Landscape controls on fuel moisture variability in fire-prone heathland and peatland landscapes

Background Cross-landscape fuel moisture content is highly variable but not considered in existing fire danger assessments. Capturing fuel moisture complexity and its associated controls is critical for understanding wildfire behavior and danger in emerging fire-prone environments that are influenced by local heterogeneity. This is particularly true for temperate heathland and peatland landscapes that exhibit spatial differences in the vulnerability of their globally important carbon stores to wildfire. Here we quantified the range of variability in the live and dead fuel moisture of Calluna vulgaris across a temperate fire-prone landscape through an intensive fuel moisture sampling campaign conducted in the North Yorkshire Moors, UK. We also evaluated the landscape (soil texture, canopy age, aspect, and slope) and micrometeorological (temperature, relative humidity, vapor pressure deficit, and windspeed) drivers of landscape fuel moisture variability for temperate heathlands and peatlands for the first time. Results We observed high cross-landscape fuel moisture variation, which created a spatial discontinuity in the availability of live fuels for wildfire spread (fuel moisture < 65%) and vulnerability of the organic layer to smoldering combustion (fuel moisture < 250%). This heterogeneity was most important in spring, which is also the peak wildfire season in these temperate ecosystems. Landscape and micrometeorological factors explained up to 72% of spatial fuel moisture variation and were season- and fuel-layer-dependent. Landscape factors predominantly controlled spatial fuel moisture content beyond modifying local micrometeorology. Accounting for direct landscape–fuel moisture relationships could improve fuel moisture estimates, as existing estimates derived solely from micrometeorological observations will exclude the underlying influence of landscape characteristics. We hypothesize that differences in soil texture, canopy age, and aspect play important roles across the fuel layers examined, with the main differences in processes arising between live, dead, and surface/ground fuels. We also highlight the critical role of fuel phenology in assessing landscape fuel moisture variations in temperate environments. Conclusions Understanding the mechanisms driving fuel moisture variability opens opportunities to develop locally robust fuel models for input into wildfire danger rating systems, adding versatility to wildfire danger assessments as a management tool.