MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2115196840 · doi:10.5194/bg-11-7305-2014

Biomass burning fuel consumption rates: a field measurement database

2014· article· en· W2115196840 on OpenAlexaff
T. T. van Leeuwen, Guido R. van der Werf, A. Hoffmann, R. G. Detmers, Gernot Rücker, Nancy H. F. French, Sally Archibald, João Andrade de Carvalho, Garry D. Cook, William J. de Groot, Christelle Hély, Eric S. Kasischke, Silvia Kloster, J. L. McCarty, M. Lucrecia Pettinari, Patrice Savadogo, Ernesto Alvarado, Luigi Boschetti, Solichin Manuri, C. P. Meyer, Florian Siegert, L. A. Trollope, W.S.W. Trollope

Bibliographic record

VenueBiogeosciences · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFire effects on ecosystems
Canadian institutionsNatural Resources CanadaCanadian Forest Service
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiomeBorealEnvironmental scienceTundraTaigaBiomass (ecology)PeatTemperate climateAtmospheric sciencesTemperate rainforestEcosystemForestryAgroforestryEcologyGeographyBiologyGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. Landscape fires show large variability in the amount of biomass or fuel consumed per unit area burned. These fuel consumption (FC) rates depend on the biomass available to burn and the fraction of the biomass that is actually combusted, and can be combined with estimates of area burned to assess emissions. While burned area can be detected from space and estimates are becoming more reliable due to improved algorithms and sensors, FC rates are either modeled or taken selectively from the literature. We compiled the peer-reviewed literature on FC rates for various biomes and fuel categories to better understand FC rates and variability, and to provide a~database that can be used to constrain biogeochemical models with fire modules. We compiled in total 76 studies covering 10 biomes including savanna (15 studies, average FC of 4.6 t DM (dry matter) ha−1), tropical forest (n = 19, FC = 126), temperate forest (n = 11, FC = 93), boreal forest (n = 16, FC = 39), pasture (n = 6, FC = 28), crop residue (n = 4, FC = 6.5), chaparral (n = 2, FC = 32), tropical peatland (n = 4, FC = 314), boreal peatland (n = 2, FC = 42), and tundra (n = 1, FC = 40). Within biomes the regional variability in the number of measurements was sometimes large, with e.g. only 3 measurement locations in boreal Russia and 35 sites in North America. Substantial regional differences were found within the defined biomes: for example FC rates of temperate pine forests in the USA were 38% higher than Australian forests dominated by eucalypt trees. Besides showing the differences between biomes, FC estimates were also grouped into different fuel classes. Our results highlight the large variability in FC rates, not only between biomes but also within biomes and fuel classes. This implies that care should be taken with using averaged values, and our comparison with FC rates from GFED3 indicates that also modeling studies have difficulty in representing the dynamics governing FC.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Dataset · Consensus signal: Dataset
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0060.008
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.003

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.

Opus teacher head0.030
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.220 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreDataset

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".

Quick stats

Citations221
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiogeosciences→Same topicFire effects on ecosystems→French-language works237,207→