Causes of uncertainty in simulated burnt area by fire-enabled DGVMs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Fire-enabled dynamic global vegetation models (DGVMs) can be used to study how fire activity responds to its main drivers, including climate/weather, vegetation and human activities, at coarse spatial scales. Such models can also be used to examine the effects of fire on vegetation, and, when embedded in Earth system models, investigate the feedback of fire on the climate system. Thus they are valuable tools for studying wildfires. Accordingly, the Fire Model Intercomparison Project (FireMIP) was established to evaluate and utilise these models using consistent protocols.Here we present the second round of FireMIP simulations to focus historic wildfire drivers (1901 to present). A six-member ensemble of simulations from fire-enabled DGVMs was compared to remotely-sensed burnt area observations and to the previous round of historical FireMIP simulations. We found that the model skill when simulating spatial patterns of burnt area shows modest improvements compared to the previous FireMIP round, and that the simulations mostly reproduce the decreasing trend in global burnt area found over the last two decades. However, whilst the broad global patterns are reasonable, there are considerable discrepancies with regards to regional agreement and timing of burnt area. Furthermore, the models show diverging trends in the pre-satellite era.To investigate further and inform future model development, we explored the residuals between simulated burnt area from the FireMIP models and remotely-sensed burnt area as a function of climate, vegetation, anthropogenic and topographic variables using generalised additive models (GAMs). We found some common responses across the models, with many over-predicting fire activity in arid/low productivity areas and all models under-predicting at low road density. However, with respect to other variables, such as wind speed and cropland fraction, the models residuals showed divergent responses. It is anticipated that these results should aid further development of global fire models in terms of driving variables, process representations and model structure.
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 | 0.006 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".