MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4408442350 · doi:10.5194/egusphere-egu25-3090

Identifying Ignition Drivers of Lightning-Ignited Wildfires in Boreal Forests

2025· preprint· en· W4408442350 on OpenAlexaff
Brittany Engle, Ivan Bratoev, Morgan A. Crowley, Yanan Zhu, Cornelius Senf

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFire effects on ecosystems
Canadian institutionsNatural Resources CanadaCanadian Forest Service
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLightning (connector)Ignition systemTaigaBorealEnvironmental scienceMeteorologyAtmospheric sciencesClimatologyGeographyForestryGeologyEngineeringAerospace engineeringPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Forest fires are the primary disturbance agent in global boreal forests, and they play a significant role in shaping their composition and structure. Boreal forests are also considered a carbon sink but rising temperatures in high-latitude regions are likely increasing wildfire activity, raising concerns that they may become net carbon emitters. Climate change has also increased the frequency and intensity of fire weather in high-latitude boreal forests and is expected to increase the frequency of lightning, a major source of ignition, which could potentially lead to a substantial increase in burned areas. Lightning-ignited wildfires (LIW) pose unique challenges due to their ability to (i) smoulder for long periods of time undetected, (ii) form fire clusters, and (iii) resist suppression efforts. Understanding drivers of ignition is critical for ignition prediction and for optimizing resource allocation for fire managers. Understanding the dynamics of LIWs is, however, challenging due to lack of spatially explicit data that would allow for pan-Boreal analyses of ignition drivers. Current LIW research is thus heavily concentrated in regions with detailed fire data (like North America). In a past study, we filled this data gap by introducing the Temporal Minimum Distance (TMin) method, a new approach to match lightning strikes to wildfires without ignition location data (Engle et al. 2024). The TMin method outperformed current methodologies like the Daily Minimum Distance and the Maximum Index A by identifying 74.71% of fires in boreal forests. Using this method, a comprehensive dataset - BoLtFire - was developed, encompassing 6,228 fires larger than 200 ha spanning across the entire boreal forest from 2012 to 2022. When benchmarked to agency reference datasets, BoLtFire performed reasonably well, with an overall commission error of 30.06% and omission error of 53.63%, but global extent. To model lighting ignition efficiency, the BoLtFire dataset was enhanced to include location data for over 6,000 lightning strikes that did not result in a fire. This expanded dataset also now integrates “ignition drivers,” identified through modelling over 80 different lightning characteristic, climatic, topographic, and fuel-related variables to identify the most influential factors in the ignition process. This enriched dataset provides valuable insights into why certain lightning events trigger wildfires, while others do not. It thus enables more accurate ignition prediction and improved wildfire management strategies. This expanded dataset provides new opportunities to model ignition and spread dynamics for wildfires in boreal forests, deepening our understanding of lightning-driven fire activity. By addressing key knowledge gaps and advancing methodological approaches, this research contributes to a more comprehensive framework for mitigating the growing risks of wildfires in boreal regions and their potential impacts on one of the most important land carbon sinks. References: Engle, B., Bratoev, I., Crowley, M. A., Zhu, Y., and Senf, C.: Distribution and Characteristics of Lightning-Ignited Wildfires in Boreal Forests – the BoLtFire database, Earth Syst. Sci. Data Discuss. [preprint], https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2024-465, in review, 2024.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.066
Threshold uncertainty score0.132

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.240 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicFire effects on ecosystems→French-language works237,207→