080321
	Rose M T, Cavagnaro T R, Scanlan C A, et al. Impact of herbicides on soil biology and function. Advances in Agronomy, 2016, 136, 133- 220.
	Santín C, Doerr S H. Fire effects on soils: the human dimension. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 2016, 371 (1696): 20150171. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2015.0171
	Slade E M, Mann D J, Lewis O T. Biodiversity and ecosystem function of tropical forest dung beetles under contrasting logging regimes. Biological Conservation, 2011, 144 (1): 166- 174. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2010.08.011
	Stephens S L, Jason J M. Experimental fuel treatment impacts on forest structure, potential fire behavior, and predicted tree mortality in a California mixed conifer forest. Forest Ecology and Management, 2005, 215 (1/3): 21- 36. doi: 10.1016/j.foreco.2005.03.070
	Stephens S L, McIver J D, Boerner R E, et al. The effects of forest fuel-reduction treatments in the United States. BioScience, 2012, 62 (6): 549- 560. doi: 10.1525/bio.2012.62.6.6
	Thomas P A, McAlpineR S. 2010. Fire in the forest. New York: Cambridge University Press.
	Vaillant N M, Fites-Kaufman J, Reiner A L, et al. Effect of fuel treatments on fuels and potential fire behavior in california, USA, National Forests. Fire Ecology, 2009, 5 (2): 14- 29. doi: 10.4996/fireecology.0502014
	Wang H H, Finney M A., Song Z L, et al. 2021. Ecological techniques for wildfire mitigation: two distinct fuelbreak approaches and their fusion. Forest Ecology and Management, 495: 119376.
	Zong X Z, TianX R, Wang X L. The role of fuel treatments in mitigating wildfire risk. Landscape and Urban Planning, 2024, 242, 104957. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2023.104957

项目Item	可燃物高度Fuel height /m
项目Item	（0， 0.2]	（0.2， 0.3]	（0.3， 0.4]	（0.4， 0.5]	（0.5， 0.6]	（0.6， 0.7]	（0.7， 0.8]	（0.8， 0.9]	（0.9， 1.0]
机械清除前 Before machanical removal	0	0	0	20.37	18.52	25.93	16.67	12.96	5.57
机械清除后 After mechanical removal	11.11	53.70	29.63	3.70	1.85	0	0	0	0

降低比例Reduce the ratio	（20， 30]	（30， 40]	（40， 50]	（50， 60]	（60， 70]	（70， 80]	（80， 90]
样方占比Sample ratio	1.85	3.70	5.56	9.26	14.81	40.74	24.08

项目Item	载量Fuel load/(t·hm^?2)
项目Item	（0， 2]	（2， 3]	（3， 4]	（4， 5]	（5， 6]	（6， 7]	（7， 8]	（8， 9]
机械清除前 Before machanical remval	0	11.11	14.81	33.33	25.93	5.56	7.41	1.85
机械清除后 After mechanical removal	3.1	26.73	33.92	20.21	11.37	4.67	0	0

降低比例Reduce the ratio	（0， 10]	（10， 20]	（20， 30]	（30， 40]	（40， 50]	（50， 60]	（60， 70]	（70， 80]	（80， 90]
样方占比Sample ratio	1.85	1.85	9.26	16.67	11.11	20.37	18.52	16.67	3.70

项目Item	可燃物高度 Height/ m	可燃物载量 Fuel load/ (t·hm^?2)	蔓延速度 Fire spread rate/ (m·min^?1)	单位面积热量 Heat per unit aera/ (kJ·m^?2）	火线强度 Fireline intensity/ (kW·m^?1)	火焰长度 Flame length/ m
机械清除前 Before mechanical removal	0.65	4.48	134.32	3 453.27	7 730.97	4.76
机械清除后 After mechanical removal	0.18	2.26	36.27	1 942.39	1 174.07	2.00

机械清除林区道路两侧可燃物降低火灾风险效果评估——以塞罕坝机械林场为例

Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Mechanical Clearance of Combustible Materials on Both Sides of Forest Roads on Reducing Wildfire Risk: a Case Study in Saihanba Mechanical Forest Farm

RichHTML

PDF

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

图/表 11

参考文献 0

相关文章 12

编辑推荐

Metrics

本文评价

作者中心

期刊获奖

引证指标

联系方式

[1]	索奥丽,陈锋,龚俊伟,程定野,代世奥,马成功,刘晓东. 华北落叶松林和油松林地表可燃物特征、土壤理化性质及林下植物多样性对林间草地放牧的响应[J]. 林业科学, 2025, 61(10): 60-73.
[2]	闫凯达,赵凤君,司莉青,舒立福,王明玉,李伟克,韩冬,李笑笑,周暖阳. 林火阻隔带和阻隔体系研究进展[J]. 林业科学, 2025, 61(1): 197-208.
[3]	李保中,杨光,宁吉彬,于宏洲. 森林可燃物调控技术及其评价方法[J]. 林业科学, 2024, 60(10): 143-153.
[4]	宗学政,田晓瑞. 可燃物处理对大兴安岭地区主要林型火行为的影响[J]. 林业科学, 2021, 57(2): 139-149.
[5]	满子源, 孙龙, 胡海清, 张运林. 南方8种森林地表死可燃物在平地无风时的燃烧蔓延速率与预测模型[J]. 林业科学, 2019, 55(7): 197-204.
[6]	苗庆林, 田晓瑞. 多气候情景下大兴安岭森林燃烧性评估[J]. 林业科学, 2016, 52(10): 109-116.
[7]	田晓瑞王明玉殷丽舒立福. 大兴安岭南部春季火行为特征及可燃物消耗[J]. 林业科学, 2009, 12(3): 90-95.
[8]	高宝嘉;张桂娟周国娜张鸿军于志勇李利学迟宝利. 承德县人工针叶林地表枯死可燃物参数估测及潜在地表火行为评价[J]. 林业科学, 2009, 12(10): 163-167.
[9]	王秋华舒立福戴兴安王明玉田晓瑞. 冰雪灾害对南方森林可燃物及火行为的影响[J]. 林业科学, 2008, 44(11): 171-176.
[10]	金森. 林火图像测量中的火场边缘提取技术[J]. 林业科学, 2007, 43(9): 44-47.
[11]	舒立福王明玉田晓瑞张小罗戴兴安. 关于森林燃烧火行为特征参数的计算与表述[J]. 林业科学, 2004, 40(3): 179-183.
[12]	张景群康永祥吴宽让周新华. 秦岭森林潜在火行为数量分类及划分指标研究[J]. 林业科学, 2001, 37(1): 101-106.

可燃物高度 Height/ m	可燃物载量 Fuel load/ (t·hm^?2)	蔓延速度 Fire spread rate/ (m·min^?1)	单位面积热量 Heat per unit aera/ (kJ·m^?2)	火线强度 Fireline intensity/ (kW·m^?1)	火焰长度 Flame length/ m
0.4	2.81	82.61	2 174.50	2 993.75	3.08
0.5	3.82	102.94	3 006.58	5 158.31	3.95
0.6	4.84	123.27	3 850.35	7 910.80	4.81
0.7	5.85	143.62	4 685.77	11 216.32	5.65
0.8	6.87	163.96	5 531.40	15 115.73	6.48
0.9	7.88	184.31	6 367.88	19 531.55	7.30
1.0	8.89	204.67	7 204.62	24 575.85	8.10