MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4376564690 · doi:10.1002/ecs2.4510

Peatlands promote fire refugia in boreal forests of northern Alberta, Canada

2023· article· en· W4376564690 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Christine E. Kuntzemann, Ellen Whitman, Diana Stralberg, Marc‐André Parisien, Dan K. Thompson, Scott E. Nielsen

Bibliographic record

VenueEcosphere · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFire effects on ecosystems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaNatural Resources CanadaCanadian Forest Service
FundersNatural Resources CanadaCanadian Forest ServiceNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaU.S. Forest ServiceAlberta Biodiversity Monitoring Institute
KeywordsBorealPeatTaigaEnvironmental scienceBogVegetation (pathology)EcologyBoreal ecosystemEcosystemFire regimeClimate changeRange (aeronautics)Physical geographyGeographyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In the boreal forests of North America, large wildfires often leave residual patches of unburned vegetation, termed fire refugia, which can affect post‐fire ecosystem processes. Although topographic complexity is a major driver of fire refugia in mountainous terrain, refugia in boreal plains are more likely driven by a combination of other bottom‐up controls on fuel configuration as well as top‐down climate controls. In this study, we investigated the role of hydrological, ecological, and topographic heterogeneity, as well as climate moisture patterns, on the presence of fire refugia in forested upland and peatland ecosystems within Alberta's subhumid boreal forests over a 33‐year (1985–2018) period. Generalized linear models were used to model the probability of refugia in forested stands as a function of bottom‐up (vegetation, topography, site moisture, and ecosystem) and top‐down (normal and annual climate moisture deficit) controls. We then developed predictive maps of refugia probability for a range of normal and interannual climate moisture deficit values. We found that forested fens had a probability of refugia that was 64% higher than upland forests, while forested bogs did not differ from forested uplands in refugia likelihood. Climate and physical setting presented the strongest controls on fire refugia in uplands and peatlands, respectively. Increasing amounts of adjacent bogs, but not fens, produced a sixfold increase in refugia probability in uplands, while increasing amounts of adjacent bogs and fens produced roughly two times the refugia probability in forested peatlands. In these upland forest stands, fire refugia probability was negatively related to the interaction between regional climate moisture deficits and interannual deviations from these norms, thus increasing the probability of fire refugia during more severe drought conditions in areas with less arid climates, while decreasing refugia probabilities in drier climates. However, in peatlands themselves, neither regional climate moisture conditions nor the interannual deviations affected refugia. Fire size had a negative effect on fire refugia in all upland‐based models and a positive effect in all peatland‐based models. Our results suggest that large areas of intact peatlands may be capable of promoting fire refugia and thereby slowing climate‐driven, fire‐mediated vegetation transitions in surrounding forest ecosystems.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.049
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.187
Teacher spread0.183 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations23
Published2023
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEcosphereSame topicFire effects on ecosystemsFrench-language works237,207