Investigating Drought Events and Their Consequences in Wildfires: An Application in China
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Understanding the impact of drought on fire dynamics is crucial for assessing the potential effects of climate change on wildfire activity in China. In this study, we present a series of multiple linear regression (MLR) models linking burned area (BA) during mainland China’s fire season from 2001 to 2019, across seven regions, to concurrent drought, antecedent drought, and time trend. We estimated burned area using Collection 6 Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectradiometer (MODIS) and drought indicators using either the Standardized Precipitation Evapotranspiration Index (SPEI) or the self-calibrated Palmer Drought Severity Index (sc-PDSI). Our findings indicate that the wildfire season displays a spatial variation pattern that increases with latitude, with the Northeast China (NEC), North China (NC), and Central China (CC) regions identified as the primary areas of wildfire occurrence. Concurrent and antecedent drought conditions were found to have varying effects across regions, with concurrent drought as the dominant predictor for NEC and Southeast China (SEC) regions and antecedent drought as the key predictor for most regions. We also found that the Northwest China (NWC) and CC regions exhibit a gradual decrease in burned area over time, while the NEC region showed a slight increase. Our multiple linear regression models exhibited a notable level of predictive power, as evidenced by the average correlation coefficient of 0.63 between the leave-one-out cross-validation predictions and observed values. In particular, the NEC, NWC, and CC regions demonstrated strong correlations of 0.88, 0.80, and 0.76, respectively. This indicates the potential of our models to contribute to the prediction of future wildfire occurrences and the development of effective wildfire management and prevention strategies. Nevertheless, the intricate relationship among fire, climate change, human activities, and vegetation distribution may limit the generalizability of these findings to other conditions. Consequently, future research should consider a broad range of factors to develop more comprehensive models.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".