Fuels, weather, fire behavior and vegetation data pertaining to Rx fire in a young loblolly pine plantation in Jones County, Georgia

Metadata:
Identification_Information:
Citation:
Citation_Information:
Originator: Wade, Dale D.
Publication_Date: 2015
Title:
Fuels, weather, fire behavior and vegetation data pertaining to Rx fire in a young loblolly pine plantation in Jones County, Georgia
Geospatial_Data_Presentation_Form: tabular digital data
Publication_Information:
Publication_Place: Fort Collins, CO
Publisher: Forest Service Research Archive
Online_Linkage: https://doi.org/10.2737/RDS-2015-0005
Description:
Abstract:
This data publication contains fuels, weather, fire behavior, crown damage, and hardwood vegetation preburn and postburn data related to a prescribed fire in a young loblolly pine (Pinus taeda) plantation in Georgia. Treatments consisted of 2 levels of backfire frontal intensity (low and moderate) applied to a five year old loblolly pine plantation. Pre-treatment conditions and treatment response were measured after each of two postfire growing seasons, resulting in measurements taken from 1982 through 1984. This data publication also contains photographs of the control, low, and moderate fireline intensity plots along with aerial images of the study area, which was in the Lower Piedmont of Georgia about 20 miles north of Macon, Georgia, USA.
Purpose:
Even with intensive site preparation, invading hardwoods on Piedmont sites present strong competition to planted pines, overtopping them thereby reducing pine growth, and often resulting in sapling mortality. Pines that survive will eventually push through the hardwood canopy, resulting in a mixed pine/hardwood stand. The lack of topsoil on Piedmont sites means hardwoods are typically of little economic value, but managing for pine is economically attractive. Site preparation is mandatory after harvest or the ubiquitous hardwoods will immediately capture the site until a destructive fire again creates a mineral soil seedbed conducive to establishment of a doghair loblolly stand from nearby trees. Loblolly is a pioneer species that produces copious amounts of light-weight, wind disseminated seed almost every year. This study was designed to determine if fire introduced at age five (normal introductory age is 10-12) would help free sapling pines from hardwood competition without undue damage to the planted pine.
Supplemental_Information:
Original metadata date was 01/23/2015. Minor metadata updates on 12/14/2016 and 07/11/2019.
Time_Period_of_Content:
Time_Period_Information:
Range_of_Dates/Times:
Beginning_Date: 1982
Ending_Date: 1984
Currentness_Reference:
Ground condition
Status:
Progress: Complete
Maintenance_and_Update_Frequency: None planned
Spatial_Domain:
Description_of_Geographic_Extent:
Georgia Kraft land lot 70, 11th Land District, Jones County, Georgia, USA.
Bounding_Coordinates:
West_Bounding_Coordinate: -83.63
East_Bounding_Coordinate: -83.63
North_Bounding_Coordinate: 33.05
South_Bounding_Coordinate: 33.05
Keywords:
Theme:
Theme_Keyword_Thesaurus: None
Theme_Keyword: loblolly pine
Theme_Keyword: loblolly pine sapling mortality and growth
Theme_Keyword: forest management
Theme_Keyword: southern pine
Theme_Keyword: fire behavior
Theme_Keyword: fire effects
Theme_Keyword: CUS
Theme_Keyword: control of undesirable species
Theme_Keyword: fine fuel moisture content
Theme_Keyword: fuel consumption
Theme_Keyword: hardwood competition
Theme_Keyword: fire tolerance
Theme_Keyword: competition control
Theme_Keyword: hardwood topkill
Theme_Keyword: backfire technique
Theme_Keyword: stand management
Theme_Keyword: introductory fires
Theme_Keyword: Pinus taeda
Theme_Keyword: burn
Theme_Keyword: prescribed burn
Theme_Keyword: JFSP
Theme_Keyword: Joint Fire Science Program
Theme:
Theme_Keyword_Thesaurus: ISO 19115 Topic Category
Theme_Keyword: biota
Theme_Keyword: environment
Theme:
Theme_Keyword_Thesaurus: National Research & Development Taxonomy
Theme_Keyword: Fire
Theme_Keyword: Fire ecology
Theme_Keyword: Prescribed fire
Theme_Keyword: Forest & Plant Health
Theme_Keyword: Natural Resource Management & Use
Theme_Keyword: Plant ecology
Theme_Keyword: Ecology, Ecosystems, & Environment
Place:
Place_Keyword_Thesaurus: None
Place_Keyword: Georgia
Place_Keyword: Kraft
Place_Keyword: Macon
Place_Keyword: Jones County
Taxonomy:
Keywords/Taxon:
Taxonomic_Keyword_Thesaurus:
None
Taxonomic_Keywords: vegetation
Taxonomic_Keywords: plants
Taxonomic_System:
Classification_System/Authority:
Classification_System_Citation:
Citation_Information:
Originator: ITIS
Publication_Date: 2014
Title:
Integrated Taxonomic Information System
Geospatial_Data_Presentation_Form: database
Other_Citation_Details:
Retrieved [September, 30, 2014]
Online_Linkage: https://www.itis.gov/
Classification_System_Modifications:
According to ITIS.gov, the species "Myrica cerifera" has the valid/acceptable name of "Morella cerifera", so that is the taxonomy provided here.
Taxonomic_Procedures:
Taxonomic_Completeness:
Vegetation was identified to species when possible. Some species which were minor components of the study area were identified to genus.
Taxonomic_Classification:
Taxon_Rank_Name: Kingdom
Taxon_Rank_Value: Plantae
Applicable_Common_Name: plantes
Applicable_Common_Name: Planta
Applicable_Common_Name: Vegetal
Applicable_Common_Name: plants
Taxonomic_Classification:
Taxon_Rank_Name: Subkingdom
Taxon_Rank_Value: Viridaeplantae
Applicable_Common_Name: green plants
Taxonomic_Classification:
Taxon_Rank_Name: Infrakingdom
Taxon_Rank_Value: Streptophyta
Applicable_Common_Name: land plants
Taxonomic_Classification:
Taxon_Rank_Name: Division
Taxon_Rank_Value: Tracheophyta
Applicable_Common_Name: vascular plants
Applicable_Common_Name: tracheophytes
Taxonomic_Classification:
Taxon_Rank_Name: Subdivision
Taxon_Rank_Value: Spermatophytina
Applicable_Common_Name: spermatophytes
Applicable_Common_Name: seed plants
Applicable_Common_Name: phanérogames
Taxonomic_Classification:
Taxon_Rank_Name: Infradivision
Taxon_Rank_Value: Angiospermae
Applicable_Common_Name: flowering plants
Applicable_Common_Name: angiosperms
Applicable_Common_Name: plantas com flor
Applicable_Common_Name: angiosperma
Applicable_Common_Name: plantes à fleurs
Applicable_Common_Name: angiospermes
Applicable_Common_Name: plantes à fruits
Taxonomic_Classification:
Taxon_Rank_Name: Class
Taxon_Rank_Value: Magnoliopsida
Taxonomic_Classification:
Taxon_Rank_Name: Superorder
Taxon_Rank_Value: Asteranae
Taxonomic_Classification:
Taxon_Rank_Name: Order
Taxon_Rank_Value: Ericales
Taxonomic_Classification:
Taxon_Rank_Name: Family
Taxon_Rank_Value: Ebenaceae
Applicable_Common_Name: ebony
Taxonomic_Classification:
Taxon_Rank_Name: Genus
Taxon_Rank_Value: Diospyros
Applicable_Common_Name: persimmons
Taxonomic_Classification:
Taxon_Rank_Name: Species
Taxon_Rank_Value: Diospyros virginiana
Applicable_Common_Name: eastern persimmon
Applicable_Common_Name: common persimmon
Taxonomic_Classification:
Taxon_Rank_Name: Order
Taxon_Rank_Value: Cornales
Taxonomic_Classification:
Taxon_Rank_Name: Family
Taxon_Rank_Value: Cornaceae
Applicable_Common_Name: dogwoods
Taxonomic_Classification:
Taxon_Rank_Name: Genus
Taxon_Rank_Value: Cornus
Applicable_Common_Name: dogwood
Taxonomic_Classification:
Taxon_Rank_Name: Species
Taxon_Rank_Value: Cornus florida
Applicable_Common_Name: flowering dogwood
Taxonomic_Classification:
Taxon_Rank_Name: Species
Taxon_Rank_Value: Cornus alternifolia
Applicable_Common_Name: alternate-leaf dogwood
Applicable_Common_Name: alternateleaf dogwood
Taxonomic_Classification:
Taxon_Rank_Name: Family
Taxon_Rank_Value: Nyssaceae
Taxonomic_Classification:
Taxon_Rank_Name: Genus
Taxon_Rank_Value: Nyssa
Applicable_Common_Name: tupelo
Taxonomic_Classification:
Taxon_Rank_Name: Species
Taxon_Rank_Value: Nyssa sylvatica
Applicable_Common_Name: black gum
Applicable_Common_Name: black tupelo
Applicable_Common_Name: blackgum
Taxonomic_Classification:
Taxon_Rank_Name: Order
Taxon_Rank_Value: Lamiales
Taxonomic_Classification:
Taxon_Rank_Name: Family
Taxon_Rank_Value: Lamiaceae
Applicable_Common_Name: mints
Applicable_Common_Name: menthes
Taxonomic_Classification:
Taxon_Rank_Name: Genus
Taxon_Rank_Value: Callicarpa
Applicable_Common_Name: beautyberry
Taxonomic_Classification:
Taxon_Rank_Name: Species
Taxon_Rank_Value: Callicarpa americana
Applicable_Common_Name: American beautyberry
Taxonomic_Classification:
Taxon_Rank_Name: Family
Taxon_Rank_Value: Oleaceae
Applicable_Common_Name: olives
Taxonomic_Classification:
Taxon_Rank_Name: Genus
Taxon_Rank_Value: Fraxinus
Applicable_Common_Name: ash
Taxonomic_Classification:
Taxon_Rank_Name: Genus
Taxon_Rank_Value: Forestiera
Applicable_Common_Name: swamp privet
Applicable_Common_Name: swampprivet
Taxonomic_Classification:
Taxon_Rank_Name: Species
Taxon_Rank_Value: Forestiera acuminata
Applicable_Common_Name: swamp privet
Applicable_Common_Name: Texas forestiera
Applicable_Common_Name: eastern swampprivet
Taxonomic_Classification:
Taxon_Rank_Name: Order
Taxon_Rank_Value: Dipsacales
Taxonomic_Classification:
Taxon_Rank_Name: Family
Taxon_Rank_Value: Caprifoliaceae
Applicable_Common_Name: honeysuckle
Applicable_Common_Name: chèvrefeuilles
Taxonomic_Classification:
Taxon_Rank_Name: Genus
Taxon_Rank_Value: Lonicera
Applicable_Common_Name: honeysuckle
Taxonomic_Classification:
Taxon_Rank_Name: Species
Taxon_Rank_Value: Lonicera japonica
Applicable_Common_Name: Chinese honeysuckle
Applicable_Common_Name: Japanese honeysuckle
Taxonomic_Classification:
Taxon_Rank_Name: Family
Taxon_Rank_Value: Adoxaceae
Applicable_Common_Name: adoxas
Taxonomic_Classification:
Taxon_Rank_Name: Genus
Taxon_Rank_Value: Viburnum
Applicable_Common_Name: viburnum
Taxonomic_Classification:
Taxon_Rank_Name: Species
Taxon_Rank_Value: Viburnum rufidulum
Applicable_Common_Name: rusty viburnum
Applicable_Common_Name: rusty blackhaw
Taxonomic_Classification:
Taxon_Rank_Name: Order
Taxon_Rank_Value: Apiales
Taxonomic_Classification:
Taxon_Rank_Name: Family
Taxon_Rank_Value: Araliaceae
Applicable_Common_Name: ginseng
Taxonomic_Classification:
Taxon_Rank_Name: Genus
Taxon_Rank_Value: Aralia
Applicable_Common_Name: spikenard
Taxonomic_Classification:
Taxon_Rank_Name: Species
Taxon_Rank_Value: Aralia spinosa
Applicable_Common_Name: devils walkingstick
Applicable_Common_Name: angelicatree
Applicable_Common_Name: devil's walkingstick
Taxonomic_Classification:
Taxon_Rank_Name: Order
Taxon_Rank_Value: Aquifoliales
Taxonomic_Classification:
Taxon_Rank_Name: Family
Taxon_Rank_Value: Aquifoliaceae
Applicable_Common_Name: hollies
Taxonomic_Classification:
Taxon_Rank_Name: Genus
Taxon_Rank_Value: Ilex
Applicable_Common_Name: hollies
Applicable_Common_Name: holly
Taxonomic_Classification:
Taxon_Rank_Name: Species
Taxon_Rank_Value: Ilex decidua
Applicable_Common_Name: possumhaw
Taxonomic_Classification:
Taxon_Rank_Name: Superorder
Taxon_Rank_Value: Lilianae
Applicable_Common_Name: monocots
Applicable_Common_Name: monocotyledons
Applicable_Common_Name: monocotylédones
Taxonomic_Classification:
Taxon_Rank_Name: Order
Taxon_Rank_Value: Liliales
Taxonomic_Classification:
Taxon_Rank_Name: Family
Taxon_Rank_Value: Smilacaceae
Applicable_Common_Name: catbrier
Taxonomic_Classification:
Taxon_Rank_Name: Genus
Taxon_Rank_Value: Smilax
Applicable_Common_Name: common greenbriar
Applicable_Common_Name: greenbriar
Applicable_Common_Name: sarsaparilla
Applicable_Common_Name: catbrier
Applicable_Common_Name: greenbrier
Taxonomic_Classification:
Taxon_Rank_Name: Superorder
Taxon_Rank_Value: Magnolianae
Taxonomic_Classification:
Taxon_Rank_Name: Order
Taxon_Rank_Value: Magnoliales
Taxonomic_Classification:
Taxon_Rank_Name: Family
Taxon_Rank_Value: Magnoliaceae
Applicable_Common_Name: magnolias
Taxonomic_Classification:
Taxon_Rank_Name: Genus
Taxon_Rank_Value: Liriodendron
Applicable_Common_Name: tuliptree
Taxonomic_Classification:
Taxon_Rank_Name: Species
Taxon_Rank_Value: Liriodendron tulipifera
Applicable_Common_Name: yellow poplar
Applicable_Common_Name: tulip poplar
Applicable_Common_Name: yellow-poplar
Applicable_Common_Name: tuliptree
Applicable_Common_Name: bois-jaune
Applicable_Common_Name: tulip-poplar
Taxonomic_Classification:
Taxon_Rank_Name: Order
Taxon_Rank_Value: Laurales
Taxonomic_Classification:
Taxon_Rank_Name: Family
Taxon_Rank_Value: Lauraceae
Applicable_Common_Name: laurels
Taxonomic_Classification:
Taxon_Rank_Name: Genus
Taxon_Rank_Value: Sassafras
Applicable_Common_Name: sassafras
Taxonomic_Classification:
Taxon_Rank_Name: Species
Taxon_Rank_Value: Sassafras albidum
Applicable_Common_Name: sassafras
Taxonomic_Classification:
Taxon_Rank_Name: Superorder
Taxon_Rank_Value: Rosanae
Taxonomic_Classification:
Taxon_Rank_Name: Order
Taxon_Rank_Value: Fagales
Taxonomic_Classification:
Taxon_Rank_Name: Family
Taxon_Rank_Value: Juglandaceae
Applicable_Common_Name: walnuts
Taxonomic_Classification:
Taxon_Rank_Name: Genus
Taxon_Rank_Value: Carya
Applicable_Common_Name: caryer
Applicable_Common_Name: hickory
Taxonomic_Classification:
Taxon_Rank_Name: Family
Taxon_Rank_Value: Myricaceae
Applicable_Common_Name: sweet gale
Taxonomic_Classification:
Taxon_Rank_Name: Genus
Taxon_Rank_Value: Morella
Applicable_Common_Name: bayberry
Taxonomic_Classification:
Taxon_Rank_Name: Species
Taxon_Rank_Value: Morella cerifera
Applicable_Common_Name: waxmyrtle
Applicable_Common_Name: wax myrtle
Taxonomic_Classification:
Taxon_Rank_Name: Family
Taxon_Rank_Value: Fagaceae
Taxonomic_Classification:
Taxon_Rank_Name: Genus
Taxon_Rank_Value: Quercus
Applicable_Common_Name: chêne
Applicable_Common_Name: oak
Taxonomic_Classification:
Taxon_Rank_Name: Family
Taxon_Rank_Value: Betulaceae
Applicable_Common_Name: alder
Applicable_Common_Name: birch
Taxonomic_Classification:
Taxon_Rank_Name: Genus
Taxon_Rank_Value: Carpinus
Applicable_Common_Name: hornbeam
Taxonomic_Classification:
Taxon_Rank_Name: Species
Taxon_Rank_Value: Carpinus caroliniana
Applicable_Common_Name: American hornbeam
Taxonomic_Classification:
Taxon_Rank_Name: Genus
Taxon_Rank_Value: Ostrya
Applicable_Common_Name: hophornbeam
Taxonomic_Classification:
Taxon_Rank_Name: Species
Taxon_Rank_Value: Ostrya virginiana
Applicable_Common_Name: eastern hophornbeam
Applicable_Common_Name: hophornbeam
Taxonomic_Classification:
Taxon_Rank_Name: Order
Taxon_Rank_Value: Rosales
Taxonomic_Classification:
Taxon_Rank_Name: Family
Taxon_Rank_Value: Ulmaceae
Applicable_Common_Name: elms
Taxonomic_Classification:
Taxon_Rank_Name: Genus
Taxon_Rank_Value: Ulmus
Applicable_Common_Name: elm
Taxonomic_Classification:
Taxon_Rank_Name: Family
Taxon_Rank_Value: Moraceae
Applicable_Common_Name: mulberries
Taxonomic_Classification:
Taxon_Rank_Name: Genus
Taxon_Rank_Value: Morus
Applicable_Common_Name: mulberry
Taxonomic_Classification:
Taxon_Rank_Name: Species
Taxon_Rank_Value: Morus rubra
Applicable_Common_Name: red mulberry
Taxonomic_Classification:
Taxon_Rank_Name: Family
Taxon_Rank_Value: Rosaceae
Applicable_Common_Name: roses
Taxonomic_Classification:
Taxon_Rank_Name: Genus
Taxon_Rank_Value: Crataegus
Applicable_Common_Name: hawthorns
Applicable_Common_Name: aubépines
Taxonomic_Classification:
Taxon_Rank_Name: Genus
Taxon_Rank_Value: Rosa
Applicable_Common_Name: wildrose
Applicable_Common_Name: rose
Taxonomic_Classification:
Taxon_Rank_Name: Genus
Taxon_Rank_Value: Rubus
Applicable_Common_Name: framboises
Applicable_Common_Name: ronces
Applicable_Common_Name: brambles
Applicable_Common_Name: blackberry
Taxonomic_Classification:
Taxon_Rank_Name: Order
Taxon_Rank_Value: Celastrales
Taxonomic_Classification:
Taxon_Rank_Name: Family
Taxon_Rank_Value: Celastraceae
Applicable_Common_Name: bittersweet
Taxonomic_Classification:
Taxon_Rank_Name: Genus
Taxon_Rank_Value: Euonymus
Applicable_Common_Name: burningbush
Applicable_Common_Name: spindletree
Taxonomic_Classification:
Taxon_Rank_Name: Species
Taxon_Rank_Value: Euonymus americanus
Applicable_Common_Name: strawberry bush
Applicable_Common_Name: hearts-bustin'-with-love
Applicable_Common_Name: bursting-heart
Taxonomic_Classification:
Taxon_Rank_Name: Order
Taxon_Rank_Value: Sapindales
Taxonomic_Classification:
Taxon_Rank_Name: Family
Taxon_Rank_Value: Sapindaceae
Applicable_Common_Name: soapberries
Taxonomic_Classification:
Taxon_Rank_Name: Genus
Taxon_Rank_Value: Acer
Applicable_Common_Name: maples
Taxonomic_Classification:
Taxon_Rank_Name: Family
Taxon_Rank_Value: Anacardiaceae
Applicable_Common_Name: cashews
Taxonomic_Classification:
Taxon_Rank_Name: Genus
Taxon_Rank_Value: Rhus
Applicable_Common_Name: sumac
Taxonomic_Classification:
Taxon_Rank_Name: Species
Taxon_Rank_Value: Rhus typhina
Applicable_Common_Name: staghorn sumac
Taxonomic_Classification:
Taxon_Rank_Name: Genus
Taxon_Rank_Value: Toxicodendron
Applicable_Common_Name: poison ivy
Applicable_Common_Name: poison oak
Taxonomic_Classification:
Taxon_Rank_Name: Species
Taxon_Rank_Value: Toxicodendron radicans
Applicable_Common_Name: poison ivy
Applicable_Common_Name: eastern poison ivy
Taxonomic_Classification:
Taxon_Rank_Name: Order
Taxon_Rank_Value: Fabales
Taxonomic_Classification:
Taxon_Rank_Name: Family
Taxon_Rank_Value: Fabaceae
Applicable_Common_Name: peas
Applicable_Common_Name: legumes
Taxonomic_Classification:
Taxon_Rank_Name: Genus
Taxon_Rank_Value: Cercis
Applicable_Common_Name: redbud
Taxonomic_Classification:
Taxon_Rank_Name: Species
Taxon_Rank_Value: Cercis canadensis
Applicable_Common_Name: eastern redbud
Applicable_Common_Name: redbud
Taxonomic_Classification:
Taxon_Rank_Name: Order
Taxon_Rank_Value: Malpighiales
Taxonomic_Classification:
Taxon_Rank_Name: Family
Taxon_Rank_Value: Hypericaceae
Taxonomic_Classification:
Taxon_Rank_Name: Genus
Taxon_Rank_Value: Hypericum
Applicable_Common_Name: St. Johnswort
Taxonomic_Classification:
Taxon_Rank_Name: Order
Taxon_Rank_Value: Vitales
Taxonomic_Classification:
Taxon_Rank_Name: Family
Taxon_Rank_Value: Vitaceae
Applicable_Common_Name: grapes
Taxonomic_Classification:
Taxon_Rank_Name: Genus
Taxon_Rank_Value: Vitis
Applicable_Common_Name: grape
Taxonomic_Classification:
Taxon_Rank_Name: Species
Taxon_Rank_Value: Vitis rotundifolia
Applicable_Common_Name: muscadine
Applicable_Common_Name: muscadine grape
Taxonomic_Classification:
Taxon_Rank_Name: Superorder
Taxon_Rank_Value: Saxifraganae
Taxonomic_Classification:
Taxon_Rank_Name: Order
Taxon_Rank_Value: Saxifragales
Taxonomic_Classification:
Taxon_Rank_Name: Family
Taxon_Rank_Value: Altingiaceae
Taxonomic_Classification:
Taxon_Rank_Name: Genus
Taxon_Rank_Value: Liquidambar
Applicable_Common_Name: sweetgum
Taxonomic_Classification:
Taxon_Rank_Name: Species
Taxon_Rank_Value: Liquidambar styraciflua
Applicable_Common_Name: sweetgum
Taxonomic_Classification:
Taxon_Rank_Name: Infradivision
Taxon_Rank_Value: Gymnospermae
Applicable_Common_Name: gymnosperms
Applicable_Common_Name: gymnospermes
Applicable_Common_Name: gimnosperma
Taxonomic_Classification:
Taxon_Rank_Name: Class
Taxon_Rank_Value: Pinopsida
Applicable_Common_Name: conifers
Taxonomic_Classification:
Taxon_Rank_Name: Order
Taxon_Rank_Value: Pinales
Applicable_Common_Name: pines
Taxonomic_Classification:
Taxon_Rank_Name: Family
Taxon_Rank_Value: Pinaceae
Applicable_Common_Name: pines
Taxonomic_Classification:
Taxon_Rank_Name: Genus
Taxon_Rank_Value: Pinus
Applicable_Common_Name: pine
Taxonomic_Classification:
Taxon_Rank_Name: Species
Taxon_Rank_Value: Pinus taeda
Applicable_Common_Name: loblolly pine
Access_Constraints: None
Use_Constraints:
These data were collected using funding from the U.S. Government and can be used without additional permissions or fees. If you use these data in a publication, presentation, or other research product please include both of the following citation:

Wade, Dale D. Fuels, weather, fire behavior and vegetation data pertaining to Rx fire in a young loblolly pine plantation in Jones County, Georgia. 2015. Fort Collins, CO: Forest Service Research Data Archive. https://doi.org/10.2737/RDS-2015-0005
Browse_Graphic:
Browse_Graphic_File_Name: \Supplements\GA_Kraft_aerial_photos\GA_Kraft_study_1983_aerial_photo_X.tif
Browse_Graphic_File_Description:
Seven different Tagged Image Files (TIF) containing aerial photographs of the Kraft study in Jones County, Georgia. Photographs were taken on 3/25/1983 showing plots burned 3/4/1983 through 3/11/1983, USFS SE2111 18-2. (X = photograph number 1-7)
Browse_Graphic_File_Type: TIFF
Browse_Graphic:
Browse_Graphic_File_Name: \Supplements\GA_Kraft_control_plot_photos\Plot PLOTNUM MM-DD-YY (X).tif
Browse_Graphic_File_Description:
Forty one TIF images containing photographs of the control plots in the Kraft study in Jones County, Georgia. Photographs were taken in October of 1982, 1983, or 1984 and of plots as specified. They are all of Loblolly, which were planted 1-78 with 1-0 stock, USFS SE2111-18. (PLOTNUM = plot number: 1C1, 5C3, 6C2, or 12C4; MM-DD-YY = the specified date where MM=month, DD=day, and YY=year; X = photograph number 1-15)
Browse_Graphic_File_Type: TIFF
Browse_Graphic:
Browse_Graphic_File_Name: \Supplements\GA_Kraft_low_intensity_fire_photos\Plot PLOTNUM BURNTYPE BACKFIRE MM-DD-YY (X).tif
Browse_Graphic_File_Description:
Sixty eight TIF images containing photographs of the low intensity fires in the Kraft study in Jones County, Georgia. Photographs may have been pre- or post-burn (as noted), and some plots were backfired. They are all of Loblolly, which were planted 1-78 with 1-0 stock, USFS SE2111-18. (PLOTNUM = plot number: 11L3, 2L2, 4L1, or 9L4; BURNTYPE = blank, Preburn, or Postburn; BACKFIRE = blank or bankfired; MM-DD-YY = the specified date where MM=month, DD=day, and YY=year; X = photograph number 1-5)
Browse_Graphic_File_Type: TIFF
Browse_Graphic:
Browse_Graphic_File_Name: \Supplements\GA_Kraft_mod_intensity_fire_photos\Plot PLOTNUM DETAILS MM-DD-YY (X).tif
Browse_Graphic_File_Description:
Seventy seven TIF images containing photographs of the low intensity fires in the Kraft study in Jones County, Georgia. Photographs may have been pre- or post-burn (as noted), some plots were backfired. They are all of Loblolly, which were planted 1-78 with 1-0 stock, USFS SE2111-18. (PLOTNUM = plot number: 3M3, 7M4, 8M1, or 10M2; DETAILS = blank, Preburn, Postburn, or other comments; MM-DD-YY = the specified date where MM=month, DD=day, and YY=year; X = photograph number 1-15)
Browse_Graphic_File_Type: TIFF
Browse_Graphic:
Browse_Graphic_File_Name: \Supplements\GA_Kraft_moist_content_sampling_ex\Plot_3M3_MC_sampling_prior_to_ignition_3-4-83 X.tif
Browse_Graphic_File_Description:
Two TIF images containing photographs of Plot 3M3 in the Kraft study in Jones County, Georgia. Both photographs are examples showing moisture content sampling. This site was just chosen randomly to demonstrate what a sample looks like.
Browse_Graphic_File_Type: TIFF
Browse_Graphic:
Browse_Graphic_File_Name: \Supplements\Representative_study_slides\Plot PLOTNUM DETAILS MM-DD-YY (X).tif
Browse_Graphic_File_Description:
Thirty four TIF images containing representative photographs of pre and post burn hardwood competition and backfire fire behavior of March 1983 introductory burns in a 5 year old loblolly pine plantation in the Kraft study in Jones County, Georgia. Loblolly pine planted planted 1-78 with 1-0 stock, USFS SE2111-18. Photos were taken from 1982-1984. (PLOTNUM = plot number: 10M2, 11L3, 12C4, 2L2, 3M3, 4L1, 5C3, 7M4; DETAILS = blank, Preburn, Postburn, or other comments; MM-DD-YY = the specified date where MM=month, DD=day, and YY=year; X = photograph number 1-15)
Browse_Graphic_File_Type: TIFF
Data_Set_Credit:
Funding for this project provided by Joint Fire Science Program (#13-4-01-2): https://www.firescience.gov, and the USDA Forest Service, Southern Research Station through a Joint Venture Agreement (#13-JV-11330136-076).

Special thanks to those who helped in the data collection process: Ted Ach, David Weise and Mark Walley.
Back to Top
Data_Quality_Information:
Attribute_Accuracy:
Attribute_Accuracy_Report:
The same 2 observers conducted all vegetation surveys. Both had decades of research experience, knew their trees and many step-overs, and spent the time required to correctly place the tape and meticulously determine borderline plants (marked with spray paint) and make field notes as appropriate. When tallying vegetation in the control plot there were problems because there was no consistent vine reporting: thus the species: Lonicera japonica (LOJA), Smilax spp (SMIL), Toxicodendron radicans (TORA) and Vitis rotundifolia (VIRO) were all combined with any unknown vines (VINE) in the summary stats.

The understory tangle of vines was amazing. They were still rapidly spreading on control plots in early fall of 1983. Herbs and vines were only recorded if they occupied more than 1/2 the 1 foot measurement segment midline and were the dominant species in 1982. In 1983 and 1984 they were tallied once if they crossed the midline of a segment (only once, regardless of the number of intersections). Thus in 1982, when the line transect sheet says VOID, it was very likely that vines were present but did not meet stated criteria for tallying. Vines were typically not identified by species in 1982 or 1983 surveys. Most vines were Japanese honeysuckle. Mimosa, hackberry, American holly and several vacciniums were noted on the study plots but not in any transects. Virtually all Cornus florida (COFL) were flowering dogwood, but there may have been a rough-leaved dogwood or two that were called COFL. Virtually all Ulmus spp (ULUM) were slippery elm, although some could have been American elm. Virtually all Fraxinus spp (FRAX) were green ash, although there could have been some American ash present. Acer spp. (ACER) was either red maple or Bartrums maple. Crateugus spp. (CRAT) could be a number of species. Prunus spp. (PRUN) could have been a number of plums and cherries. Quercurs spp. (QUER) could have been a large number of both red and white oaks. Rhus spp. (RHUS) could be any of 4 sumacs. Most hardwoods were only top-killed, and sprouts occasionally reached 4.5 feet within the 1st postburn growing season. Seymerai cassiodides, a parasitic plant that attacks young pines and a troublesome invader after fire, was not seen on the study area. When there was a tie for dominance within a 1 foot measurement segment, and combining vine with a vine species would break it, vine is the listed dominant species. The previous years' field sheets were on the clipboard during all surveys, so any inadvertent misidentification was corrected.
Logical_Consistency_Report:
As mentioned above, previous years field sheets were refered to during all surveys which caught most identification and measurement mistakes. Entered data was printed out by species to catch any spelling typos. All data was visually examined and any that appeared to be an outlier was investigated and corrected or discarded as necessary. Worksheet calculations were done twice by different people and compared.
Completeness_Report:
Use caution when interpreting these data. The control plots started with more measurement trees in 1982 which gave the controls an advantage that carried through the study. Stunted pines (from tip moth) on the control plots added to these numbers, but in reality, if they do survive (suspect most will die from hardwood competition), they will not be large enough to harvest if the stand is clearcut for pulp in the next 10-15 years. If the stand is actively managed on a longer rotation, the suppressed pine will likely be felled and left in the first release cut. Thus to put analyses on an even footing, all stunted trees that died during the study from whatever cause should be deleted from any analysis. Even better would be to delete all stunted trees (< 0.5 inches at diameter at breast height or < 4.5 feet high in October 1982).

A poor decision resulted in only collecting three 0.25 milacre (MA) fuel samples on a plot which created problems because of the presence of large cull material from the previous stand harvest on some points which resulted in higher post burn dead fuel weights than preburn dead weights on some sample points; virtually no 100 or 1000 hour fuels ignited under the very moist conditions as indicated by very low KBDI values so deletion of these fuels would help. Many pines in plot 10M2 were killed when the fire hooked around and headed through a portion of this plot; all damaged trees were deleted.

A blank value in the FBSD data sets means no data collected, or the amount was too small to bother collecting. Blank values in the GAKP data sets means no data collected, and if a tree had died no additional measurements were taken. In the GAKV data sets a blank value means there was nothing present.
Lineage:
Methodology:
Methodology_Type: Field
Methodolgy_Identifier:
Methodolgy_Keyword_Thesaurus:
none
Methodology_Keyword: Keetch/Byram Drought Index
Methodology_Description:
The site: This experiment utilized 12, completely randomized plots, each measuring three-chains by three-chains (0.9 acres), and separated by plowed fire lines. The plots were established in a five year old loblolly pine plantation with an obvious hardwood component although it was not overtopping the pines at study establishment. The plots were numbered 1-12 and labeled according to their treatment.

Vegetation Measurements: Two 200-foot permanent diagonal transects were established on each plot with end points about 25 feet (ft) in from plot corners, procedures outlined by Canfield (1941), Daubenmire (1959), Ripley, et. al (1963), and Pase (1981). Steel reinforcing rods were driven into the ground with the tops at 4.5 ft so a tape could be stretched taught across the stakes. Each 200-foot transect was divided into 50-foot sectors, which were in turn divided into 10-foot summary segments (for analysis), and then into 1-foot measurement segments. All woody plants less than 4.5 ft tall that intersected the vertical plane between ground-level and the tape at 4.5 ft were tallied within each 1-foot segment. The plant species that occupied most of each 1-foot segment was also tallied (not necessarily the vertically dominant species). Grasses and vines tended to be an almost universal component and thus were tallied ONLY when they comprised most of a 1-foot segment. Thus a segment might contain several small trees, but vines were recorded as the dominant species if they occupied most of the 1-foot segment distance. When no woody plants occurred in a segment and vines and herbs did not occupy at least 6-inches, the segment was declared VOID, even though it might, and likely did, contain non-woody growth. Since we were primarily interested in hardwood competition, we typically did not record vine or herbaceous species. The 50-foot tape line also served as the midline for fifty quadrats that were 1 foot in length. All woody stems at least 4.5 ft tall originating below ground surface within 2 ft either side of the midline were tallied by species giving a total of 100 1-foot by 2-foot quadrats in a 50-foot sector. A sliding scale was used to record larger stems further out as explained on the quadrat worksheets. Planted pine measurements were recorded for 21 pines in each of the 3 rows on each plot (total of 63 pines per plot). Where a spot was double planted, the stem judged inferior was cut at groundline. Tip moth damage was epidemic on the study site confounding the results. Tip moth damage was only recorded if the terminal leader was infested. Although the pines were genetically improved stock, fusiform rust was also a common problem that, together with tip moth resulted in stunted trees, some of which were thermally killed. Species noted on the study site but not along any transect included American holly, rough-leaved dogwood, hackberry, mimosa, and several vacciniums.

Fire Treatment: Backfires were chosen for 2 reasons: 1). They are hotter near the ground than headfires and thus do a better job of girdling woody stems and 2). Headfires require exacting burn conditions if used in young loblolly because the pine crowns are susceptible to thermal bud damage if flames are too high. This problem reared its head on plot 10M2 when the backfire hooked around due to a wind shift and headed through the pine transects killing many measurement trees. Although backup plots had been established, we made a decision not to use them as this is an operational hazard that should be factored into the potential use of fire in juvenile loblolly pine. Rates of spread were measured and flame lengths visually estimated at 5 minute intervals. Although we waited for almost 3 months for good burning conditions, early 1983 was very wet and we ended up applying the burn treatments with the Keetch/Byram Drought Index at a much lower level (wetter conditions) than we would have preferred; we wanted to apply the treatment at age 5 and before spring height growth began.

Fuel Moisture: Samples were collected in 'science type' plastic bottles. Tare weights were determined before and after each use. Bottle numbers and tare weights are on file at the United States Forest Service (USFS), Athens, GA. Caps were removed and bottle+contents weighed. Then bottles were placed upright in a small 'scientific type' drying oven and dried at 100 degrees Celsius until weight loss ceased (usually 24 hours). A dry bulb thermometer in the oven was visible through a glass window to ensure constant temperature was maintained.

Fuel Weights: Both pre- and post-burn dead and live fuel samples were collected. The mature pine stand was clear-cut and the site drum-chopped and root raked prior to planting. Note that it was not burned prior to planting so the area still contained randomly distributed dead fuels. Measurements were taken at each of the 3 random sample sites on each of the 12 plots. The sample weights are ovendry weights determined by drying the sample at 100°C until weight loss stopped (generally 24-72 hours). For the live samples, each sample is comprised of live foliage and stems less than 0.5 inches in diameter at groundline. If 1 or more of the samples contained a species that was between 0.5 and 1.0 inches diameter at groundline, the material was separated and recorded in 2 columns, 1 for data less than 0.5 inches and another for 0.5 inches or larger. No part of any stem larger than 1.0 inches at groundline was collected. Thus any low hanging live foliage on a stem larger than 1.0 inches at groundline was not collected even though it might be consumed during the ensuing fire. Experience has shown that the weight of the few, if any, leaves/needles consumed in low intensity backfires is negligible. Variables contain the words ‘preburn’ if collected prior to the fire and ‘postburn’ if collected after the fire. Stems that could not be identified by species post burn where lumped in a miscellaneous category.

Fire Weather: A fire weather shelter and recording rain gauge were set up on site. Researchers used nearby Georgia Forestry Commission Jones/Jasper County (GFC) unit (about 5 miles distant) 20-foot anemometer data rather than setting up their own. The charts are on file with USFS Athens, GA. They also used belt weather kits ( unless otherwise stated) to take on-plot readings at roughly 4.5 feet above ground. Wind measurements were also taken at 4.5 feet above ground on plots with a good hand-held anemometer. Wind measurements are 1 minute averages.

For more details see the Methodology Citations, and in some cases the Entity and Attributes User Guide includes more details on the methods for each variable.
Methodology_Citation:
Citation_Information:
Originator: Canfield, R.H.
Publication_Date: 1941
Title:
Application of the line interception method in sampling range vegetation
Geospatial_Data_Presentation_Form: journal article
Series_Information:
Series_Name: Journal of Forestry
Issue_Identification: 39
Methodology_Citation:
Citation_Information:
Originator: Daubenmire, R.
Publication_Date: 1959
Title:
A canopy-covered method of vegetational analysis
Geospatial_Data_Presentation_Form: journal article
Series_Information:
Series_Name: Northwest Science
Issue_Identification: 33
Methodology_Citation:
Citation_Information:
Originator: Ripley, Thomas
Originator: Johnson, Frank M.
Originator: Moore, William H.
Publication_Date: 1963
Title:
A modification of the line intercept method for sampling understory vegetation
Geospatial_Data_Presentation_Form: journal article
Series_Information:
Series_Name: Journal of Range Management
Issue_Identification: 16(1): 9
Online_Linkage: https://doi.org/10.2307/3895028
Methodology_Citation:
Citation_Information:
Originator: Pase, Charles P.
Publication_Date: 1981
Title:
Community structure analysis-a rapid, effective range condition estimator for semi-arid ranges.
Geospatial_Data_Presentation_Form: conference proceedings
Series_Information:
Series_Name: Arid Land Resources Inventories: Developing most effective methods
Issue_Identification: November 30-December 6, 1980.
Publication_Information:
Publication_Place: La Paz, Mexico
Methodology_Citation:
Citation_Information:
Originator: USDA Forest Service
Publication_Date: Unpublished material
Title:
Establishment and progress report: Prescription fires to control hardwood and accelerate growth in a sapling loblolly pine plantation on the Georgia Piedmont
Geospatial_Data_Presentation_Form: document
Other_Citation_Details:
Included in the full data publication download (\Supplements\EstablishmentReport.pdf)
Methodology_Citation:
Citation_Information:
Originator: Wade, Dale D.
Publication_Date: Unpublished material
Title:
Progress Report: Prescription fires to control hardwood and accelerate growth in a sapling loblolly pine plantation on the Georgia Piedmont
Geospatial_Data_Presentation_Form: document
Other_Citation_Details:
Included in the full data publication download (\Supplements\ProgressReport.pdf)
Methodology_Citation:
Citation_Information:
Originator: Wade, Dale D.
Publication_Date: Unpublished material
Title:
Study Plan: Prescription fires to control hardwoods and accelerate growth in sapling loblolly pine stands on the Georgia Piedmont
Geospatial_Data_Presentation_Form: document
Other_Citation_Details:
Included in the full data publication download (\Supplements\StudyPlan.pdf)
Methodology_Citation:
Citation_Information:
Originator: Keetch, John J.
Originator: Byram, George M.
Publication_Date: 1968
Title:
A drought index for forest fire control
Geospatial_Data_Presentation_Form: document
Series_Information:
Series_Name: Res. Pap.
Issue_Identification: SE-38
Publication_Information:
Publication_Place: Asheville, NC
Publisher: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southeastern Forest Experiment Station
Other_Citation_Details:
35 p.
Online_Linkage: https://www.fs.usda.gov/treesearch/pubs/40
Source_Information:
Source_Citation:
Citation_Information:
Originator: Georgia Forestry Commission Jones/Jasper County Unit
Publication_Date: Unpublished material
Title:
Fire weather data and national fire danger rating system
Geospatial_Data_Presentation_Form: document
Online_Linkage: http://weather.gfc.state.ga.us/
Type_of_Source_Media: paper
Source_Time_Period_of_Content:
Time_Period_Information:
Range_of_Dates/Times:
Beginning_Date: 19830304
Ending_Date: 19830311
Source_Currentness_Reference:
ground condition
Source_Citation_Abbreviation:
GFC
Source_Contribution:
National Fire Danger Rating System data computed at GFC Jones/Jasper County Unit was provided to us at the time of this study along with standard fire weather data. Data included dry and wet bulb temperatures, relative humidity, wind measurements, fuel moisture content, ignition component, spread component, and Keetch-Byram Drought Index.
Process_Step:
Process_Description:
Sums were calculated by adding all pertinent cell entries (e.g., total live fuel and total dead fuel).

Averages were calculated by summing pertinent cell entries and dividing by the number of entries.

Fuel consumption was calculated be subtracting post burn weight from preburn weight.

Moisture content percent on the dry weight basis was calculated by subtracting the tare weight from both wet and ovendry sample weights, then subtracting the dry weight from the wet weight, dividing by the dry weight and multiplying by 100.

Fireline intensity was calculated in two ways:
1. I = 5.7 x FL^2.17 where I is fireline intensity in Btu/seconds/foot and FL is flame length in feet

2. I = HWR where I is fireline intensity in Btu/sec/ft, H is 6,500 Btu/pound of fuel consumed (the low heat of combustion) multiplied by W (the weight of fuel consumed in pounds/acre) multiplied by R (the rate of spread in feet/minute).

Byran, G.M. 1959. Forest fire behavior, In: Forest fire control and use, Chapter 4, KP. Davis, ed, McGraw—Hill Book Cc,, NewYork, 90-123.
Process_Date: 2014
Back to Top
Entity_and_Attribute_Information:
Overview_Description:
Entity_and_Attribute_Overview:
This data publication includes 21 comma-delimited ASCII text files along with photographs documenting the study. The UserGuide_EntityAttributes.pdf document provides a list of each data file and a complete description of every variable within that file.
Entity_and_Attribute_Detail_Citation:
None provided
Back to Top
Distribution_Information:
Distributor:
Contact_Information:
Contact_Organization_Primary:
Contact_Organization: USDA Forest Service, Research and Development
Contact_Position: Research Data Archivist
Contact_Address:
Address_Type: mailing and physical
Address: 240 West Prospect Road
City: Fort Collins
State_or_Province: CO
Postal_Code: 80526
Country: USA
Contact_Voice_Telephone: see Contact Instructions
Contact Instructions: This contact information was current as of July 2019. For current information see Contact Us page on: https://doi.org/10.2737/RDS
Resource_Description: RDS-2015-0005
Distribution_Liability:
Metadata documents have been reviewed for accuracy and completeness. Unless otherwise stated, all data and related materials are considered to satisfy the quality standards relative to the purpose for which the data were collected. However, neither the author, the Archive, nor any part of the federal government can assure the reliability or suitability of these data for a particular purpose. The act of distribution shall not constitute any such warranty, and no responsibility is assumed for a user's application of these data or related materials.

The metadata, data, or related materials may be updated without notification. If a user believes errors are present in the metadata, data or related materials, please use the information in (1) Identification Information: Point of Contact, (2) Metadata Reference: Metadata Contact, or (3) Distribution Information: Distributor to notify the author or the Archive of the issues.
Standard_Order_Process:
Digital_Form:
Digital_Transfer_Information:
Format_Name: ASCII
Format_Version_Number: see Format Specification
Format_Specification:
Comma-delimited ASCII text file (CSV)
File_Decompression_Technique: Files zipped using 7-Zip 18.05
Digital_Transfer_Option:
Online_Option:
Computer_Contact_Information:
Network_Address:
Network_Resource_Name: https://doi.org/10.2737/RDS-2015-0005
Digital_Form:
Digital_Transfer_Information:
Format_Name: PDF
Format_Version_Number: see Format Specification
Format_Specification:
Adobe Acrobat Portable Document Format (PDF)
File_Decompression_Technique: Files zipped using 7-Zip 18.05
Digital_Transfer_Option:
Online_Option:
Computer_Contact_Information:
Network_Address:
Network_Resource_Name: https://doi.org/10.2737/RDS-2015-0005
Fees: None
Back to Top
Metadata_Reference_Information:
Metadata_Date: 20190711
Metadata_Contact:
Contact_Information:
Contact_Person_Primary:
Contact_Person: Dale Wade
Contact_Address:
Address_Type: mailing
Address: P.O. Box 491
City: Hayesville
State_or_Province: NC
Postal_Code: 28904
Country: USA
Contact_Voice_Telephone: 828-289-2205
Contact_Electronic_Mail_Address: pyrowade@gmail.com
Metadata_Standard_Name: FGDC Biological Data Profile of the Content Standard for Digital Geospatial Metadata
Metadata_Standard_Version: FGDC-STD-001.1-1999
Back to Top
https://www.fs.usda.gov/rds/archive/products/RDS-2015-0005/_metadata_RDS-2015-0005.html