Forest fire size amplifies postfire land surface warming
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Climate warming has caused a widespread increase in extreme fire weather, making forest fires longer-lived and larger 1–3 . The average forest fire size in Canada, the USA and Australia has doubled or even tripled in recent decades 4,5 . In return, forest fires feed back to climate by modulating land–atmospheric carbon, nitrogen, aerosol, energy and water fluxes 6–8 . However, the surface climate impacts of increasingly large fires and their implications for land management remain to be established. Here we use satellite observations to show that in temperate and boreal forests in the Northern Hemisphere, fire size persistently amplified decade-long postfire land surface warming in summer per unit burnt area. Both warming and its amplification with fire size were found to diminish with an increasing abundance of broadleaf trees, consistent with their lower fire vulnerability compared with coniferous species 9,10 . Fire-size-enhanced warming may affect the success and composition of postfire stand regeneration 11,12 as well as permafrost degradation 13 , presenting previously overlooked, additional feedback effects to future climate and fire dynamics. Given the projected increase in fire size in northern forests 14,15 , climate-smart forestry should aim to mitigate the climate risks of large fires, possibly by increasing the share of broadleaf trees, where appropriate, and avoiding active pyrophytes.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".