A modest increase in fire weather overcomes resistance to fire spread in recently burned boreal forests
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recently burned boreal forests have lower aboveground fuel loads, generating a negative feedback to subsequent wildfires. Despite this feedback, short-interval reburns (≤20 years between fires) are possible under extreme weather conditions. Reburns have consequences for ecosystem recovery, leading to enduring vegetation change. In this study, we characterize the strength of the fire-fuel feedback in recently burned Canadian boreal forests and the weather conditions that overwhelm resistance to fire spread in recently burned areas. We used a dataset of daily fire spread for thousands of large boreal fires, interpolated from remotely sensed thermal anomalies to which we associated local weather from ERA5-Land for each day of a fire's duration. We classified days with >3 ha of fire growth as spread days and defined burned pixels overlapping a fire perimeter ≤20 years old as short-interval reburns. Results of a logistic regression showed that the odds of fire spread in recently burned areas were ~50% lower than in long-interval fires; however, all Canadian boreal ecozones experienced short-interval reburning (1981-2021), with over 100,000 ha reburning annually. As fire weather conditions intensify, the resistance to fire spread declines, allowing fire to spread in recently burned areas. The weather associated with short-interval fire spread days was more extreme than the conditions during long-interval spread, but overall differences were modest (e.g. relative humidity 2.6% lower). The frequency of fire weather conducive to short-interval fire spread has significantly increased in the western boreal forest due to climate warming and drying (1981-2021). Our results suggest an ongoing degradation of fire-fuel feedbacks, which is likely to continue with climatic warming and drying.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".