Dendrochronological reconstruction reveals a mixed‐intensity fire regime in<i><scp>P</scp>inus sylvestris</i>‐dominated stands of<scp>B</scp>iałowieża<scp>F</scp>orest,<scp>B</scp>elarus and<scp>P</scp>oland
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Questions What were the features of the historical forest fire regime, fire intensity in particular, in Pinus sylvestris ‐dominated stands of Białowieża Forest? Did tree recruitment patterns relate to the fire history? Location Białowieża Forest, western Belarus and northeast Poland. Methods We used dendrochronological methods to reconstruct the fire regime in a 8.5‐ha mixed coniferous ( Pinus sylvestris – Picea abies ) forest stand located in the Belarusian part of Białowieża Forest. We analysed fire frequency at stand and point scale, seasonal distribution of fires and fire intensity. We compared the results to a previous study done in a 13.0‐ha site of similar habitat and stand structure, located in the Polish part of Białowieża Forest. Results We reconstructed fires back to 1655, the most recent fire dating to 1918. Mean fire interval at stand scale during 1645–2010 was 9 ± 7.8 yrs (± SD ). Fire frequency gradually declined after 1811, with mean fire interval at stand scale increasing from 5 ± 2.5 yrs prior to 1811 to 18 ± 9.3 yrs thereafter. Most fires were likely of low intensity, as suggested by (1) small average tree diameter (5.1 ± 2.9 cm) at the first scar, (2) absence of strong negative growth reactions after fire, and (3) high fire frequency likely limiting fuel build‐up. However, a fire in 1718 was intense and resulted in a wave of P. sylvestris regeneration. The reconstructed fire history in the Belarusian part of Białowieża Forest showed many similarities with that done in the Polish section of this forest. Similarities included dominance of low‐intensity dormant and early‐season fires, sporadic occurrence of high‐intensity fires, high fire frequencies between the 1650s and the early 1800s, and cessation of fires since the early 20th century. Six out of 50 fire dates reconstructed in both sites were common and represented a level of synchrony that was significantly higher than expected under a random pattern of fire occurrence. Conclusions Low‐intensity surface fires dominated the historical fire regime of Białowieża Forest. However, occasional high‐intensity stand‐replacing fires led to successional changes at the stand scale.
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 | 0.010 | 0.046 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".