• <tr id="yyy80"></tr>
  • <sup id="yyy80"></sup>
  • <tfoot id="yyy80"><noscript id="yyy80"></noscript></tfoot>
  • 99热精品在线国产_美女午夜性视频免费_国产精品国产高清国产av_av欧美777_自拍偷自拍亚洲精品老妇_亚洲熟女精品中文字幕_www日本黄色视频网_国产精品野战在线观看 ?

    Spatial heterogeneity of factors influencing forest fires size in northern Mexico

    2014-04-20 06:56:32GustavoPerezVerdinMarcoAntonioMarquezLinaresMaricelaSalmeronMacias
    Journal of Forestry Research 2014年2期

    Gustavo Perez-Verdin · Marco Antonio Marquez-Linares · Maricela Salmeron-Macias

    Introduction

    In Mexico, forest fires are strongly influenced by environmental, topographic, and socioeconomic factors (Fulé and Covington 1999; Rodriguez-Trejo and Fulé 2003). Environmental factors, such as precipitation and temperature, affect soil moisture and modify biomass production of trees, weeds, and grass, whose dry matter eventually serves as fuel. Typically, years of widespread fire coincide with dry, hot years that follow wet years in which biomass thrives (Drury and Veblen 2008). Fire behavior is also related to elevation, aspect, and farming activities (Rodriguez-Trejo and Fulé 2003). Forest fires are generally more common in south-exposed, hill-slope habitat types than in flat or northexposed communities, which may be a result of variable microclimate conditions (Drury and Veblen 2008).

    Human activities are also an important factor that influences forest fire occurrence (Rodriguez-Trejo and Fulé 2003). Many farmers use fire as the main tool to purposely clear the land and grow basic crops such as corn and beans, or to promote the regrowth of grass. Escaped fires from agriculture or cattle grazing, which are no longer under human control, coupled with atypical environmental conditions, often result in the spreading of large, severe fires that not only destroy flora and fauna but also affect the general population directly (Rodriguez-Trejo and Fulé 2003). As a result, forest fires tend to occur more in areas close to towns and roads. When fire burns the same areas repeatedly, little accumulation of fuel occurs allowing the presence of small, low-intensity fires. However, when it is sporadic and occurs in large, scattered areas, there is a high chance to have moderate to severe fires that may replace the forest cover completely (Rodriguez-Trejo 2008).

    Modeling fire size due to environmental, topographic, and human factors can be done through statistical methods (Wimberly et al. 2009). Conventional statistics, based on ordinary least squares (OLS), assumes that observations are independent and that the model parameters are valid for an area from which the data were sampled (Burt and Barber 1996). However, these assumptions do not entirely apply for factors with spatial differences and dependency. Ignoring these differences often lead to incorrect predictions of fire occurrence (Koutsias et al. 2010).

    The similarity between neighbors and their high degree of dependence is supported by the first law of geography that states that everything is related with everything else, but closer things are more related (Tobler 1970). For example, two points: A and B, which share the same elevation, may have different precipitation patterns, but points closer to either one are more likely to have similar ones. In this case, a different way of regression modeling is necessary: one in which local similarities or spatial heterogeneity is accounted for and regression coefficients are assumed to be variable over space (Osborne et al. 2007).

    Until now, no studies have been conducted to evaluate the relationship between fire and the spatial heterogeneity of explanatory variables in Mexico. Studies on this type of relationships have been done mainly in the United States (US) and other parts of the world. Tulbure et al. (2011) analyzed the spatial and temporal patterns of fire in agricultural landscapes of the central US. They found that the monthly total number of fire detections peaked in April and was higher in areas dominated by agriculture than areas dominated by forest. Poudyal et al. (2012) used geographically weighted regression to examine spatial variation in the association between social vulnerability and wildfire risk in six southern US states—Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, and South Carolina. They identified geographical clusters where the social vulnerability varied positively with wildfire risk across all six states. Sá et al. (2011) evaluated fire incidence (expressed as the mean burned area) and various environmental and anthropogenic factors, such as precipitation, temperature, vegetation type, soil water, population, and agriculture in the sub-Saharan Africa. They found that vegetation had the most significant relationship with fire incidence and, overall, climate variables were more important than anthropogenic factors.

    Modeling fire size and the spatial stationarity of the explanatory factors can aid forest fire managers in prioritizing fire-prone ecosystems for mitigation programming (Poudyal et al. 2012). Less humid areas, for example, will require more resources and must be placed at the top of the fire suppression agenda. Knowing the distinct effects of factors like precipitation, temperature, or elevation, among others, requires the application of modeling techniques that consider their spatial, complex heterogeneity. One of the main advantages of modeling the spatial heterogeneity is that not only we can construct maps to visualize spatial patterns but also we can apply statistical tests to check for significant differences of these patterns.

    The overall objective of this study was to analyze the spatial heterogeneity of the factors influencing forest fire size, expressed as the number of hectares affected, in the state of Durango, Mexico. Factors included precipitation, temperature, elevation, slope, aspect, and distance to towns, roads, deforested areas, crops, and grasslands. The study used a spatial statistic method known as geographically weighted regression (GWR) (Fotheringham et al. 2002) to evaluate the factors. The study also analyzed whether localized model parameters were improved from OLS, and examined the spatial patterns of both model results.

    Material and methods

    Study area

    The study was conducted in the western part of the state of Durango, Mexico, which hosts a variety of temperate forest species. Durango is the largest state with pine-oak forests in the country (Gonzalez-Elizondo et al. 2012), but one of the most affected by forest fires (CONAFOR 2012) (Fig. 1). The state is crossed from north to south by a mountain range known as the Sierra Madre Occidental, with elevations going from 1,300 to 3,300 m above sea level. Average temperature in this area ranges from 12 to 18 oC and annual precipitation varies from 700 to 1200 mm.

    The diversity in climate and topography accounts for the diversity of softwood-hardwood communities where Pinus spp and Quercus spp constitute the majority of trees (Gonzalez-Elizondo et al. 2012). Where the slope allows organic and mineral material build-up, soils are deep and mainly derived from igneous material, although metamorphic rocks are present in the west and northwest portions of the area (World Wildlife Fund 2006).

    Steep-sloped mountains have shaped portions of the Sierra, though deep valleys, tall canyons, and cliffs also contour the Sierra Madre scenography. These steep-sided cliffs have thinner soils, limiting vegetation to chaparral types characterized by dense clumps of Arctostaphylos pungens, Quercus potosinai, and Q. rugosa (World Wildlife Fund 2006). There are also areas of natural pasture with Muhlembergia spp, Aristida spp., Bouteloua spp., and Heteropogon spp. (Gonzalez-Elizondo et al. 2012), which constitute the main fuel for frequent fires (Rodriguez-Trejo and Fulé 2003). Close to 80% of these forests are community owned (under the name of ejidos), where village members or ejidatarios, along with the government, are responsible for their forests’ protection, management, and conservation (Perez-Verdin et al. 2009).

    Non-stationarity and geographically weighted regression

    One key difference between OLS and GWR is the assumption of stationarity. Stationarity refers to the tendency for any relationship to vary spatially (Fotheringham et al. 2002). OLS assumes that all spatial processes are stationary in which a stimulus (i.e., elevation) causes the same response (site productivity) in the entire study area. However, stationarity is not the rule in spatial processes. Forest sites have different levels of productivity as a function of elevation (Kimsey et al. 2008). The size of fires differs at two locations even though both have the same elevation. As Osborne et al. (2007, p. 314) pointed out, OLS models can“…mask the processes being studied because they give an average picture of the relationship between the predictor and the response factors.” This average picture, erroneously accepted for non-stationary factors, has been used to conceive the OLS method as global or a constant-parameter model. A multivariate OLS model can be expressed as:

    where lnFIRE is the logarithm of fire size (Ha), X are the predictors (factors), β are model parameters of i predictor, and ε is the error term. The natural logarithm is used to increase model performance and avoid negative values.

    Fig. 1 Wildfires are represented by points, not polygons (based on the official information). Every point includes information of the burned area and the time of fire containment, among other information. In this case, fire size is represented by the total affected area (Ha), and it is assumed that the point with such information is the center of the polygon.: Location of the study area, counties, and the forest fires occurred from 2000 to 2011 in Durango, Mexico (Map units are UTM coordinates).

    In contrast, GWR models use the location of each observation and allow model parameters to vary as distance between points gets longer. At each data point (n), given by a set of coordinates (u, v), GWR fits a regression model by weighting all observations from that point as a function of distance. Thus, instead of having average model parameters, GWR produces non-constant model parameters, which eventually can be used to create maps and track spatial patterns (Fotheringham et al. 2002). Due to this localized form of prediction, GWR is known as local model.

    The GWR model (Fotheringham et al. 2002) is expressed in the following form:

    where (lnFIRE)1Wildfires are represented by points, not polygons (based on the official information). Every point includes information of the burned area and the time of fire containment, among other information. In this case, fire size is represented by the total affected area (Ha), and it is assumed that the point with such information is the center of the polygon.is the response variable and stands for the logarithm of forest fire size (Ha) and (i) represents the set of predictors involving environmental, topographic, and human factors. Other terms have been identified before.

    Since GWR weights the proximity of neighboring points (i.e., forest fires), it is necessary to identify an appropriate number of surrounding neighbors. This searching circle (or bandwidth, as is commonly called) depends on the distance between the points, the similarity of the area (distribution patterns), and the error occurring during the simulation. One of the most common methods to identify the bandwidth is through minimization of the Akaike Information Criterion (AIC) (Fotheringham et al. 2002). The AIC is a measure of the relative distance between the regression model to be fitted and the unknown true model. Thus, regression models with low AIC values indicate a closer approximation with the reality (Kupfer and Farris 2007).

    The choices for minimization are either fixed (Gaussian) or adaptive (bi-square). In the former, the bandwidth needs to be specified in terms of the distance units used in the model. In the latter, the bandwidth is specified as the number of data points in the local sample used to estimate the parameters. Once the bandwidth (or circle search) has been defined, what follows is a fitting of the model that eventually produces the weights for each factor. In this case, closer points to the reference location receive a larger weight than those located farther away. The fitting can be assisted with common statistics such as the coefficient of determination, standard error, AIC, and residual analysis. Residuals can be spatially distributed as randomly, dispersed, or aggregated. It is desirable that residuals have a spatial random pattern to avoid concentration or high dispersion of errors (Wong and Lee 2005). The Moran’s Index (Moran 1950) is used to test the hypothesis of spatial autocorrelation of residuals. The Moran’s Index (Z)— one of the most common indices in the measurement of spatial autocorrelation—compares the value of a variable in a certain point to the value of the same variable in another geographic point (Overmars et al. 2003). If the index approaches zero, then the variable is said to have a random distribution pattern (Wong and Lee 2005).

    To test the null hypothesis of no stationarity of the factors, a Monte Carlo test is used to compare the observed variance of the estimated parameters of each of the factors against a data set of observed points taken at random (Hope 1968). Probability values are then estimated for each of the factors using an acceptable confidence level (usually set at 95%). Non-stationary parameter estimates can be spatially mapped using some interpolation techniques, such as the Kriging method, to evaluate the spatial patterns of the factors.

    Sources of information and data processing

    Fire information was obtained from the database of the National Forestry Commission (CONAFOR) for the period 2000-2011. This government-based agency coordinates operations for fire prevention and control and keeps a registry of all fire events occurred in the country along with latitude and longitude coordinates. The database includes, besides the location of wildfires, the size of fires (expressed in number of burned hectares), the number of days required to control the fire, vegetation affected, and the number of firefighters.

    The independent variables (factors) were selected after reviewing literature on the fire regime variability in the area. Fulé and Covington (1999) evaluated elevation, slope gradients, and proximity to human habitation. Heyerdahl and Alvarado (2003) used slope gradient, aspect, and elevation. Drury and Veblen (2008) identified various climatic factors, vegetation types, land-use changes, and human influences as precursors of fire occurrence. Finally, Avila et al. (2010) used slope, temperature, precipitation, intensity of land-use change, and susceptibility of vegetation to fire. Our study extended the use of these factors—which were combined with distance to roads, distance to towns, and distance to other fire-prone areas, such as deforested areas, crops, and grassland areas—to a broader temporal and spatial scale.

    A digital model showing elevation from the Instituto Nacional de Geografia (INEGI) was used to obtain information on elevation and aspect (INEGI 2012). Also, thematic maps from INEGI of vegetation types, roads, and population were used. Annual precipitation and mean temperature of the year in which the event took place were obtained from the database of the National Weather Service. Precipitation and temperature data were collected from the closest weather station to the fire. The variable that identifies types of property was obtained from the National Agrarian Registry (RAN 2012).

    With the information gathered, it was possible to create new factors. For example, a population gravity index (PGI) was calculated as follows (Poudyal et al. 2011): where P is the population of center k, K is the total number of towns, D is the distance (radius) between fire point n and town k, taken up to a 20 km radius of the fire. After evaluating several distances, the 20-km radius was specified because it ensured enough number of towns in the evaluation. The PGI captures the combined influence of population living nearby. High rates mean high human presence on fire events. Similarly, using geographic information system (GIS) tools, the closest distance between fires and population centers and roads were calculated. Table 1 shows the statistics of the factors used in the study.

    Table 1: Descriptive statistics in the analysis of the factors that affect forest fire size in Durango, Mexico (Sample size = 1563).

    A computational package named GWR3.0?—developed by Martin Charlton, Stewart Fotheringham, and Chris Brunsdon—was used to fit both OLS and GWR models (Fotheringham et al. 2002) and eventually analyze spatial patterns of various environmental and socioeconomic factors driving fire size in Durango, Mexico. For the GWR, a Gaussian model where the bandwidth was automatically identified by adaptive iteration, was used (see details on GWR modeling in Fotheringham et al. 2002; Harris et al. 2011).

    Both OLS and GWR results were converted to raster maps using the ordinary Kriging interpolation method of the ArcGIS? extension. Kriging is an advanced geostatistical procedure that generates an estimated surface from a scattered set of points with z-values (i.e., fire size). Unlike other interpolation methods supported by ArcGIS, Kriging involves an interactive search of the spatial behavior of a factor represented by the z-values before the best estimation method for generating the output surface is selected (ESRI 2012). Within Kriging, the spherical mathematical model was used to fit the semivariance of fire points.

    Results

    For the time period evaluated (2000?2011), 1,564 fires were recorded, which affected 136,370 hectares, giving an average of 87.2/ha/fire. Of this area, close to 44% were grasslands, 39% corresponded to herbaceous vegetation, and the rest were located in areas with trees and forest regeneration. To detect and contain the fires, it took an average of 18.7 days per event. A test for spatial autocorrelation revealed that the geographic position of fires given by latitude (Zlat) and longitude (Zlong) had an aggregated distribution pattern with a high concentration of fires near to roads and population centers (Zlong= 0.88, p <0.001; and Zlat=0.74, p <0.001).

    OLS model

    Results of the OLS model indicated that all factors except the population gravity index (PGI) and aspect (ASPECT) were significant at a 0.05 probability value (Table 2). There was a positive relationship between the size of fires (expressed in number of burned hectares) and distance to roads (DISTROAD), distance to towns (DISTOWN), distance to grasslands (GRASSLAND), temperature (TEMP), SLOPE, and elevation (ELEV). But the relationship was negative with distance to crops (CROPS), distance to deforested areas (DEFOREST), and precipitation (PRECIP). The OLS model had an adjusted r2of 0.30 and the AIC was equal to 5566.

    Table 2: Regression parameters of the OLS model for forest fires in Durango, Mexico

    Regression estimates indicated that distance to towns (DISTOWN) was the most important factor followed by distance to roads (DISTROAD), precipitation (PRECIP), distance to deforested areas (DEFOREST), and temperature (TEMP). Since regression estimates were constant through the study area, no maps were created to track the variability of the factors. The estimates were used only to visualize spatial patterns of the size of fires. Fig. 2 shows both OLS predicted and residual model results. According to the predicted model, the largest fires occur in the north and east while small to medium-sized fires are found in the west (Fig. 2a). This sort of geographic difference can be attributed to the division between windward and leeward orographic aspects. Windward is more humid, as it faces the Pacific Ocean, while leeward in the opposite side, is protected by the Sierra Madre, resulting in dryer conditions.

    An analysis of residuals showed that there was a moderate concentration of errors, particularly of more than 100 ha, in the center of the state (Fig. 2b). The OLS residuals had a mean equal of 47.9 ha and were randomly distributed in the area (Moran Index, Zres=0.025, p=0.859). A GWR analysis then proceeded to check whether errors could be reduced substantially.

    GWR model

    The GWR model had an adjusted r2of 45% and an AIC equal to 5330. The number of locations to fit the model was 1563 and the bandwidth size was defined at 336 neighbors. While both fixed and adaptive modes were applied, the latter gave better results (in terms of AIC, r2, and residuals) and eventually was used in the analysis of spatial patterns of factors. Results indicated that the local model improved the AIC by 236 points, had 15% more in explained variation, and reduced the error by 11%. The F test also indicated that the reduction of the residual sum of squares between the global and local model was significant (p <0.05). These statistics suggest that the local model had better results compared to the global model (Table 3). The individual analysis of the medians of the parameters of the factors showed that the population gravity index (PGI), distance to crop areas (CROPS), precipitation (PRECIP), and aspect (ASPECT) were all negative. The rest of the parameters of the factors had positive values (Table 4).

    Table 3: Analysis of variance for the OLS and GWR models of factors influencing forest fire size in Durango, Mexico

    The GWR model had a tendency to give high values of burned area from the north to the center of the state, but the GWR model showed fewer errors than the OLS model (Fig. 3). Analysis of frequencies showed that close to 77% of the GWR residuals had values of ±50 ha. This suggests that differences between observed and predicted values of the GWR model were mostly concentrated around zero and that the model is acceptable. The mean of residuals was equal to 37.7 ha and were randomly distributed in the area (Moran Index, Zres= -0.029, p=0.845).

    The Monte Carlo test revealed that the null hypothesis of stationarity of the factors: population gravity index (PGI), distance to roads (DISTROAD), distance to deforested areas (DEFOREST), precipitation (PRECIP), temperature (TEMP), and elevation (ELEV) is rejected (Table 4). The test suggests that these factors are significantly non-stationary in the study area. The spatial variation in the remaining factors was not significant, and in each case there was a high probability that the variation occurred by chance. The population gravity index (PGI) had negative estimates toward the south and positive estimates in the north center of the state (Fig. 4a). The effect of population is somewhat related to the road estimate results. Usually, roads are constructed to connect towns and facilitate transportation of products. In the southeast area, characterized by a low road density and population, fire size increases as distance to roads increases (Fig. 4b). Other areas with high parameter values of distance to roads were found in the northeast part of the area.

    Fig. 2: Spatial analysis of derived forest fires estimates in Durango, Mexico. Fig. 2a) shows the results of the OLS predicted values, while 2b) shows the OLS residual model results

    Fig. 3: Spatial analysis of derived forest fires estimates in Durango, Mexico. Fig. 3a) shows the results of the GWR predicted values, while 3b) shows the GWR residual model results.

    Precipitation parameter estimates showed consistency in the entire study area. All parameter values had negative signs meaning that fire size increases as the area becomes dryer (Fig. 4c). Even though the parameters are all negative, it can be appreciated that the effect of precipitation on the size of fires is larger in the east than in the west. As expressed earlier, the western part of the state receives more humidity from the Pacific Ocean that reduces the possibility of large fires. Moreover, differences in precipitation also change the vegetation distribution patterns. The eastern foothills are characterized by extensive areas of natural grass and herbs, oak and pine-oak woodlands, and chaparral (Gonzalez-Elizondo et al. 2012). As indicated by CONAFOR’s fire records, these types of vegetation represent the majority of the affected area (83%).

    Table 4: Ranges of the GWR parameter estimates and test of spatial variability of the factors influencing fire size in Durango, Mexico

    Fig. 4: Map distribution of GWR parameter estimates of the factors influencing forest fire size in Durango, Mexico: 4a) Population Gravity Index, 4b) Distance to Roads, 4c) Precipitation, 4d) Temperature, and 4e) Elevation.

    Temperature had both positive and negative signs; the positive parameters were found in the north and east, while negative parameters were distributed from the center to the southwest (Fig. 4d). Again, it is convenient to mention that both precipitation and temperature data were recorded in the year a fire took place. Drury and Veblen (2008) found a strong relationship between the precipitation and temperature in one year and the fires occurred the following year. In Mexico, most forest fires occur in the spring, meaning that the occurrence period extends until the vegetation, stimulated by the first rain, restart their period of growth and development. Thus, in this case, current precipitation is also strongly associated with fire size. Elevation showed high positive parameter values in the north and in the southeast, but negative signs in the west (Fig. 4e). The factor distance to deforested areas had negative effects in the north, center-east, and south. The parameters of this factor suggest that larger fires are more likely to occur in the northwest.

    Discussion

    According to the GWR model (Fig. 3a), there were various hot spots (areas with large fires) in the area clearly identified along an imaginary line that divides the leeward and windward orographic sides. These hot spots are generally found in roadless or low road density areas, namely the counties of Tepehuanes and Guanacevi, the east-central part of Santiago Papasquiaro, Otaez, and the north central part of Durango (see Fig. 1 for county location). Areas with small fires or “coldspots” were found around the population centers of El Salto and San Miguel de Cruces. It is important to mention that these coldspots were located in areas where forest landowners are heavily involved in forest resources management. The San Dimas and Pueblo Nuevo counties are characterized by a strong organization and cohesiveness, where landowners not only collaborate in fire containment, but also sponsor other forest restoration and management activities such as thinning, prescribed fire, and establishment of fire break lines. Though records indicate that there is a high frequency of fires in these areas, they are controlled more efficiently, that is, it takes less time to control a fire and fewer areas are affected.

    The non-stationarity characteristic of population gravity index (PGI), distance to roads (DISTROAD), distance to deforested areas (DEFORESTED), precipitation (PRECIP), temperature (TEMP), and elevation (ELEV) suggests that fire size does not follow a constant pattern of variability and that it is influenced by the geographical position of fires. For example, fires that are geographically closer to roads have relatively less affected area than those at a greater distance. One reason for this relationship could be that fire suppression is difficult in remote areas and tends to affect more than those where road access is relatively easy. Similarly, two points may exhibit differences in the amount of affected area even though they have the same elevation, precipitation, and temperature. The spatial heterogeneity indicates that the geographic location determines the influence of a factor on the size of fires. These differences could not be detected by an OLS model in which it is assumed that factors had a constant effect over the entire study area.

    As mentioned earlier, no studies have been conducted to evaluate the spatial heterogeneity of the factors influencing forest fire size in Mexico. Outside Mexico, one of the first studies analyzing the spatial heterogeneity of factors on fire incidence using GWR models was done in the sub-Saharan Africa (Sá et al., 2011). Here, the authors tested various environmental and anthropogenic factors and concluded that fire incidence is better described using GWR rather than OLS models, given the spatial variation of the regression coefficients. They also concluded that the occurrence of fire is primarily dependent on temperature and moisture. In our study, like the one in the sub-Saharan Africa, the GWR model performed better and showed the distinct spatial patterns of each independent factor. We believe, and agree with Sá et al. (2011), that the consideration of non-stationarity in fire modeling is important to better understand fire regimes and to more efficiently prioritize critical areas to fire occurrence.

    The factors identified above as non-stationary (population gravity index, distance to roads, precipitation, temperature, and elevation) along with distance to towns were also the most important influences on fire size. One way to evaluate the individual performance of each factor is by analyzing the number of cases where it was statistically significant (Sá et al. 2011). Figure 5 shows the frequency of the t-test values of the coefficients of each factor resulting from the GWR model. For example, distance to roads had 1278 out of the 1563 cases (82%) with coefficients statistically significant (confidence level at 95%). Distance to towns had 1547 out of the 1563 cases (99%) with coefficients statistically significant. This indicates that the particular effect of this factor on fire size is significant in almost the entire area.

    Precipitation and distance to deforested areas had 58% and 56% of statistically significant coefficients, respectively. Fig. 5 also shows that distance to towns and precipitation showed consistency in the signs; they remained unchanged at their minimum, median, and maximum values. The first was directly related whereas precipitation was inversely related to fire size. However, for the sake of space and practical visualization, the t-test values were mapped only for the factor distance to roads (Fig. 6).

    These results confirmed that fire size is strongly influenced not only by environmental factors (precipitation, temperature, and elevation), but also by anthropogenic factors (population gravity index, distance to roads, and distance to towns). Little can be done to mitigate the effect of the former, but there is much to do to reduce the effect of the latter. While fires located near roads and towns are of low magnitude, their constant frequency increases the opportunity costs and decreases the possibility of attending other priorities. On the opposite side, fires occurring in remote, roadless areas are not that frequent. Yet, their effects are more catastrophic and dangerous to human beings. One of the most remembered events in southern Durango occurred in a natural protected, isolated area called “La Michilía”. Years of fire exclusion (Fulé and Covington 1999) and extreme dry conditions caused a big wildfire that burned down several hectares and killed one firefighter (Perez-Verdin et al., 2004).

    To reduce the negative effect of both frequent, low-intensity and high-magnitude fires, Rodriguez-Trejo and Fulé (2003) discuss a number of measures that can be implemented to protect temperate forests. They cite, among other things, more training for farmers, ranchers, and recreationists on the correct use of fire; regular maintenance of logging roads (including closure of roads); thinning and prescribed burnings; and fire breaks in perimeters adjacent to roads. Their management proposals are even divided in the cases when fires are excessive, normal, or insufficient.

    Fig. 5: GWR frequencies of t values for the factors influencing forest fire size in Durango, Mexico. The level of confidence was 95% (t = ± 1.96). See Table 1 for description of the factors.

    Fig. 6: t-test and coefficient values for the factor distance to roads in Durango, Mexico. The t-test values show the areas where the parameters are statistically significant (confidence level 95%). No significance is indicated by the signs “-” and “○”.

    Finally, the improvement of the GWR model (r2=0.45), as compared to the OLS model (r2=0.30), was relatively low, though significant and otherwise acceptable. Reasons that explain the low performance of both models can be due to the lack of other important factors, such as fuel loadings. Fuel loading is one of the three basic elements (oxygen, heat, and fuel) that fires need to ignite. It is basically composed of forest residues, grass, and herbaceous vegetation. Its quantification can be done through direct measures in periodic forest inventories or after logging, or the effect of a meteorological event (snow, wind, or hurricanes). However, this measure was beyond this study; it requires long-term funding to constantly update the information. The inclusion of this factor may be essential in modeling fire size in the study area.

    Conclusions

    The geographically weighted regression (GWR) model is a very suitable tool for studying phenomena such as occurrence of forest fires. This model, unlike the simple linear regression method, assigns a different weight as the distance between points gets longer. It also helps to identify factors that have a nonconstant effect according to the geographical position of points. In this study, factors such as the population gravity index, distance to roads and deforested areas, precipitation, temperature, and elevation were non-stationary. The GWR model revealed significant differences on fire size in the east and west of the study area. Larger fires were predicted in the north-east part than in the west, southwest of the study area. These differences can be attributed to the humidity coming from the Pacific Ocean that reduces the occurrence of large fires in the west.

    The spatial heterogeneity of fire size is also influenced by population and road density. Less populated areas, which are typical of remote, roadless areas, have low impact on the size of fires. Spatial heterogeneity suggests that geographic location is a significant influence on the size of fires. These differences could not be detected by the OLS model in which it is assumed that factors had a constant effect over the entire study area. However, it should be emphasized that the GWR is to be used as complementary tool to OLS regression modeling and not as an alternative to it. The combined use of GWR and OLS models in studies analyzing stochastic variables is well recommended.

    The most important factors affecting fire size can be classified as environmental (precipitation, temperature, and elevation) and anthropogenic (distance to roads, distance to towns, and population gravity index). The focus of fire managers is on the factors that can be manipulated. Humans are the main cause of fires, but it is the man’s resources that can reduce their magnitude. The results suggest the need for actions to promote awareness, raise the level of knowledge of stakeholders, and execute a series of measures to reduce the frequency of fires. These include more training for landowners who use fire for clearing and recreationists; maintenance of roads; application of thinning and prescribed burning, and fire breaks in perimeters adjacent to roads.

    Our analysis of fire size was restricted by limitations in data availability. The role of other explanatory factors not analyzed here (e.g., fire loadings, soil humidity, etc.) would bring a more comprehensive understanding of the factors underlying fire occurrence patterns and their spatial relationships. The benefits associated with the design of better fire management policies with more refined information could easily overtake the costs required to get the information.

    Acknowledgements

    The National Forestry Commission (CONAFOR) and the National Meteorological Service (SMN) provided important information on fire location and climatic factors, respectively. Many thanks to the managing editor, an anonymous reviewer, Dr. Changyou Sun, and Celina Perez for their comments in an early manuscript.

    Avila FD, Pompa GM, Antonio NX, Rodríguez TD, Vargas PE, Santillan PJ. 2010. Driving factors for forest fire occurrence in Durango State of Mexico: A geospatial perspective. Chinese Geographical Science, 20(6): 491?497.

    Burt JE, Barber GM. 1996. Elementary statistics for geographers. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.

    CONAFOR (Comisión Nacional Forestal). 2012. Reporte nacional de incendios forestales. Publicación interna de trabajo. CONAFOR. Guadalajara, Mex. Available at: http://www.mexicoforestal.gob.mx/files/120427%20reporte%20nacional% 20incendios.pdf.[Last time accessed, January 12, 2013].

    Drury SA, Veblen TT. 2008. Spatial and temporal variability in fire occurrence within the Las Bayas forestry reserve, Durango, Mexico. Plant Ecology, 197: 299–316.

    ESRI (Environmental Systems Research Institute). 2012. ArcGIS 9.3 desktop help. Available at: http://webhelp.esri.com/arcgisdesktop/9.3/index.cfm?TopicName=welcome (last time visited, January 3, 2013).

    Fotheringham A, Brunsdon C, Charlton M. 2002. Geographically weighted regression: The analysis of spatially varying relationships. West Sussex, England: John Wiley & Sons, LTD.

    Fulé PZ, Covington WW. 1999. Fire regime changes in La Michilia Biosphere Reserve, Durango, Mexico. Conservation Biology, 13(3): 640–652.

    Gonzalez-Elizondo MS, Gonzalez-Elizondo M, Tena-Flores JA, Ruacho-Gonzalez L, Lopez-Enriquez L. 2012. Vegetación de la Sierra Madre Occidental, Mexico: Una síntesis. Acta Botanica Mexicana, 100: 351–403.

    Harris P, Brundson C, Fotheringham AS. 2011. Links, comparisons and extensions of the geographically weighted regression model when used as a spatial predictor. Stoch Environ Res Risk Assess, 25: 123–138.

    Heyerdahl EK, Alvarado E. 2003. Influence of climate and land use on historical surface fires in pine–oak forests, Sierra Madre Occidental, Mexico. In: Veblen TT, Baker WL, Montenegro G, Swetnam TW (eds.), Fire and climatic change in temperate ecosystems of the western Americans. New York: Springer-Verlag, pp.196–217.

    Hope ACA. 1968. A simplified Monte Carlo significance test procedure. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series B (Methodological), 30(3): 582–592.

    INEGI (Instituto Nacional de Geografia e Informatica). 2012. Anuario estadístico de los Estados Unidos Mexicanos. Available at: http://www.inegi.org.mx/default.aspx [Last time accessed, January 3, 2013].

    Kimsey MJ, Moore J, McDaniel P. 2008. A geographically weighted regression analysis of Douglas-Fir site index in north central Idaho. Forest Science, 54(3): 356–366.

    Koutsias N, Martinez-Fernandez J, Allgower B. 2010. Do factors causing wildfire vary in space? Evidence from geographically weighted regression. GISscience & Remote Sensing, 47(2): 221–240.

    Kupfer JA, Farris CA. 2007. Incorporating spatial non-stationarity of regression coefficients into predictive vegetation models. Landscape Ecology, 22: 837–852

    Moran PAP. 1950. Notes on continuous stochastic phenomena. Biometrika, 37: 17–23.

    Osborne PE, Foody GM, Suarez-Seoane S. 2007. Non-stationary and local approaches to modeling the distributions of wildlife. Diversity and Distributions, 13: 313–323.

    Overmars KP, de Koning GHJ, Veldkamp A. 2003. Spatial autocorrelation in multi-scale land use models. Ecological Modelling, 164: 257–270.

    Perez-Verdin G, Lee ME, Chavez D. 2004. Outdoor recreation in a protected area in southern Durango, Mexico: Analysis of local residents’ perceptions. Society and Natural Resources, 17(10): 897–910.

    Perez-Verdin G, Kim Y-S, Hospodarsky D, Tecle A. 2009. Factors driving deforestation in common-pool resources in northern Mexico. Journal of Environmental Management, 90: 331–340.

    Poudyal NC, Cho S-H, Strickland JD, Hodges DG. 2011. An analysis of forestland change on the northern Cumberland Plateau: Bridging the broad units and fine units datasets in a landuse model. In: Gan J, Grado S, Munn IA (eds.), Global Change and Forestry, economic and policy impacts and responses. New York: Nova Science Publishers Inc., pp. 63–75.

    Poudyal NC, Johnson-Gaither C, Goodrick S, Bowker JM, Gan J. 2012. Locating spatial variation in the association between wildland fire risk and social vulnerability across six southern states. J Geogr Syst, 13:227–248.

    RAN (Registro Agrario Nacional). 2012. Atlas de propiedad social y servicios ambientales en Mexico. Available at: http://www.ran.gob.mx/ran/images/stories/otros_docs/atlaspropsoc_102012.pdf[Last time accessed, January 3, 2013].

    Rodriguez-Trejo DA, Fulé PZ. 2003. Fire ecology of Mexican pines and fire management proposal. International Journal of Wildlife Fire, 12: 23–37.

    Rodriguez-Trejo DA. 2008. Fire regimes, fire ecology, and fire management in Mexico. Ambio, 37(7): 548-556.

    Sá ACL, Pereira JMC, Charlton ME, Mota B, Barbosa PM, Fotheringham AS. 2011. The pyrogeography of sub-Saharan Africa: a study of the spatial nonstationarity of fire–environment relationships using GWR. J Geogr Syst, 13: 227–248.

    Tobler WR. 1970. A computer movie simulating urban growth in the Detroit region, Economic Geography, 46(2): 234–240.

    Tulbure MG, Wimberly MC, Roy DP, Henebry GM. 2011. Spatial and temporal heterogeneity of agricultural fires in the central United States in relation to land cover and land use. Landscape Ecology, 26: 211–224.

    Wimberly MC, Cochrane MA, Baer AD, Pabst K. 2009. Assessing fuel treatment effectiveness using satellite imagery and spatial statistics. Ecological Applications 19(6): 1377–1384

    Wong WSD, Lee J. 2005. Statistical analysis of geographic information with ArcView GIS and ArcGIS. John Wiley Inc. New York, NY.

    World Wildlife Fundation. 2006. Sierra Madre Occidental pine-oak forests. The Encyclopedia of Earth. Available at: http://www.eoearth.org/article/Sierra_Madre_Occidental_pine-oak_forests [last time accessed, January 22, 2013].

    天天影视国产精品| 欧美+日韩+精品| 少妇 在线观看| 欧美激情 高清一区二区三区| 如何舔出高潮| 亚洲欧美日韩另类电影网站| 亚洲欧美日韩卡通动漫| 十八禁高潮呻吟视频| 嫩草影院入口| 少妇猛男粗大的猛烈进出视频| 黄片无遮挡物在线观看| 午夜日本视频在线| 日韩av在线免费看完整版不卡| 亚洲精品美女久久av网站| 巨乳人妻的诱惑在线观看| 美女国产高潮福利片在线看| 国产成人aa在线观看| 亚洲精品第二区| 激情视频va一区二区三区| 国产精品嫩草影院av在线观看| 最近最新中文字幕大全免费视频 | 久久久久久久国产电影| 老司机亚洲免费影院| 日日爽夜夜爽网站| 七月丁香在线播放| 久久久国产一区二区| 国产高清国产精品国产三级| 国产成人免费无遮挡视频| 99九九在线精品视频| 国产精品熟女久久久久浪| 最近的中文字幕免费完整| 女的被弄到高潮叫床怎么办| 新久久久久国产一级毛片| 久久久国产欧美日韩av| 宅男免费午夜| 亚洲中文av在线| 免费观看a级毛片全部| 美女xxoo啪啪120秒动态图| 一二三四在线观看免费中文在 | 欧美人与性动交α欧美精品济南到 | 精品熟女少妇av免费看| 亚洲综合色网址| 国产亚洲精品久久久com| 高清在线视频一区二区三区| 色网站视频免费| 亚洲成人av在线免费| 欧美日韩成人在线一区二区| 色视频在线一区二区三区| 热re99久久精品国产66热6| 97超碰精品成人国产| 91午夜精品亚洲一区二区三区| 有码 亚洲区| 亚洲国产精品成人久久小说| 亚洲国产看品久久| 人成视频在线观看免费观看| 亚洲欧洲精品一区二区精品久久久 | 亚洲精品,欧美精品| 男女高潮啪啪啪动态图| 麻豆乱淫一区二区| 亚洲国产日韩一区二区| 日本vs欧美在线观看视频| 丝袜美足系列| 欧美精品高潮呻吟av久久| 你懂的网址亚洲精品在线观看| 亚洲一区二区三区欧美精品| 久久久久久伊人网av| 大片电影免费在线观看免费| 青青草视频在线视频观看| 久久国产亚洲av麻豆专区| av电影中文网址| www日本在线高清视频| 丝袜脚勾引网站| 少妇人妻精品综合一区二区| 内地一区二区视频在线| 亚洲精品久久成人aⅴ小说| 一区二区日韩欧美中文字幕 | 91国产中文字幕| 日本午夜av视频| 亚洲国产av新网站| √禁漫天堂资源中文www| 久久影院123| 亚洲色图综合在线观看| av不卡在线播放| 国产成人aa在线观看| 超碰97精品在线观看| 午夜精品国产一区二区电影| 日韩视频在线欧美| 看免费成人av毛片| 伊人亚洲综合成人网| 国产极品天堂在线| 18禁裸乳无遮挡动漫免费视频| 婷婷色综合www| 久久久a久久爽久久v久久| 免费高清在线观看日韩| 亚洲国产欧美在线一区| 99热全是精品| 九草在线视频观看| 国产成人91sexporn| 午夜老司机福利剧场| 伊人久久国产一区二区| 高清黄色对白视频在线免费看| 日韩大片免费观看网站| 最近的中文字幕免费完整| 国产成人午夜福利电影在线观看| 欧美日韩视频精品一区| 大片免费播放器 马上看| 高清毛片免费看| 久久国产精品大桥未久av| av免费在线看不卡| 亚洲精品第二区| 日韩欧美一区视频在线观看| 国产又爽黄色视频| 国产男女内射视频| 久久久国产一区二区| 天美传媒精品一区二区| 国产精品久久久久成人av| 啦啦啦啦在线视频资源| 在线观看人妻少妇| 欧美激情极品国产一区二区三区 | 国产高清国产精品国产三级| 王馨瑶露胸无遮挡在线观看| 少妇熟女欧美另类| 亚洲欧美色中文字幕在线| 精品少妇黑人巨大在线播放| 亚洲av日韩在线播放| 久久精品国产自在天天线| 一级毛片电影观看| 在线亚洲精品国产二区图片欧美| 久久人妻熟女aⅴ| 一边亲一边摸免费视频| 99热6这里只有精品| 国产毛片在线视频| 精品一区二区三区四区五区乱码 | 午夜福利,免费看| 亚洲美女黄色视频免费看| 最近中文字幕高清免费大全6| 中文字幕免费在线视频6| 久久精品人人爽人人爽视色| 高清av免费在线| 国产免费一区二区三区四区乱码| 午夜激情久久久久久久| 亚洲,欧美,日韩| 一本一本久久a久久精品综合妖精 国产伦在线观看视频一区 | 亚洲国产av影院在线观看| 久久精品熟女亚洲av麻豆精品| 伦精品一区二区三区| 欧美激情极品国产一区二区三区 | 欧美精品国产亚洲| 亚洲国产精品一区三区| 综合色丁香网| 一区二区三区乱码不卡18| 亚洲精品成人av观看孕妇| 高清毛片免费看| 久热久热在线精品观看| 王馨瑶露胸无遮挡在线观看| 午夜免费观看性视频| 性色av一级| 一区二区三区乱码不卡18| 热re99久久精品国产66热6| 新久久久久国产一级毛片| 国产成人一区二区在线| 国产精品一区二区在线观看99| 一级,二级,三级黄色视频| 极品人妻少妇av视频| 久久久亚洲精品成人影院| 国产午夜精品一二区理论片| 国产一区二区三区综合在线观看 | 最近最新中文字幕免费大全7| 一二三四中文在线观看免费高清| 久久久精品区二区三区| 日本欧美视频一区| 最近中文字幕2019免费版| 国产国语露脸激情在线看| 精品第一国产精品| 97人妻天天添夜夜摸| 大码成人一级视频| 亚洲欧洲精品一区二区精品久久久 | 黄色视频在线播放观看不卡| 高清毛片免费看| 欧美人与善性xxx| 久久99蜜桃精品久久| 精品第一国产精品| 亚洲四区av| 久久久久久久亚洲中文字幕| 你懂的网址亚洲精品在线观看| 婷婷色综合大香蕉| 91精品国产国语对白视频| 免费黄网站久久成人精品| 精品人妻熟女毛片av久久网站| 国产精品一国产av| 青青草视频在线视频观看| 国产日韩欧美视频二区| av在线app专区| 99国产精品免费福利视频| 亚洲一区二区三区欧美精品| 2018国产大陆天天弄谢| 久久精品国产综合久久久 | 亚洲av中文av极速乱| 国产国拍精品亚洲av在线观看| 午夜福利影视在线免费观看| 老熟女久久久| 久久鲁丝午夜福利片| 国产精品成人在线| 激情五月婷婷亚洲| 国产 精品1| 精品一品国产午夜福利视频| 亚洲欧美精品自产自拍| 一本色道久久久久久精品综合| 国产成人免费无遮挡视频| 在线观看www视频免费| 观看美女的网站| 啦啦啦啦在线视频资源| 尾随美女入室| 久久久久久久久久久久大奶| 哪个播放器可以免费观看大片| 一级a做视频免费观看| 成年人午夜在线观看视频| 夜夜爽夜夜爽视频| 最近最新中文字幕大全免费视频 | 国产爽快片一区二区三区| 一级毛片我不卡| 午夜精品国产一区二区电影| 午夜视频国产福利| 中文天堂在线官网| 中文精品一卡2卡3卡4更新| 99久久精品国产国产毛片| 精品亚洲成国产av| 人体艺术视频欧美日本| 99久久中文字幕三级久久日本| 欧美日韩国产mv在线观看视频| 成年av动漫网址| 欧美最新免费一区二区三区| 国产麻豆69| 丰满少妇做爰视频| 日本91视频免费播放| 在线看a的网站| 国产国拍精品亚洲av在线观看| 热99国产精品久久久久久7| 亚洲国产看品久久| 成人毛片a级毛片在线播放| 91久久精品国产一区二区三区| 少妇 在线观看| 久久av网站| 婷婷色综合大香蕉| 亚洲成人手机| 丁香六月天网| 成人毛片60女人毛片免费| 桃花免费在线播放| 成年人午夜在线观看视频| 久久久精品免费免费高清| 国产黄频视频在线观看| 黄色怎么调成土黄色| 欧美亚洲日本最大视频资源| 亚洲在久久综合| 亚洲欧美成人综合另类久久久| 国产av国产精品国产| 黄色 视频免费看| 99re6热这里在线精品视频| 最新中文字幕久久久久| 国产精品久久久久久av不卡| 欧美精品高潮呻吟av久久| 欧美日韩综合久久久久久| 国产男人的电影天堂91| av电影中文网址| 久久久久久久亚洲中文字幕| 最近中文字幕2019免费版| 中文欧美无线码| 啦啦啦中文免费视频观看日本| 如何舔出高潮| 久久久久久久久久久免费av| 菩萨蛮人人尽说江南好唐韦庄| 午夜91福利影院| 人妻少妇偷人精品九色| 亚洲国产毛片av蜜桃av| 免费看光身美女| 日本黄大片高清| 国产欧美另类精品又又久久亚洲欧美| 一级a做视频免费观看| 欧美日韩国产mv在线观看视频| 精品亚洲成国产av| 22中文网久久字幕| 人人澡人人妻人| 老熟女久久久| 美女脱内裤让男人舔精品视频| av免费在线看不卡| av女优亚洲男人天堂| 日韩精品免费视频一区二区三区 | 女人精品久久久久毛片| 国产亚洲最大av| 夫妻性生交免费视频一级片| 亚洲成国产人片在线观看| 免费日韩欧美在线观看| 秋霞伦理黄片| av播播在线观看一区| 18禁在线无遮挡免费观看视频| 精品亚洲成a人片在线观看| 国产av码专区亚洲av| 欧美国产精品一级二级三级| 内地一区二区视频在线| 寂寞人妻少妇视频99o| 成人国语在线视频| 中文乱码字字幕精品一区二区三区| 少妇被粗大的猛进出69影院 | 69精品国产乱码久久久| 人人妻人人添人人爽欧美一区卜| 婷婷成人精品国产| 人人妻人人澡人人爽人人夜夜| 亚洲国产av新网站| 国产片特级美女逼逼视频| 日韩在线高清观看一区二区三区| 性色av一级| 捣出白浆h1v1| 一级片'在线观看视频| 国产一级毛片在线| 国产高清不卡午夜福利| 又粗又硬又长又爽又黄的视频| 国产 精品1| 久久av网站| 亚洲美女视频黄频| 国产在视频线精品| 丝袜喷水一区| 国产女主播在线喷水免费视频网站| 91久久精品国产一区二区三区| 欧美亚洲日本最大视频资源| 女性生殖器流出的白浆| 中国三级夫妇交换| a 毛片基地| 亚洲在久久综合| 少妇人妻 视频| 亚洲精品日本国产第一区| 亚洲国产色片| 精品一区二区三区视频在线| 久久精品aⅴ一区二区三区四区 | 大香蕉97超碰在线| 一区二区日韩欧美中文字幕 | 男女高潮啪啪啪动态图| 最近2019中文字幕mv第一页| 日韩,欧美,国产一区二区三区| 欧美bdsm另类| 卡戴珊不雅视频在线播放| 日韩精品免费视频一区二区三区 | 中国国产av一级| 国产熟女午夜一区二区三区| 制服人妻中文乱码| 飞空精品影院首页| 中文字幕人妻丝袜制服| 丰满乱子伦码专区| 香蕉精品网在线| 你懂的网址亚洲精品在线观看| 中国国产av一级| 久久精品国产a三级三级三级| 交换朋友夫妻互换小说| 最近中文字幕高清免费大全6| 久久久国产欧美日韩av| 香蕉国产在线看| 国产精品久久久久成人av| 秋霞伦理黄片| 日本色播在线视频| 春色校园在线视频观看| 欧美日韩视频高清一区二区三区二| 欧美少妇被猛烈插入视频| 黄色视频在线播放观看不卡| 久久狼人影院| 精品国产一区二区久久| 水蜜桃什么品种好| 国产男女超爽视频在线观看| 国产高清国产精品国产三级| 精品亚洲成a人片在线观看| 蜜臀久久99精品久久宅男| 国产精品一区二区在线不卡| 水蜜桃什么品种好| 亚洲精品美女久久久久99蜜臀 | 久久精品国产亚洲av涩爱| av福利片在线| 欧美人与性动交α欧美软件 | 国产精品三级大全| 女的被弄到高潮叫床怎么办| av网站免费在线观看视频| 久久精品久久精品一区二区三区| 久久婷婷青草| 一区二区三区精品91| 99久久综合免费| 少妇被粗大的猛进出69影院 | 久久韩国三级中文字幕| 两个人免费观看高清视频| 国产麻豆69| 中文字幕制服av| 少妇被粗大猛烈的视频| 国产爽快片一区二区三区| 国产国语露脸激情在线看| 亚洲国产成人一精品久久久| 日韩制服骚丝袜av| 又黄又爽又刺激的免费视频.| 色婷婷av一区二区三区视频| 少妇精品久久久久久久| 大片电影免费在线观看免费| 少妇被粗大的猛进出69影院 | 久久国产精品男人的天堂亚洲 | 日日啪夜夜爽| 免费人妻精品一区二区三区视频| 天堂中文最新版在线下载| 男女无遮挡免费网站观看| 亚洲经典国产精华液单| 交换朋友夫妻互换小说| 一边亲一边摸免费视频| 久久久久久久国产电影| 日韩人妻精品一区2区三区| 丝袜美足系列| 国产精品不卡视频一区二区| 一本色道久久久久久精品综合| 国产成人欧美| 亚洲av日韩在线播放| 国产免费视频播放在线视频| 亚洲欧美色中文字幕在线| 国产黄频视频在线观看| 欧美日韩国产mv在线观看视频| 国产精品国产av在线观看| 成人国产av品久久久| 亚洲婷婷狠狠爱综合网| 成人综合一区亚洲| 国产精品无大码| 男人爽女人下面视频在线观看| 免费大片黄手机在线观看| 多毛熟女@视频| 极品少妇高潮喷水抽搐| 91aial.com中文字幕在线观看| a级毛片黄视频| 大陆偷拍与自拍| 国产日韩一区二区三区精品不卡| 亚洲精品一区蜜桃| 免费人妻精品一区二区三区视频| 大香蕉97超碰在线| 日韩熟女老妇一区二区性免费视频| 狂野欧美激情性xxxx在线观看| 国产成人精品一,二区| 观看av在线不卡| 久久精品久久久久久久性| a级毛片在线看网站| 一本大道久久a久久精品| 女性生殖器流出的白浆| 精品少妇久久久久久888优播| 欧美97在线视频| 亚洲av成人精品一二三区| 麻豆精品久久久久久蜜桃| 在线天堂最新版资源| 日本av手机在线免费观看| 久久精品熟女亚洲av麻豆精品| 亚洲av男天堂| 中文字幕亚洲精品专区| 亚洲精品久久久久久婷婷小说| 亚洲国产精品成人久久小说| 国产熟女欧美一区二区| 一二三四中文在线观看免费高清| 亚洲,欧美精品.| 久久人人爽人人爽人人片va| 99久久中文字幕三级久久日本| 你懂的网址亚洲精品在线观看| 成人国产av品久久久| 免费黄频网站在线观看国产| 一区二区日韩欧美中文字幕 | 亚洲激情五月婷婷啪啪| 人妻人人澡人人爽人人| 在线观看美女被高潮喷水网站| 如何舔出高潮| 一级片免费观看大全| 中文字幕av电影在线播放| 少妇被粗大的猛进出69影院 | 国产片内射在线| 一级爰片在线观看| 亚洲色图 男人天堂 中文字幕 | 日韩欧美一区视频在线观看| 久久人人爽av亚洲精品天堂| 欧美最新免费一区二区三区| 久久久久精品性色| 中文欧美无线码| 老熟女久久久| 午夜久久久在线观看| 亚洲,欧美,日韩| 18禁在线无遮挡免费观看视频| 大话2 男鬼变身卡| 激情视频va一区二区三区| 久久精品久久久久久噜噜老黄| 免费黄频网站在线观看国产| 欧美精品av麻豆av| 九草在线视频观看| 欧美国产精品va在线观看不卡| 18在线观看网站| 亚洲精品国产av蜜桃| 亚洲成国产人片在线观看| 少妇被粗大的猛进出69影院 | 热99久久久久精品小说推荐| 一二三四中文在线观看免费高清| 大话2 男鬼变身卡| 另类精品久久| 色婷婷av一区二区三区视频| 考比视频在线观看| 免费观看无遮挡的男女| 久久人妻熟女aⅴ| 国产日韩欧美视频二区| 久久这里只有精品19| 美女中出高潮动态图| 免费大片18禁| 国产有黄有色有爽视频| 秋霞在线观看毛片| 精品一区二区三区四区五区乱码 | 国产精品秋霞免费鲁丝片| 青春草视频在线免费观看| 在线观看美女被高潮喷水网站| 免费高清在线观看日韩| 久久精品夜色国产| 亚洲av成人精品一二三区| 美女中出高潮动态图| 国产成人av激情在线播放| 插逼视频在线观看| 国产乱来视频区| 日韩制服骚丝袜av| 久久毛片免费看一区二区三区| 亚洲,一卡二卡三卡| 欧美日韩一区二区视频在线观看视频在线| 韩国av在线不卡| 精品一区二区三区四区五区乱码 | 亚洲国产av影院在线观看| 午夜福利乱码中文字幕| 免费观看性生交大片5| 天堂中文最新版在线下载| 天堂俺去俺来也www色官网| www.色视频.com| 久久毛片免费看一区二区三区| 国产免费视频播放在线视频| 中文天堂在线官网| 天天躁夜夜躁狠狠躁躁| 亚洲欧洲日产国产| 亚洲中文av在线| 亚洲欧美中文字幕日韩二区| 制服诱惑二区| 国产xxxxx性猛交| 校园人妻丝袜中文字幕| 免费女性裸体啪啪无遮挡网站| 天堂俺去俺来也www色官网| 七月丁香在线播放| 欧美老熟妇乱子伦牲交| 一级毛片我不卡| 超色免费av| 亚洲国产精品国产精品| 中文字幕最新亚洲高清| 亚洲经典国产精华液单| 亚洲精品第二区| 精品一区二区免费观看| 在线亚洲精品国产二区图片欧美| 免费看光身美女| 91aial.com中文字幕在线观看| 一二三四中文在线观看免费高清| 又黄又爽又刺激的免费视频.| 桃花免费在线播放| 久久人人97超碰香蕉20202| 亚洲天堂av无毛| 免费看av在线观看网站| av在线观看视频网站免费| 三级国产精品片| 如日韩欧美国产精品一区二区三区| 十分钟在线观看高清视频www| 亚洲精品第二区| 1024视频免费在线观看| 麻豆乱淫一区二区| 国产黄频视频在线观看| 亚洲av综合色区一区| 国产精品国产三级专区第一集| 秋霞在线观看毛片| 18在线观看网站| 亚洲av综合色区一区| 国产熟女午夜一区二区三区| 在线观看www视频免费| 69精品国产乱码久久久| 晚上一个人看的免费电影| 又大又黄又爽视频免费| 女人被躁到高潮嗷嗷叫费观| 亚洲欧洲国产日韩| 国产在线一区二区三区精| 日韩中文字幕视频在线看片| 免费少妇av软件| 各种免费的搞黄视频| 国产色婷婷99| xxx大片免费视频| 捣出白浆h1v1| 国产精品一区www在线观看| 日本wwww免费看| 午夜视频国产福利| 精品久久久精品久久久| 国产精品一国产av| 精品视频人人做人人爽| 国产成人免费无遮挡视频| 亚洲一区二区三区欧美精品| 在线观看人妻少妇| 久久青草综合色| 人成视频在线观看免费观看| 欧美成人午夜免费资源| 有码 亚洲区| 免费大片黄手机在线观看| 最近2019中文字幕mv第一页| av片东京热男人的天堂| 91精品三级在线观看| www日本在线高清视频| 成人国产麻豆网| 国产又色又爽无遮挡免| 高清欧美精品videossex| av福利片在线| 国产又色又爽无遮挡免| 99久久精品国产国产毛片| 看非洲黑人一级黄片| 久热这里只有精品99| av电影中文网址| 美女主播在线视频| 日韩欧美一区视频在线观看| xxxhd国产人妻xxx| 少妇高潮的动态图|