Environmental determinants of lightning- v. human-induced forest fire ignitions differ in a temperate mountain region of Switzerland
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Understanding the environmental and human determinants of forest fire ignitions is crucial for landscape management. In this study, we consider lightning- and human-induced fires separately and evaluate the relative importance of weather, forest composition and human activities on the occurrence of forest fire ignitions in the most fire-prone region of Switzerland, the Canton Ticino. Independent variables included 14 drought and fire weather indices, forest composition and human influences. Logistic regression models were used to relate these independent variables to records of forest fires over a 37-year period (1969–2005). We found large differences in the importance of environmental and human controls on forest fire ignitions between lightning- and human-induced events: lightning-induced fires occurred in a small range of weather conditions well captured by the Duff Moisture Code from the Canadian Forest Fire Weather Index System and the LandClim Drought Index, and with negligible influence of distance to human infrastructure, whereas human-induced fires occurred in a wider range of weather conditions well captured by the Angstroem and the Fosberg Fire Weather Index, mainly in deciduous forests, and strongly depending on proximity to human infrastructure. We conclude that the suitability of fire indices can vary dramatically between ignition sources, suggesting that some of these indices are useful within certain regions and fire types only. The ignition source is an important factor that needs to be taken into account by fire managers and when developing models of forest fire occurrence.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".