Limited increases in savanna carbon stocks over decades of fire suppression
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Savannas cover a fifth of the land surface and contribute a third of terrestrial net primary production, accounting for three quarters of global area burned and over half of global fire-driven carbon emissions. Fire suppression and afforestation have been proposed as tools to increase carbon sequestration in these ecosystems. A robust quantification of whole-ecosystem carbon storage in savannas is lacking, however, especially under altered fire regimes. Here, we provide the first direct estimates of whole-ecosystem carbon response to over 60 years of fire exclusion in a mesic African savanna. We found that fire suppression increased whole-ecosystem carbon storage by only 35.4 ± 12% (mean ± standard error), even though tree cover increased by 78.9 ± 29.3%, corresponding to total gains of 23.0 ± 6.1 Mg C ha-1 at an average ~0.35 ± 0.09 Mg C ha-1 yr-1, more than an order of magnitude lower than previously assumed. Frequently burned savannas had substantial belowground carbon, especially in biomass and deep soils. These belowground reservoirs are not fully considered in afforestation or fire suppression schemes but may mean that the decadal sequestration potential of savannas is negligible, especially weighed against concomitant losses of biodiversity and function.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.019 | 0.012 |
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".