MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4399484733 · doi:10.1111/ele.14450

Grazing herbivores reduce herbaceous biomass and fire activity across African savannas

2024· article· en· W4399484733 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Allison T. Karp, Sally E. Koerner, Gareth P. Hempson, Joel O. Abraham, T. Michael Anderson, William J. Bond, Deron E. Burkepile, Elizabeth N. Fillion, Jacob R. Goheen, Jennifer A. Guyton, Tyler R. Kartzinel, Duncan M. Kimuyu, Neha Mohanbabu, Todd M. Palmer, Lauren M. Porensky, Robert M. Pringle, Mark E. Ritchie, Melinda D. Smith, Dave I. Thompson, Truman P. Young, A. Carla Staver

Bibliographic record

VenueEcology Letters · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRangeland Management and Livestock Ecology
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaPrinceton Environmental Institute, Princeton UniversityU.S. Fish and Wildlife ServiceNational Commission for Science and TechnologyUniversity of FloridaPrinceton UniversityNational Geographic SocietyUniversity of British ColumbiaSmithsonian InstitutionNational Science Foundation
KeywordsHerbivoreGrazingEcologyBiomass (ecology)Herbaceous plantEnvironmental scienceGeographyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Fire and herbivory interact to alter ecosystems and carbon cycling. In savannas, herbivores can reduce fire activity by removing grass biomass, but the size of these effects and what regulates them remain uncertain. To examine grazing effects on fuels and fire regimes across African savannas, we combined data from herbivore exclosure experiments with remotely sensed data on fire activity and herbivore density. We show that, broadly across African savannas, grazing herbivores substantially reduce both herbaceous biomass and fire activity. The size of these effects was strongly associated with grazing herbivore densities, and surprisingly, was mostly consistent across different environments. A one‐zebra increase in herbivore biomass density (~100 kg/km 2 of metabolic biomass) resulted in a ~53 kg/ha reduction in standing herbaceous biomass and a ~0.43 percentage point reduction in burned area. Our results indicate that fire models can be improved by incorporating grazing effects on grass biomass.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.377
Threshold uncertainty score0.555

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.233 · 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.

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

Citations26
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEcology LettersSame topicRangeland Management and Livestock EcologyFrench-language works237,207