Do lakes feel the burn? Ecological consequences of increasing exposure of lakes to fire in the continental United States
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Wildfires are becoming larger and more frequent across much of the United States due to anthropogenic climate change. No studies, however, have assessed fire prevalence in lake watersheds at broad spatial and temporal scales, and thus it is unknown whether wildfires threaten lakes and reservoirs (hereafter, lakes) of the United States. We show that fire activity has increased in lake watersheds across the continental United States from 1984 to 2015, particularly since 2005. Lakes have experienced the greatest fire activity in the western United States, Southern Great Plains, and Florida. Despite over 30 years of increasing fire exposure, fire effects on fresh waters have not been well studied; previous research has generally focused on streams, and most of the limited lake-fire research has been conducted in boreal landscapes. We therefore propose a conceptual model of how fire may influence the physical, chemical, and biological properties of lake ecosystems by synthesizing the best available science from terrestrial, aquatic, fire, and landscape ecology. This model also highlights emerging research priorities and provides a starting point to help land and lake managers anticipate potential effects of fire on ecosystem services provided by fresh waters and their watersheds.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".