Skip to main content

Application of remote sensing to understand the role of Galician feral horses in the biomass reduction of a shrub-grassland-dominated landscape

Abstract

Galician forests in northwestern Spain are subject to frequent wildfires with high environmental and economic costs. In addition, due to the consequences of climate change, these fires are becoming more virulent, occurring throughout the year, and taking place in populated areas, in some cases involving the loss of human life. Therefore, forest fire prevention is even more relevant than mitigating its consequences. Given the costs involved in forestry work, alternative measures to reduce fuel load and create vegetation gaps are needed. One involves grazing by an endemic species of feral horses (Equus ferus atlanticus) that feed on thicket-forming gorse (Ulex europaeus). In a 100-ha forest fenced study area stocked with 11 horses, four 50 m2 enclosed plots prevented the access of these wild animals to the vegetation, with the aim of manipulating their impact on the reduction of forest biomass. The measurement of biomass volumes is an important method that can describe the assessment of wildfire risks, unfortunately, high-resolution data collection at the regional scale is very time-consuming. The best result can be using drones (unmanned aerial vehicles - UAVs) as a method of collecting remotely sensed data at low cost. From September 2018 to November 2020, we collected information about aboveground biomass from these four enclosed plots and their surrounding areas available for horses to forage, via UAV. These data, together with environmental variables from the study site, were used as input for a fire model to assess the differences in the surface rate of spread (SROS) among grazed and ungrazed areas. Our results indicated a consistent but small reduction in the SROS between 0.55 and 3.10 m/min in the ungrazed enclosured plots in comparison to their grazed surrounding areas (which have an SROS between 15 and 25 m/min). The research showed that radar remote sensing (UAV) can be used to map forest aboveground biomass, and emphasized the importance and role of feral horses in Galicia as a prevention tool against wildfires in gorse-dominated landscapes.

Peer Review reports

Introduction

As mega-fires and extreme wildfire seasons become more common [1, 2] and wildfires become more severe [3] with climate change, it is vital to apply treatments before wildfire suppression and postfire restoration are needed. Wildfire prevention must aim to both reduce the likelihood of a fire occurring and limit its spread if it does occur. The key management target is fuel load, i.e., vegetation biomass, which is critical to wildfire suppression [4]. Measures to reduce fire damage include, among others, an appropriate network of roads and water supplies, firebreaks and fire detection systems, and immediate and efficient intervention by ground crews. However, to prevent these fires from occurring first, fuel treatments should be executed in a timely manner [5, 6].

Fuel treatments primarily aim to disrupt the vertical and horizontal progression of fire (passage from surface fuels to ladder fuels to canopy fuels) as well as its horizontal progression, particularly from crown to crown [7, 8]. Activities aimed at reducing surface fuels (low vegetation, woody fuel, shrub layer) decrease the chances of surface fires igniting ladder fuels and canopy fuels [9]. Some of the main treatments used to modify forest fuels are pruning [10], thinning, fuel mastication [11], prescribed fire [9, 12] and livestock grazing [13,14,15].

Communities dominated by European gorse (Ulex europaeus L.) are considered one of the most fire-prone types of shrubland because of the high rate of fuel accumulation and flammability of the species [16]. Wildfires in such communities can produce high-intensity fires that may be very difficult to control by firefighting actions and thus pose a major threat to both human populations and forest resources. The abandonment of many rural areas in Europe and the higher incidence of forest fires have led to an increase in gorse biomass accumulation in some regions. Since vegetation is not used by animals or managed by humans, the spatial heterogeneity of natural landscapes increases, leading to more unpredictable fire patterns [17, 18].

Prescribed fires or herbicides are frequently perceived negatively by local communities [19], making the use of grazing animals a very acceptable and possibly effective method for controlling shrub encroachment and reducing the risk of fire through the elimination of dangerous fuel ladders. Additionally, grazing reduces the continuity of grass and shrub cover, thereby decreasing rapid fire propagation and preventing the transition to crown fires [9]. All of these practices can be categorized as “preventive silviculture”; their primary goal is to avoid fires by treating surface fuels and encouraging low-density and vertically discontinuous stands. This also helps to modify fire behaviour sufficiently so that some wildfires can be more easily extinguished [8].

In Spain, the peak of the fire season usually starts towards the end of May and extends for approximately 21 weeks. Only in 2022, more than 300,000 ha of land in Spain was destroyed [20], caused by more than 430 fires. This is especially relevant in fire-prone regions such as northwest Spain, where shrublands are an important part of the landscape, accounting for 20% of the total area and 30% of the forestland in the region [21].

The measurement of biomass volumes is an important method that can describe changes in the states and processes of ecosystems, including the assessment of wildfire risks. Unfortunately, high-resolution data collection at the regional scale is very time-consuming [22, 23]. Direct measurements in the field [24] followed by laboratory analyses, require intensive sampling campaigns, repeated across seasons and years, which often involve the destructive removal of plants [25].

Satellite imagery is increasingly being used to estimate aboveground biomass at continental and global scales over long time periods [26], but this approach has significant limitations, given that the best spatial resolution available from satellite remote sensing is approximately 60 cm (e.g., Quickbird) or 2 m in the case of open data such as Sentinel-2. Airborne LiDAR can use lasers to measure the sensor’s distance from the ground and the leaf canopy, producing accurate and fine spatial scale remote sensing estimates of vegetation biomass [27] but at a high cost [26] and rarely accounting for small branches and leaf canopy biomass [27, 28]. Terrestrial laser scanning (ground-based LiDAR) can be used to estimate biomass for individual trees [29, 30] but is time-consuming for stationary equipment, especially in remote areas and steep terrain.

Drones (unmanned aerial vehicles: UAVs) have recently gained prominence for collecting remotely sensed data at low cost [31]. UAV-based methods generate three-dimensional (3D) point clouds using structure from motion (SfM) techniques, which typically predict the volume of a solid object [32]. SfM techniques have primarily been developed for industrial applications such as precision agriculture [33], but they are also becoming increasingly useful for mapping natural vegetation communities [34]. The automation of data collection, processing, and analysis provides useful data for quantifying variations in biomass volumes. UAV-based remote sensing thus seems to be a promising approach for mapping vegetation biomass at local to regional scales.

In northwestern Spain (Galicia region) and Portugal, populations of the endangered Galician feral horse Equus ferus atlanticus [35, 36] graze freely. This endemic subspecies is a free-roaming animal considered to be a remnant of the feral horses that have lived in the Iberian Peninsula since the Pleistocene [37]. It is responsible for essential ecological processes such as the conservation of Atlantic heath (Erica spp.) priority habitats and the reduction of forest biomass (and thus of forest fires) through the consumption of gorses and heather bushes, as well as the creation of natural corridors that act as firebreakers. Gorse is a native hedge with waxy foliage that holds high amounts of oils that easily ignite and burn hot, making fire movement very rapid and difficult to control.

The purpose of this article is to use radar remote sensing (UAV) to map forest aboveground biomass, emphasizing the importance and role of feral horses in Galicia as a prevention tool against wildfires in gorse-dominated landscapes. We explored whether feral horses can help to mitigate the devastation caused by wildfires by consuming fuels through their specific grazing/browsing habits and thus reducing the horizontal and vertical continuity of fuels.

Methods

Study area

The present research was carried out in Fornelo de Montes. The area covers an extension of 1500 ha. Its average altitude is 712 m a.s.l., with a maximum of 1061 m a.s.l. The Atlantic climate experiences moderate temperature fluctuations (annual average temperature of 13 °C, monthly minimum temperature of 3 °C, maximum temperature of 23 °C) and abundant rainfall, with average wind speeds of 17 km/h.

Most of the area is covered by gorse, carqueja (Genista tridentata) and heather bushes (Calluna vulgaris). Forests are limited to oak (Quercus robur) groves and riverside forests formed mainly by ash (Fraxinus excelsior) and birch (Betula spp.) trees in the lower areas and groups of planted red pine (Pinus resinosa) in the higher areas. There are commercial plots of eucalyptus (Eucalyptus globules) and pine (Pinus sylvestris) on sloping areas.

The study area (Fig. 1), with a total surface area of 100 ha, was enclosed around its perimeter with wooden posts and wire (Fig. 2); it offers a watering trough for cattle and Canadian steps that prevents animals from leaving the area. A total of eleven feral horses, eight mares, one male and two foals, were intentionally enclosed in the study area to assess their role in aboveground biomass reduction and, therefore, the prevention of wildfires.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Map of the study area showing the four enclosed (A-D) plots inaccessible to Galician feral horses

Fig. 2
figure 2

Fence surrounding the study area (a) and one of the enclosed plots that feral horses cannot access (b)

To establish control plots where the animals had no influence and the vegetation grew naturally without any external constraints, four enclosures (named A-D) ranging from 54 to 59 m² were set up in different gorse areas (Fig. 1) combined with herbaceous plants of various ages within the study area, where the animals had no access. The location of these enclosed plots was chosen to ensure they were situated in areas with different morphological characteristics. For example, plots A and C were placed in areas that had been previously cleared for fire prevention, plot D was located in a rocky area, and plot B was situated in an area with a higher initial amount of vegetation.

Field sampling

A drone (DJI Phantom 4 PRO) was used to collect aboveground biomass data in the study area during four different periods of time (named “Time”, F1-4): September 2018, February 2019, December 2019, and November 2020. The collected data were used to evaluate the difference between the exterior and interior of the enclosed plots, to which the animals did not have access (Appendix A).

The biomass volume differential was calculated by reverse engineering techniques from point clouds corresponding to each plot and its surroundings. Images were standardized by removing noise from the point cloud, followed by calibration and geometric homogenization of the point cloud. The data clouds were thinned to 1 point/cm, upon which two work contours were established for each plot: one corresponding to the enclosed plot and its immediate surroundings and another referring to the 100-ha study area itself.

For each plot, two volumes were calculated: one corresponding to the biomass volume of the plot and its surroundings and another corresponding only to the enclosed plot itself.

A methodology has been developed to calculate the volume in both scenarios. It is based on iteratively computing the volume of prisms with a 5 cm x 5 cm tessellation and a height referenced to a horizontal theoretical comparison plane. This comparison plane is established at a minimum elevation value assigned to each plot, which is derived from the average elevation value of points on the vegetation surface cloud. The calculation involves weighting a minimum of 25 vegetation elevation points for each tile.

The horizontal plane of theoretical comparison chosen for the calculation of each volume was assigned for each plot and its surroundings according to its spatial layout, which was constant for the different times analysed. According to the comparison of the data and the differences observed between the data obtained, the volume differentials between both times were determined.

The slope was obtained for each plot and its surroundings using the 5 m resolution slope model from the Geographic National Center of Geographic Information of Spain [38]. Information about weather conditions during the survey days (relative humidity, wind speed and direction) was collected from the Galician government meteorological service [39].

Statistical analysis

We performed all the statistical analyses in R [40]. We used the “firebehavioR” R package [41] to examine how the varying amounts of gorse biomass in the different plots would affect fire behaviour in shrub-dominated landscapes under various environmental and fuel-moisture conditions.

The effects of grazing on fire behaviour were modelled by using our shrub fuel estimates, calculated based on the biomass volumes collected via UAV, as input while holding parameters for other fuel and environmental conditions constant (for example, dead fuel loading, herbaceous fuel loading, and live and dead fuel moisture). The model settings used were developed based on inputs from several sources, including previously collected biomass data, ecological site descriptions, published literature, and existing fuel models in the “firebehavioR” package (see Appendix B for details on settings, parameters, and input).

There are several assumptions and caveats that should be considered when interpreting the results presented in this manuscript. The Rothermel Eqs. [42, 43], one of the three functions on which “firebehavioR” is based, assumes uniformity in fuel continuity, weather, and wind; no fire spotting (that is, fire starting from embers landing in advance of the fire front); no extreme fire behaviour; and surface fire only. These assumptions were not consistent since, for example, relative humidity changes from day to night, as does wind speed. However, these models provide a mechanism to compare the changes in fuel load that grazing and vegetation composition would most likely impact. The results provide fire behaviour predictions only for a free-running head fire at steady state. For simplicity, only results for the surface rate of spread (SROS) are presented because this fire behaviour variable is most easily understood and is indicative of overall fire behaviour.

We based our calculations on the shrub fuel model SH9: dense, finely branched shrubs with significant fine dead fuel, approximately 1 to 2 m tall, with the possible presence of herbaceous fuel. The parameters for the model – fuel load, surface-area-to-volume (SAV) ratio by component and size class, heat content by category, fuel bed depth and dead fuel moisture of extinction – were established as in Scott & Burgan [44]. This parameterization represents a very high-load, humid climate shrub. Models were run considering a high dead fuel moisture (DFM) of D4, based on the results of Anderson [45], and at varying live fuel moisture (LFM) levels, including 120 and 150%.

The effect of grazing on fuel hazard reduction was estimated by simulating potential wildfire behaviour using the Crown Fire Initiation and Spread (CFIS) model. Specifically, CFIS was used to estimate the probability of crown fire occurrence using a logistic model [46] and to classify fire into surface or crown fire differentiating passive from active crown fires as defined in Van Wagner [47].

The CFIS inputs used in the simulations included 10 m open wind speed (WS, km/h), estimated fine fuel moisture (EFFM, %), fuel strata gap (FSG, m), surface fuel consumption (SFC, kg/m2) and overstory bulk density (CBD, kg/m3) for each plot. The EFFM value (12%) was calculated using CFIS by selecting relative humidity states (RH: 58–80%) and constant temperature values (9–20 °C).

We quantified fuel loads (biomass) in terms of the vertical arrangement of the CBD, including combustible foliage and woody material, per unit volume. CBD is a useful metric for characterizing the structural effects of disturbances, including fires, and is also a key input in fire behaviour models such as “firebehavioR”. CBD has traditionally been measured using destructive methods but can also be modelled using nondestructive methods such as airborne lidar in this case. One particular strength of utilizing lidar-based CBD maps is the provision of detailed, spatially explicit information covering the entire study area.

Finally, we performed a linear mixed effects analysis using Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML) estimation on the data using the “lme4” package [48]. The main goal of this analysis was to model the difference in the mean response between “grazing” and “non-grazing” areas, with SROS as our dependent variable, to determine if there was a statistically significant difference between areas with and without feral horses. The model was fitted specifying random effects of the enclosed plot ID (A-D), and the time of the measurement (F1-4).

Results

The vegetation volume of the four plots was calculated in m3 (Table 1) based on the results from the UAV flights each time. The internal volume refers to the ungrazed plots and the external volume refers to the grazed areas immediately surrounding them.

The slope ranged from 3.4° (plot C) to 7.4° (plot D), with temperatures ranging from 9 °C in February 2019 to 20.8 °C in September 2018.

The aboveground volume differed between the grazed and ungrazed plots, averaging 74.0 ± 15.9 and 332.1 ± 97.7 m3 in the grazed and ungrazed treatments, respectively (Fig. 3). The volume increase was almost always lower in the grazed plots across the seasons than in their adjacent ungrazed plots, with averages of 2.6 ± 10.7 and 8.8 ± 44.9 m3, respectively.

Fig. 3
figure 3

Volume differences (m3) for four enclosed plots and its surroundings measured with UAV from 2018 to 2020. Legend: Total volumes were measured during four time periods (F1 = September 2018, F2 = February 2019, F3 = December 2019 and F4 = November 2020) in four different plots (A-D). The non-grazing plots refer to the enclosed plots not accessible by Galician feral horses. Grazing plots are the immediate surroundings of the mentioned enclosed plots that were accessible by Galician feral horses

Table 1 Internal, external and total volumes of biomass estimated using UAV measurements for the four plots

The results of the fire-behaviour modelling system analysis identifying significant differences between wildfires on grazed and ungrazed plots are illustrated in Fig. 4. Reducing the levels of fuels, as accomplished by Galician feral horse grazing, reduced the modelled surface rate of spread in all four plots surroundings by a small but consistent amount.

Fig. 4
figure 4

Fire Rate of Spread (m/min) estimates for the four plots from 2018 to 2020. Legend: Fire Rates of Spread were calculated for the four time periods where total volumes of biomass were collected (F1 = September 2018, F2 = February 2019, F3 = December 2019 and F4 = November 2020) in four different plots (A-D). The non-grazing plots refer to the enclosed plots not accessible by Galician feral horses. Grazing plots are the immediate surroundings of the mentioned enclosed plots that were accessible by Galician feral horses

In plot A, the SROS was between 1.34 (September 2018) and 3.10 (November 2020) m/min less where animals could graze. In plot B, the SROS varied between 0.90 (September 2018) and 1.07 (December 2019) m/min. The plot C values ranged between 0.55 and 1.50 m/min (February 2019 and November 2018, respectively). Plot D showed SROS levels ranging from 0.26 (November 2018) to 0.97 (November 2020) m/min in the grazing areas. The effects of reduced fuel load on fire behaviour were more pronounced at low wind speeds and high fuel moisture values. When burning conditions became extreme (more than 20 km/h wind speed), changes in the fuel load had little effect on the fire behaviour variables.

When analysing the results of the linear mixed effect model (Table 2), we can appreciate that the variance for the intercept associated with the random variable “Plot_ID” is 3.01, corresponding to a standard deviation of 1.73, indicating a moderate variability in SROS across the four different plots. The variance for the intercept associated with the variable “Time” is 19.47, with a standard deviation of 4.41, suggesting substantial variability in SROS over the four different time periods where the total volumes of biomass were collected.

Table 2 Outcome of the linear mixed effect model with SROS as response variable, “grazing” and “non-grazing” plots as fixed effects and the random effects of “time” (F1-4) and “plot ID” (A-D).

The fixed effects estimate for the intercept (19.28) represents the estimated SROS mean in the grazed plots. The coefficient for the enclosed, ungrazed plots (1.23) indicates that the SROS mean is 1.23 m/min higher for the enclosed areas compared to its surroundings, where feral horses can graze freely. The standard error for this estimate (0.22), as well as the high t-value (5.57) and an extremely small p-value (9.82 × 10-6), suggests that this difference is statistically significant, implying that the presence of feral horses has a meaningful impact on SROS.

Discussion

Our analysis of the effect of feral horse grazing on fuel load and hence the expected rate of spread of wildfire revealed a consistent decreasing effect. Although the exact benefit varies over time, it remains difficult to quantify exactly. However, grazing is preferable to nongrazing.

While grazing, Galician feral horses also have a moulding effect on gorse that prevents great heights and densities, as well as contributes to a reduction in the availability of fuel at the time of the possible threat of a fire, which highlights its ability to control biomass by reducing the chances of fires. In addition, it is probable that in the event of a fire, the effect of the Galician feral horse decreases the speed of advance and the virulence with which it affects the environment, a fact that is indicated as a line of future research of special interest. The rupture of the vegetal continuity allows better access to the means of extinction in the case of a fire, creating natural firebreakers.

The combination of the Galician feral horse grazing effect, together with correctly described burns, can reduce the vegetal load while it is renewed, resulting in the production of more palatable food. It is also worth noting the good coexistence observed between cattle and Galician feral horses, in addition to making good use of the resources that the environment offers by having different nutritional needs, since cattle are more herbivorous than lignivorous. This combination of loads adjusted to the territory can provide satisfactory results in terms of reducing plant biomass.

Galician feral horses not only limit the growth of gorse [49], thus reducing the risk of forest fires due to the gorse capacity to generate large quantities of highly flammable biomass [50] but also bring other environmental benefits. Their presence increases the richness and diversity of plant species, particularly rare species, characteristic of heathland communities and of significant conservation interest (e.g., C. filipendulum, G. pneumonanthe, S. tinctoria, and S. humilis) [51]. Other studies have also reported positive effects of horse grazing on floristic diversity in various plant communities, such as coastal and wet grasslands in France [52]. However, in more arid conditions, horse grazing can negatively impact plant diversity, as observed in rangelands in Nevada [53, 54].

Feral horses can take the edge off livestock attacks [55] and are also a representative feature of Galician tradition and heritage [56], by creating income from meat production, as well as bringing other benefits, such as landscape enhancement, improved access, and the production of secondary products such as mushrooms.

In these regards, sustainable land management is fundamental to containing wildfires [57,58,59]. More specifically, animal husbandry is considered an effective practice for the natural control of vegetation [60, 61]. The indirect control of traditional livestock such as sheep and goats, especially nomadic livestock or livestock managed in flocks, was demonstrated to be particularly effective in controlling fuel accumulation in forests, maquis/bushland, and nonforest natural land [62,63,64,65]. The economically sustainable use of prescribed grazing, as advocated by Taylor [66] and Diamond et al. [67], encompasses various applications, such as maintenance grazing of fuel breaks with mixed horse-cattle herds, high impact browsing in areas where prescribed burns are impractical due to its high cost, and follow-up management in burned areas (as a short-term strategy). Feral horses have emerged as the most cost-effective, nontoxic, and nonpolluting solution available. They are highly valued by the general public and offer an environmentally friendly and effective approach for nearly carbon-neutral fuel control [68], deserving further attention and applied research. However, the presence of traditional husbandry may not be possible in some areas, for instance, remote locations with no human population or where horses cannot survive due to a lack of appropriate food or extreme weather and geographical conditions.

Assuming that livestock grazing with wild animals is an effective tool for mitigating fire risk [69, 70], the continuous decrease in livestock density, especially in nomadic flocks, because of multiple drivers associated with urban growth and agricultural decline in fringe districts, as observed in the Galicia region, is an important factor shaping fire risk in peri-urban areas. In such contexts, moderate grazing was already recognized to reduce fire severity in previous studies, positively influencing fuel characteristics [71,72,73,74]. More specifically, a previous study in the same area [49] revealed a significant reduction and transformation of plant biomass, more specifically gorse by horses. In that study, an average intake per horse of 18.5 kg of green matter ingested per day was established, which is a total of 6,753 kg/horse. More than half of that weight (3,581 kg year/horse) corresponds exclusively to the consumption of gorse.

Using UAVs for collecting data on gorse biomass volumes provided a fast and precise way to gather high-resolution spatial information without disturbing local wildlife populations and their habitat. The aerial surveys allowed us to cover the study area comprehensively and quickly, enabling faster data collection and analysis compared to traditional methods [75]. Our research demonstrates that feral horse grazing is a preemptive treatment that can alter fire behaviour, burned area and fire intensity in at least some wildfires in areas dominated by gorses in the northwestern Iberian Peninsula and likely other shrub grasslands. Obviously, the effects of grazing may be moderated in fires that occur under more extreme weather conditions and in plant communities with greater amounts of woody vegetation. Nonetheless, feral horse grazing can be applied across vast rangeland landscapes where other fuel management treatments are too expensive or impractical to apply or where traditional grazing (sheep, goats, etc.) is not available. Further refinement and evaluation across a variety of plant community types and in different areas with varying geographies and fire weather conditions would be of great additional value to our findings.

Data availability

Datasets generated during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request. The UAV LiDAR data has been provided by Xeométrica (https://www.xeometrica.com/) but restrictions may apply to the availability of these data, which were used under license for the current study, and so are not publicly available.

References

  1. European Environment Agency (EEA). European Environment Information and Observation Network (Eionet), 2022, Forest Fires in Europe. https://www.eea.europa.eu/ims/forest-fires-in-europe [Verified 14 March 2022].

  2. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). NOAA National Climatic Data Center. 2020, Wildfires Report: National Overview for July 2020. https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/monthly-report/fire/202007 [Verified 14 March 2022].

  3. Fulé PZ. Does it make sense to restore wildland fire in changing climate? Restor Ecol. 2008;16(4):526–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Omi PN, Martinson EJ. Effects of fuels treatment on wildfire severity. Final report, Joint Fire Science Program Governing Board, 2002, Western Forest Fire Research Center, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, USA, pp. 40.

  5. Leone V, Saracino A, Trabaud L, Velez R. Fire management and prevention policies in west Mediterranean pine forests. Ecology, Biogeography and Management of Mediterranean Pine Forest Ecosystems (Pinus halepensis and P. Brutia), 2000, Ne’eman Trabaud G L editors. Backhuys, The Hague, The Netherlands, pp. 335–54.

  6. Omi PN, Joyce LA. Fire, fuel treatments, and ecological restoration. Tec. Rep. RMRS-P-29, 2003, Rocky Mountain Research Station, USDA Forest Servce, Fort Collins, CO, USA, pp. 475.

  7. Scott JH, Reinhardt ED. Assessing crown fire potential by linking models of surface and crown fire behavior. Research Paper RMRS-RP-29, 2001, Rocky Mountain Research Station, USDA Forest Service, Fort Collins, CO, USA, pp. 59.

  8. Graham RT, McCaffrey S, Jain TB. Science basis for changing forest structure to modify wildfire behavior and severity. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-120, 2004, Rocky Mountain Research Station, USDA Forest Service, FortCollins, CO, USA, pp. 43.

  9. Fernandes PM, Botelho HS. A review of prescribed burning effectiveness in fire hazard reduction. Int J Wildland Fire. 2003;12:117–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Leone V. Forest management: pre and post fire practices. In: Pardini G, Pintó J, editors. Fire, Landscape and Biodiversity: an Appraisal of the effects and Effectiveness. Spain: Diversitas, Universitat de Girona; 2002. pp. 117–41.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Harrington TB. Silvicultural basis for thinning southern pines: concepts and expected responses. Georgia Forestry Commission, 2012, Warnell School of Forest Resources, University of Georgia, Athens, GA, USA, pp. 20.

  12. Rego F, Montiel C. Lessons learned and the way ahead. Best practices of fire use - prescribed burning and suppression fire programmes in selected case-study regions in Europe, 2010, Research Report 24, Montiel C, Krauss D, editors European Forest Research Institute, Joensuu, Finland, pp. 165–9.

  13. Hart S. Recent perspectives in using goats for vegetation management in the USA. J Dairy Sci. 2001;84:E170–6.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Ruiz-Mirazo J. Environmental benefits of extensive livestock farming: wildfire prevention and beyond. Options Méditerranéennes. 2011;100:75–82.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Mancilla-Leytón JM, Martín Vicente A. Biological fire prevention method: evaluating the effects of goat grazing on the fire-prone Mediterranean scrub. For Syst. 2012;21(2):199–204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Baeza MJ, De Luıs M, Raventós J, Escarré A. Factors influencing fire behaviour in shrublands of different stand ages and the implications for using prescribed burning to reduce wildfire risk. J Environ Manage. 2002;65(2):199–208.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Connor SE, Vannière B, Colombaroli D, Anderson RS, Carrión JS, Ejarque A, Revelles J. Humans take control of fire-driven diversity changes in Mediterranean Iberia’s vegetation during the mid-late Holocene. Holocene. 2019;29:886–901.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Harper AR, Doerr SH, Santin C, Froyd CA, Sinnadurai P. Prescribed fire and its impact on ecosystem services in the UK. Sci Total Environ. 2018;624:691–703.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Badia A, Serra P, Modugno S. Identifying dynamics of fire ignition probabilities in two representative Mediterranean wildland-urban interface areas. Appl Geogr. 2011;31:930–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. European Forest Fire Information System (EFFIS). European Commission. 2022. https://effis.jrc.ec.europa.eu/apps/effis.statistics/estimates [Verified 22 March 2022].

  21. Vega JA, Arellano-Pérez S, Álvarez-González JG, Fernández C, Jiménez E, Fernández-Alonso JM, Vega-Nieva DJ, Briones-Herrera C, Alonso-Rego C, Fontúrbel T, Ruiz-González AD. Modelling aboveground biomass and fuel load components at stand level in shrub communities in NW Spain. For Ecol Manag. 2002;505:p119926.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Ferrier S. Big picture assessment of biodiversity change: scaling up monitoring without selling out scientific rigour; Biodiversity Monitoring in Australia, 1st Edition (eds D. LINDENMAYER and P. GIBBONS). 2016, CSIRO press, Melbourne.

  23. Nichols JD, Williams BK. Monitoring for conservation. Trends Ecol Evol. 2016;21(12):668–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Catchpole WR, Wheeler CJ. Estimating plant biomass: a review of techniques. Aust J Ecol. 1992;17(2):121–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Bonham CD. Measurements of terrestrial vegetation. Wiley; 1989.

  26. Lu D, Chen Q, Wang G, Liu L, Li G, Moran E. A survey of remote sensing-based aboveground biomass estimation methods in forest ecosystems. Int J Digit Earth. 2016;9(1):63–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Zolkos SG, Goetz SJ, Dubayah R. A meta-analysis of terrestrial aboveground biomass estimation using lidar remote sensing. Remote Sens Environ. 2013;128:289–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Verschuyl J, Clark L, Loehle C. Predicting shrub biomass and current annual growth from field measurements in the Oregon Coast Range. Northwest Sci. 2018;92(1):9–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Kankare V, Holopainen M, Vastaranta M, Puttonen E, Yu X, Hyyppä J, Vaaja M, Hyyppä H, Alho P. Individual tree biomass estimation using terrestrial laser scanning. ISPRS J Photogrammetry Remote Sens. 2013;75:64–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Shendryk I, Broich M, Tulbure MG, Alexandrov SV. Bottom-up delineation of individual trees from full-waveform airborne laser scans in a structurally complex eucalypt forest. Remote Sens Environ. 2016;173:69–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Anderson K, Gaston KJ. Lightweight unmanned aerial vehicles will revolutionize spatial ecology. Front Ecol Environ. 2013;11:138–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Dandois JP, Ellis EC. Remote sensing of vegetation structure using computer vision. Remote Sens. 2010;2(4):1157–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Torres-Sánchez J, López-Granados F, Serrano N, Arquero O, Peña JM. High-throughput 3-D monitoring of agricultural-tree plantations with unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) technology. PLoS ONE. 2015;10(6):e0130479.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Cruzan MB, Weinstein BG, Grasty MR, Kohrn BF, Hendrickson EC, Arredondo TM, Thompson PG. Small unmanned aerial vehicles (micro-UAVs, drones) in plant ecology. Appl Plant Sci. 2016;4(9):1600041.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Ministerio de Agricultura, Pesca y Alimentación, 1998. Catálogo oficial de razas. Raza equino caballar cabalo de pura raza galego. https://servicio.mapa.gob.es/es/ganaderia/temas/zootecnia/razas-ganaderas/razas/catalogo-razas/equino-caballar/caballo-pura-raza-gallega/default.aspx [Verified 20 February 2022]

  36. Lagos Abarzuza L. Ecología del lobo (Canis lupus), del poni salvaje (Equus ferus atlanticus) y del ganado vacuno semiextensivo (Bos taurus) en Galicia: interacciones depredador-presa. PhD thesis, 2013, Santiago de Compostela University, Spain (in Spanish).

  37. Bárcena F, Garranos. Os póneis selvagens (Equus ferus sp.) do norte da Península Ibérica. Livro de Atas, I Congresso 136 Mamm. Res, 2012, 63, 125–139 Internacional do Garrano, Arcos de Valdevez, 23–25 setembro 2011, pp 75–96 (in Portuguese).

  38. Instituto Geográfico Nacional (IGN) Ministerio de Transportes, Movilidad y Agenda Urbana. 2022, Modelo Digital de Pendientes- MDP05. https://centrodedescargas.cnig.es/CentroDescargas/buscadorCatalogo.do?codFamilia=02122 [Verified 23 February 2022].

  39. Meteogalicia, Xunta de Galicia. 2022, Estación Meteorológica de Fornelo de Montes. https://www.meteogalicia.gal/observacion/estacionshistorico/historico.action?idEst=10086&request_locale=es [Verified 23 February 2022].

  40. R Development Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing,. 2019, Vienna, Austria.

  41. Ziegler JP, Hoffman CM, Mell W, Firebehavior. An r package for fire behavior and danger analysis. Fire. 2019;2:1–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Rothermel RC. A mathematical model for predicting fire spread in wildland fuels. Res. Pap. INT- 115, 1972, Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 40 p.

  43. Rothermel RC. How to predict the spread and intensity of forest and range fires. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-143, 1983, Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 161 p.

  44. Scott JH, Burgan R. Standard fire behavior fuel models: a comprehensive set for use with Rothermel’s surface fire spread model. Research Paper RMRS-GTR-153, 2005, Rocky Mountain Research Station, USDA Forest Service, Fort Collins, CO, USA, pp. 72.

  45. Anderson SA, Anderson WR. Predicting the elevated dead fine fuel moisture content in gorse (Ulex europaeus L.) shrub fuels. Can J for Res. 2009;39(12):2355–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Cruz MG, Alexander ME, Wakimoto RH. Modeling the likelihood of crown fire occurrence in conifer forest stands. For Sci. 2004;50:640–58.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Van Wagner CE. Conditions for the start and spread of crown fire. Can J for Res. 1977;7:23–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Pinheiro J, Bates DM. Mixed effects models in S and S-Plus. New York: Springer-; 2000.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  49. Abilleira-González F, Valero Gutiérrez D, Olmo E, Álvarez Bermúdez X, Picos, Martín. J. Prevención de incendios forestales con Cabalo Galego do Monte. 7° Congreso Forestal Español, 2017, Plasencia, Spain (in Spanish).

  50. Madrigal J, Marino E, Guijarro M, Hernando C, Díez C. Evaluation of the flammability of gorse (Ulex europaeus L.) managed by prescribed burning. Ann for Sci. 2012;69(3):387–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Fagúndez J, Hermida R, Lagos L, Brezales. lobos y caballos. Quercus, 2017, 377, 21 (in Spanish).

  52. Janeiro-Otero A, Álvarez X, Fernández Crespo C, Valero E, Dormann CF. Grey wolf feeding habits and their geographical variation in Northwest Spain. Food Webs. 2022;32:e00248.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Loucougaray G, Bonis A, Bouzillé JB. Effects of grazing by horses and/or cattle on the diversity of coastal grasslands in western France. Biol Conserv. 2004;116:59–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Beever EA, Brussard PF. Examining ecological consequences of feral horse grazing using exclosures. Western North Am Naturalist. 2000;60:236–54.

    Google Scholar 

  55. Davies KW, Collins G, Boyd CS. Effects of feral free-roaming horses on semi-arid rangeland ecosystems: an example from the sagebrush steppe. Ecosphere. 2014;5:art127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Nuñez C, Scorolli A, Lagos L, Berman D, Kane A. Management of free- roaming horses. Wild Equids. Ecology, Management, and Conservation, 2016. J. I. Ransom & P. Kaczensky, editors. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, pp. 133–148.

  57. Corona P, Ascoli D, Barbati A, Bovio G, Colangelo G, Elia M, Lovreglio R. Integrated forest management to prevent wildfires under mediterranean environments. Ann Silvic Res. 2014;38:24–45.

    Google Scholar 

  58. Lafortezza R, Tanentzap AJ, Elia M, John R, Sanesi G, Chen J. Prioritizing fuel management in urban interfaces threatened by wildfires. Ecol Indic. 2015;48:342–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Noss RF, Franklin JF, Baker WL, Schoennagel T, Moyle PB. Managing fire-prone forests in the western United States. Front Ecol Environ. 2006;4:481–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Mancilla-Leytón JM, Pino Mejías R, Martín Vicente A. Do goats preserve the forest? Evaluating the effects of grazing goats on combustible Mediterranean scrub. Appl Veg Sci. 2013;16:63–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Valdecantos A, Baeza MJ, Vallejo VR. Vegetation management for promoting ecosystem resilience in fire-prone Mediterranean Shrublands. Restor Ecol. 2009;17:414–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Calleja JA, Escolà M, Carvalho J, Forcadell JM, Serrano E, Bartolomé J. Cattle Grazing fails to control Shrub Encroachment in Mediterranean Landscapes. Rangel Ecol Manag. 2019;72:803–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Dubeuf JP, Morales FDAR, Guerrero YM. Evolution of goat production systems in the Mediterranean basin: between ecological intensification and ecologically intensive production systems. Small Rumin Res. 2018;163:2–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. De Rancourt M, Fois N, Lavín MP, Tchakérian E, Vallerand F. Mediterranean sheep and goat’s production: an uncertain future. Small Rumin Res. 2006;62:167–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Papanastasis VP, Bautista S, Chouvardas D, Mantzanas K, Papadimitriou M, Mayor AG, Vallejo RV. Comparative assessment of goods and services provided by grazing regulation and reforestation in degraded Mediterranean rangelands. Land Degrad Dev. 2017;28:1178–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Taylor CA. Targeted grazing to manage fire risk. In: Targeted grazing: a natural approach to vegetation management and landscape enhancement (Launchbaugh K ed), 2006, American Sheep Industry Association - ASI, Washington, DC, USA, pp. 108–14.

  67. Diamond JM, Christopher A, Call CA, Devoe N. Effects of targeted cattle grazing on fire behaviour of cheatgrass-dominated rangeland in the northern Great Basin, USA. Int J Wildland Fire. 2009;18:944–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Fagúndez J, Lagos L, Cortés Vázquez JA, Canastra F. Galician Wild Ponies. Socio-Economic Context and Environmental Benefits: Galicia Area Report and Case Study for GrazeLIFE, 2021, LIFE18 PRE NL 002.

  69. Bajocco S, Salvati L, Ricotta C. Land degradation versus fire: a spiral process? Prog Phys Geogr. 2011;35:3–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Bernués A, Riedel J, Asensio M, Blanco M, Sanz A, Revilla R, Casasis I. An integrated approach to studying the role of grazing livestock systems in the conservation of rangelands in a protected natural park (Sierra De Guara, Spain). Livest Prod Sci. 2005;96:75–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Fulé PZ, Crouse JE, Cocke AE, Moore MM, Covington WW. Changes in canopy fuels and potential fire behavior 1880–2040: Grand Canyon; Arizona. Ecol Model. 2004;175:231–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Salis M, Laconi M, Ager AA, Alcasena FJ, Arca B, Lozano O, de Oliveira AF, Spano D. Evaluating alternative fuel treatment strategies to reduce wildfire losses in a Mediterranean area. Ecol Manag. 2016;368:201–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Schmidt DA, Taylor AH, Skinner CN. The influence of fuels treatment and landscape arrangement on simulated fire behavior, Southern Cascade Range, California. Ecol Manag. 2008;255:3170–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Stephens SL, Moghaddas JJ. Experimental fuel treatment impacts on forest structure; potential fire behavior; and predicted tree mortality in a California mixed conifer forest. Ecol Manag. 2005;215:21–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. Lucieer A, Malenovský Z. An update on UAVs in environmental research: a systematic review. Remote Sens. 2014;6(10):9271–94.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research was funded by Grant TED2021-130241 A-I00 funded by MCIN/AEI/ 10.13039/501100011033 and by the European Union NextGenerationEU/PRTR (X. Álvarez). We would also like to thank Roberto Cabeceira from Xeométrica (https://www.xeometrica.com) for the flights carried out during the data collection.

Funding

This research was funded by Grant TED2021-130241 A-I00 funded by MCIN/AEI/ https://doi.org/10.13039/501100011033 and by the European Union NextGenerationEU/PRTR (X. Álvarez).

Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

A.J.-O. wrote the main manuscript text and analysed the data, A.J.-O. and X.A. conceived of the presented idea, X.A. applied for funding, C.F.D. verified the analytical methods. All authors reviewed the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Andrea Janeiro-Otero.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The fieldwork was conducted on private property of the Estacas common mountain land with permission from its owners.

All the animals involved in this study live in the wilderness and have not been manipulated or handled in any way. This study does not involve any direct interaction with them.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary Material 1

Supplementary Material 2

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Janeiro-Otero, A., Álvarez, X. & Dormann, C.F. Application of remote sensing to understand the role of Galician feral horses in the biomass reduction of a shrub-grassland-dominated landscape. BMC Ecol Evo 24, 89 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12862-024-02276-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12862-024-02276-5

Keywords