the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
SMLFire1.0: a stochastic machine learning (SML) model for wildfire activity in the western United States
Abstract. The annual area burned due to wildfires in the western United States (WUS) increased by more than 300 % between 1984 and 2020. However, accounting for the nonlinear, spatially heterogeneous interactions between climate, vegetation, and human predictors driving the trends in fire frequency and sizes at different spatial scales remains a challenging problem for statistical fire models. Here we introduce a novel stochastic machine learning (SML) framework, SMLFire1.0, to model observed fire frequencies and sizes in 12 km x 12 km grid cells across the WUS. This framework is implemented using Mixture Density Networks trained on a wide suite of input predictors. The modeled WUS fire frequency corresponds well with observations at both monthly (r = 0.94) and annual (r = 0.85) timescales, as do the monthly (r = 0.90) and annual (r = 0.88) area burned. Moreover, the annual time series of both fire variables exhibit strong correlations (r ≥ 0.6) in 16 out of 18 ecoregions. Our ML model captures the interannual variability and the distinct multidecade increases in annual area burned for both forested and non-forested ecoregions. Evaluating predictor importance with Shapley additive explanations, we find that fire month vapor pressure deficit (VPD) is the dominant driver of fire frequencies and sizes across the WUS, followed by 1000-hour dead fuel moisture (FM1000), total monthly precipitation (Prec), mean daily maximum temperature (Tmax), and fraction of grassland cover in a grid cell. Our findings serve as a promising use case of ML techniques for wildfire prediction in particular and extreme event modeling more broadly. They also highlight the power of ML driven parameterizations for potential implementation in the fire modules of Dynamic Global Vegetation Models (DGVMs) and Earth System Models (ESMs).
-
Notice on discussion status
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
-
Preprint
(8013 KB)
-
Supplement
(1423 KB)
-
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(8013 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(1423 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
- Final revised paper
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2022-1148', Anonymous Referee #1, 05 Dec 2022
Overall, this study has interesting components and would be a nice contribution to the literature applying ML approach on wildfire prediction. The paper is well-written, and I think that the authors’ are in a strong position to introduce stochastic ML method, which is a relatively new concept, to the wildfire modeling community. There are a few aspects that could be further addressed before the paper is suitable for publication.
1. This study used SHAP values to compare importance between predictors for the entire period as a global perspective and for each Ecoregion. But, how about the importance changes for temporal aspect (e.g. dry/wet season or extreme fire events)? It is interesting that none of the results in this study actually show significant importance for wind speed, although it is a key factor of fire spread.
2. The discrepancy of the year 2020 (Figure 11) can be further analyzed with input predictors. Although the scale of AAB 2020 is out of the range during the training period, it can be associated with abnormal pattern in climate/vegetation or sudden changes in human induced predictors. The authors may considered this further. Â
3. Why ‘Southness’ is selected rather than other directions? Also, interesting since it is included in the top 10 important predictors for the size model (Figure 12 and 13). It would be nice to further describe the role of ‘Southness’ in this study domain.
4. A typo in L361 : ‘are modeled’
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-1148-RC1 - AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Jatan Buch, 16 Feb 2023
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2022-1148', Anonymous Referee #2, 14 Dec 2022
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2022/egusphere-2022-1148/egusphere-2022-1148-RC2-supplement.pdf
-
AC3: 'Reply on RC2', Jatan Buch, 18 Feb 2023
We thank the reviewer for carefully reading through our manuscript and providing constructive feedback on our ML framework as well as its interpretation through SHAP values. A detailed response to their comments is provided in the attached .pdf file.
- AC2: 'Reply on RC3', Jatan Buch, 17 Feb 2023
-
AC3: 'Reply on RC2', Jatan Buch, 18 Feb 2023
-
RC3: 'Comment on egusphere-2022-1148', Anonymous Referee #3, 26 Dec 2022
Jotan Buch et al. developed a SMLFire model based on Mixture Density Networks and monthly climate, land surface, and atmospheric conditions. This work focused on both fire frequency and total burnt area over Western US. In general, this study is timely and important. The high performance of SMLFire is exiting for both fire frequency and burnt area. The presentation is smooth and well-done. Congratulations. Below are my comments and recommendations.Â1. Fuel load seems missing in the input variable list, which is an important predictor for fire spread thus burnt area. Also GDP (missing) is often considered as important indicator of human effects on fire management and firefighting efforts. Some others are also potentially useful to consider, e.g. road density. I would suggest create a new table with full list of input variables and explaining how these variables possibly affect fire frequency and burnt area.2. Spatial evaluation of SMLFire simulation is limited to regions, but evaluation on gridcell scale is also important because the model is gridcell-based and spatially-explicit. Suggest showing spatial maps of simulated vs observed western US fire frequency and burnt area statistics for long-term mean, decadal trend etc. It is interesting to see 12-km scale spatial hot spots of trends and variability as well.3. Human vs natural ignited fires have clear differences in ignition location and background climate. I understand that SMLFire does not distinguish human vs natural fire, but it worth exploring or discussion on how that might bias SMLFire in simulating spatial-temporal distribution of fires as well as the interpretation of underlying control factors for fire frequency and burnt area.4. It’s not clear how uncertainty quantification is done. Does it only consider parametric uncertainty? How about model structure (how many layers of hidden layer, number of neurons for each layer), other hyperparameters? How about forcing data uncertainties?ÂÂCitation: https://doi.org/
10.5194/egusphere-2022-1148-RC3 - AC2: 'Reply on RC3', Jatan Buch, 17 Feb 2023
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2022-1148', Anonymous Referee #1, 05 Dec 2022
Overall, this study has interesting components and would be a nice contribution to the literature applying ML approach on wildfire prediction. The paper is well-written, and I think that the authors’ are in a strong position to introduce stochastic ML method, which is a relatively new concept, to the wildfire modeling community. There are a few aspects that could be further addressed before the paper is suitable for publication.
1. This study used SHAP values to compare importance between predictors for the entire period as a global perspective and for each Ecoregion. But, how about the importance changes for temporal aspect (e.g. dry/wet season or extreme fire events)? It is interesting that none of the results in this study actually show significant importance for wind speed, although it is a key factor of fire spread.
2. The discrepancy of the year 2020 (Figure 11) can be further analyzed with input predictors. Although the scale of AAB 2020 is out of the range during the training period, it can be associated with abnormal pattern in climate/vegetation or sudden changes in human induced predictors. The authors may considered this further. Â
3. Why ‘Southness’ is selected rather than other directions? Also, interesting since it is included in the top 10 important predictors for the size model (Figure 12 and 13). It would be nice to further describe the role of ‘Southness’ in this study domain.
4. A typo in L361 : ‘are modeled’
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-1148-RC1 - AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Jatan Buch, 16 Feb 2023
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2022-1148', Anonymous Referee #2, 14 Dec 2022
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2022/egusphere-2022-1148/egusphere-2022-1148-RC2-supplement.pdf
-
AC3: 'Reply on RC2', Jatan Buch, 18 Feb 2023
We thank the reviewer for carefully reading through our manuscript and providing constructive feedback on our ML framework as well as its interpretation through SHAP values. A detailed response to their comments is provided in the attached .pdf file.
- AC2: 'Reply on RC3', Jatan Buch, 17 Feb 2023
-
AC3: 'Reply on RC2', Jatan Buch, 18 Feb 2023
-
RC3: 'Comment on egusphere-2022-1148', Anonymous Referee #3, 26 Dec 2022
Jotan Buch et al. developed a SMLFire model based on Mixture Density Networks and monthly climate, land surface, and atmospheric conditions. This work focused on both fire frequency and total burnt area over Western US. In general, this study is timely and important. The high performance of SMLFire is exiting for both fire frequency and burnt area. The presentation is smooth and well-done. Congratulations. Below are my comments and recommendations.Â1. Fuel load seems missing in the input variable list, which is an important predictor for fire spread thus burnt area. Also GDP (missing) is often considered as important indicator of human effects on fire management and firefighting efforts. Some others are also potentially useful to consider, e.g. road density. I would suggest create a new table with full list of input variables and explaining how these variables possibly affect fire frequency and burnt area.2. Spatial evaluation of SMLFire simulation is limited to regions, but evaluation on gridcell scale is also important because the model is gridcell-based and spatially-explicit. Suggest showing spatial maps of simulated vs observed western US fire frequency and burnt area statistics for long-term mean, decadal trend etc. It is interesting to see 12-km scale spatial hot spots of trends and variability as well.3. Human vs natural ignited fires have clear differences in ignition location and background climate. I understand that SMLFire does not distinguish human vs natural fire, but it worth exploring or discussion on how that might bias SMLFire in simulating spatial-temporal distribution of fires as well as the interpretation of underlying control factors for fire frequency and burnt area.4. It’s not clear how uncertainty quantification is done. Does it only consider parametric uncertainty? How about model structure (how many layers of hidden layer, number of neurons for each layer), other hyperparameters? How about forcing data uncertainties?ÂÂCitation: https://doi.org/
10.5194/egusphere-2022-1148-RC3 - AC2: 'Reply on RC3', Jatan Buch, 17 Feb 2023
Peer review completion
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Data sets
Western US MTBS-Interagency (WUMI) wildfire dataset Caroline Juang, A. Park Williams https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.sf7m0cg72
Model code and software
SMLFire1.0: a stochastic machine learning (SML) model for wildfire activity in the western United States Jatan Buch https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7277980
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
626 | 252 | 20 | 898 | 49 | 8 | 7 |
- HTML: 626
- PDF: 252
- XML: 20
- Total: 898
- Supplement: 49
- BibTeX: 8
- EndNote: 7
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1
Cited
1 citations as recorded by crossref.
A. Park Williams
Caroline S. Juang
Winslow D. Hansen
Pierre Gentine
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(8013 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(1423 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
- Final revised paper