MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4213304708 · doi:10.5194/gmdd-7-2377-2014

Modelling fires in the terrestrial carbon balance by incorporating SPITFIRE into the global vegetation model ORCHIDEE – Part 1: Simulating historical global burned area and fire regime

2014· preprint· en· W4213304708 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Chao Yue, Philippe Ciais, Patricia Cadule, Kirsten Thonicke, Sally Archibald, Benjamin Poulter, Wei Min Hao, Stijn Hantson, Florent Mouillot, Pierre Friedlingstein, Fabienne Maignan, Nicolas Viovy

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFire effects on ecosystems
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersEuropean Space Agency
KeywordsBiomeEnvironmental scienceVegetation (pathology)Fire regimeBorealClimatologyTaigaGlobal changeTerrestrial ecosystemCarbon cycleRange (aeronautics)Physical geographyEcosystemClimate changeGlobal warmingGeographyEcologyGeologyForestryOceanography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. Fire is an important global ecological process that determines the distribution of biomes, with consequences for carbon, water, and energy budgets. The modelling of fire is critical for understanding its role in both historical and future changes in terrestrial ecosystems and the climate system. This study incorporates the process-based prognostic fire module SPITFIRE into the global vegetation model ORCHIDEE, which was then used to simulate the historical burned area and the fire regime for the 20th century. For 2001–2006, the simulated global spatial extent of fire occurrence agrees well with that given by the satellite-derived burned area datasets (L3JRC, GLOBCARBON, GFED3.1) and captures 78–92% of global total burned area depending on which dataset is used for comparison. The simulated global annual burned area is 329 Mha yr−1, which falls within the range of 287–384 Mha yr−1 given by the three global observation datasets and is close to the 344 Mha yr−1 given by GFED3.1 data when crop fires are excluded. The simulated long-term trends of burned area agree best with the observation data in regions where fire is mainly driven by the climate variation, such as boreal Russia (1920–2009), and the US state of Alaska and Canada (1950–2009). At the global scale, the simulated decadal fire trend over the 20th century is in moderate agreement with the historical reconstruction, possibly because of the uncertainties of past estimates, and because land-use change fires and fire suppression are not explicitly included in the model. Over the globe, the size of large fires (the 95th quantile fire size) is systematically underestimated by the model compared with the fire patch data as reconstructed from MODIS 500 m burned area data. Two case studies of fire size distribution in boreal North America and southern Africa indicate that both the number and the size of big fires are underestimated, which could be related with too low fire spread rate (in the case of static vegetation) and fire duration time. Future efforts should be directed towards building consistent spatial observation datasets for key parameters of the model in order to constrain the model error at each key step of the fire modelling.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.044
Threshold uncertainty score0.087

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.214 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations5
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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