MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4281737692 · doi:10.1111/geb.13548

The carbon cost of the 2019–20 Australian fires varies with fire severity and forest type

2022· article· en· W4281737692 on OpenAlexaff
Rachael H. Nolan, Luke Collins, Rebecca K. Gibson, Stephanie A. Samson, Katherine T. Rolls, Kirsty V. Milner, Belinda E. Medlyn, Owen Price, Anne Griebel, Brendan Choat, Mingkai Jiang, Matthias M. Boer

Bibliographic record

VenueGlobal Ecology and Biogeography · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFire effects on ecosystems
Canadian institutionsNatural Resources CanadaCanadian Forest Service
FundersAustralian Research CouncilHermon Slade Foundation
KeywordsUnderstoryCanopyEnvironmental scienceLitterCoarse woody debrisEcologyForestryBiomass (ecology)Tree canopyDisturbance (geology)AgroforestryGeographyBiologyHabitat

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Aim To estimate loss of above‐ground carbon (AGC) and conversion of live carbon to dead carbon following understorey and canopy fire. Location South‐eastern Australia. Time period 2019–2020. Major taxa studied Four widespread resprouting eucalypt forests. Methods Above‐ground carbon was measured in 15 plots in each of four forest types one‐year post‐fire. We also assessed topkill, that is, trees subject to canopy loss that failed to resprout epicormically. Results While canopy fire was associated with greater declines in AGC than understorey fire, this was only statistically significant for only one forest type, where AGC declined from 154 to 85 Mg C ha−1 following canopy fire. Significant post‐fire increases in dead AGC were observed in one forest type, where dead carbon increased from 22 to 60% after canopy fire. Topkill of trees following canopy fire (48–78% of stems) was higher than topkill after understorey fire (36–53% of stems) and in unburnt forest (12–55%). Topkill occurred primarily in small‐diameter stems. Consequently, there was no effect of fire on the proportion of dead AGC in trees, with the exception of the forest with lowest productivity (i.e., lowest biomass) and lowest annual rainfall, where dead tree carbon increased from 8% in unburnt forest to 13 and 53% after understorey and canopy fire, respectively. AGC in understorey vegetation and coarse woody debris was similar or lower in burnt compared with unburnt forest. Litter carbon was significantly lower and pyrogenic carbon significantly higher in burnt forest, with no difference between understorey and canopy fire. Main conclusions While increased fire severity was associated with increased changes to carbon stocks, there were differences among forest types. Specifically, the driest forest type had the highest rates of topkill following canopy fire. These results highlight the importance of spatial variability in fire severity and forest type in determining the effects of fire on carbon stocks.

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)0.000
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.035
Threshold uncertainty score0.071

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.003
GPT teacher head0.183
Teacher spread0.180 · 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
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

Citations13
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGlobal Ecology and BiogeographySame topicFire effects on ecosystemsFrench-language works237,207