Skip to content

Weather based fuel moisture assessment

Arca B.1; Bacciu V.1, Casula M.1, Salis M.1

1Institute of BioEconomy, National Research Council of Italy

Last updated: 24/09/2026

Recommended citation:

Arca B., Bacciu V., Casula M., Salis M. 2026. Weather based fuel moisture assessment. In: Pere Casals, Davide Ascoli, Lena Vilà-Vilardell, Imma Oliveras, Madoka Krick (eds.) 2026. Methods handbook for characterizing fire use behavior, assessing fire effects, and monitoring soil and vegetation responses at the stand level. FIRE-ADAPT project (number 101086416), deliverable D1.1

Indicator

Fuel flammability: Fuel moisture content

Brief introduction

Dead fuel moisture content (FMC) is the water content in dead vegetation expressed as a percentage of dry weight, and is a key determinant of fire ignition, spread rate and intensity. Regarding fuel, size classes are defined by their nominal response time to atmospheric conditions: 1-hour fuels (<6 mm diameter, such as litter and fine twigs) equilibrate ⅔ of their moisture within 1 hour, while 10-hour fuels (6–25 mm diameter, including small branches and woody debris) require 10 hours. Direct measurement of fuel moisture involves field sampling, where collected material is weighed, at 105°C for at least 8 hours, and reweighed to calculate FMC as ratio of water mass to dry mass (expressed as a percentage). This drying temperature is recommended over lower values (<105°C), which have been shown to underestimate FMC (Matthews 2010).

FMC can be estimated from readily available meteorological variables using: (1) empirical models based on temperature (T) and relative humidity (RH), such as the fuel moisture index FMI (Sharples et al., 2009) as the predictor variable; (2) empirical models based on vapor pressure deficit (VPD) that describe the inverse exponential relationship between VPD and FMC (Rodrigues et al., 2024; Resco de Dios et al., 2015); or (3) complex process-based models simulating heat and moisture fluxes (Matthews, 2006).

Recent research demonstrates that simple models based on VPD or weighted differences between temperature and humidity can perform as well as sophisticated approaches, making them highly suitable for operational field use (Sharples et al., 2024). Building on this approach, the proposed method is based on the calculation of FMI from weighted differences between air temperature (°C) and relative humidity (%) (see (1) in the Calculation section). FMC is then derived by applying a scaling coefficient α determined through local model calibration considering different fuels (Sharples et al., 2011). The approach leverages direct meteorological measurements from field sensors (temperature and relative humidity stations), readily available online weather data from meteorological networks, or operational weather forecasts. This combination of model simplicity and data accessibility enables rapid fuel moisture assessment in operational settings with minimal computational requirements, requiring only basic measurements and simple calculations that can be performed with hand-held weather meters and basic calculators.

Method specifications

Method type

Soft

Hard

Method timing

Before
fire

During
fire

After fire 
(short-term)

After fire
(mid-term)

After fire
(long-term)

Field skills

Low

Medium

Hard

Lab skills

Low

Medium

Hard

Material cost

Low

Medium

Hard

Time cost

Low

Medium

Hard

Calculation expertise

Low

Medium

Hard

Equipment

  • Field sensor for the collection of relative humidity and temperature (e.g. Kestrel devices)
  • Smartphone App for the visualization of measured or forecasted weather data for a specific location
  • Fuel Moisture Content Lookup Tables or smartphone app, to calculate FMC from the proposed equation

Methodology

  1. Calibrate the model (preliminary step): determine the scaling coefficient α (FMC = α · FMI) through local model calibration, choosing α such that the mean of the FMC values computed over the calibration dataset equals the mean of the directly measured FMC values in the same dataset (Sharples et al., 2011). A minimum of 30 observations distributed across a range of seasonal and meteorological conditions is generally sufficient for the regression. Values of α may alternatively be sourced from the literature.
  2. Measure weather variables: use a hand-held weather meter or access nearby weather station data to record air temperature (T, °C) and relative humidity (RH, %) at 1.5-2 m height in shade, ensuring no recent rainfall or free water on fuels.
  3. Calculate Fuel Moisture Index: apply the formula FMI = 10 − 0.25(T − H), or simply use pre-calculated lookup tables on your mobile device for immediate results in field conditions.
  4. Convert FMI to FMC: apply the calibrated coefficient α to obtain FMC = α · FMI. Validate the estimate by cross-checking against recent field measurements if available, considering local factors such as fuel bed depth and canopy cover.
  5. Record data: log location, time, weather data and estimated FMC; update estimates every 1-2 hours as conditions change during operations.

Calculations

\mathrm{FMI}=  10-0.25 (T-H) (1)

\begin{array}{l} \textbf{Where:} \\[0.5em] \mathrm{FMI} = \text{Fuel moisture index} \\ T = \text{Temperature (}^\circ\mathrm{C}\text{)} \\ H = \text{Relative humidity} \end{array}
\mathrm{FMC}(\%) = \alpha \cdot \mathrm{FMI}
\begin{array}{l} \textbf{Where:} \\[0.5em] \mathrm{LSR} = \text{Leaf-to-stem ratio} \\ \alpha = \text{coefficient determined through local model calibration (Sharples et al., 2011)} \end{array}

Relation with other methods

Link This method can be combined with measurements of dead fuel moisture using remote automated systems (see the method by Pellizaro et al. )

Further information

Matthews S. (2010) Effect of drying temperature on fuel moisture content measurements. International Journal of Wildland Fire 19, 800–802. https://doi.org/10.1071/WF08188.

Sharples, J.J., McRae, R.H.D., Weber, R.O., Gill, A.M. 2009. A simple index for assessing fuel moisture content. Environmental Modelling & Software 24(5), 637-646. doi:10.1016/j.envsoft.2008.10.012.

Resco de Dios, V., Fellows, A.W., Nolan, R.H., Boer, M.M., Bradstock, R.A., Domingo, F., Goulden, M.L. 2015. A semi-mechanistic model for predicting the moisture content of fine litter. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 203, 64-73. doi:10.1016/j.agrformet.2015.01.002.

Rodrigues, M., Resco de Dios, V., Sil, Â., Cunill Camprubí, À., Fernandes, P.M. 2024. VPD-based models of dead fine fuel moisture provide best estimates in a global dataset. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 346, 109868. doi:10.1016/j.agrformet.2023.109868.

Sharples, J.J., McRae, R.H.D. 2011. Evaluation of a very simple model for predicting the moisture content of eucalypt litter. International Journal of Wildland Fire 20, 1000-1005. doi:10.1071/WF11006.

Sharples, J. J., Reddy, P. J., Resco de Dios, V., Nolan, R. H., Boer, M. M., & Bradstock, R. A. (2024). Evaluation and comparison of simple empirical models for dead fuel moisture content. International Journal of Wildland Fire, 33(6). https://doi.org/10.1071/WF23120.