Publisher's Synopsis
Prescribed Fire has been the most attractive fuel reduction practice for ecologically minded forest managers, for the obvious reason that it is most likely to emulate the natural process that it is designed to replace (McRae et al. 2001). Unfortunately, when forest managers attempt to apply prescribed Fire, they are often constrained by social, economic, and administrative issues, such that the window of opportunity for its application is often narrowed or eliminated (Brunson and Shindler 2004, Winter et al. 2002). As a result, fuel reduction surrogates such as forest thinning or mastication have become more attractive (Crow and Perera 2004). The assumption is that if managers can use mechanical treatments to reduce fuels and accomplish the same stand structure goals as those obtained by prescribed Fire, the constraints and risks posed by the application of Fire can be avoided.
