Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 170

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Peat consumption and carbon loss due to smouldering wildfire in a temperate peatland

Open access
Davies, G. Matt, Gray, Alan, Rein, Guillermo, Legg, Colin J.·2013·Forest Ecology and Management

Abstract

Temperate peatlands represent a substantial store of carbon and their degradation is a potentially significant positive feedback to climate change. The ignition of peat deposits can cause smouldering wildfires that have the potential to release substantial amounts of carbon and to cause environmental damage from which ecosystem recovery can be slow. Direct estimates of the loss of carbon due to smouldering wildfires are needed to inform global estimates of the effect of wildfire on carbon dynamics and to aid with national emissions accounting. We surveyed the effect of a severe wildfire that burnt within an afforested peatland in the Scottish Highlands during the summer of 2006. The fire ignited layers of peat which continued to burn as a sub-surface smouldering wildfire for more than a month after the initial surface fire and despite several episodes of heavy rain. The smouldering fire perimeter enclosed an area of 4.1 ha. Analysis of weather records showed that the fire coincided with unusually warm, dry conditions and a period when the Canadian Fire Weather Index system predicted both generally high danger conditions (high Fire Weather Index) and low fuel moisture content in deep organic soil layers (high Drought Code values). Remaining peat layers in the burn area had comparatively low fuel moisture contents of ca. 250% dry weight. Within the smouldering fire’s perimeter, mean depth of burn was estimated at 17.5 ± 2.0 cm but ranged from 1 to 54 cm. Based on field measurements, our estimates suggested that, in total, the smouldering wildfire burnt 773 ± 120 t of organic matter corresponding to 396 ± 63 t of carbon and a carbon loss per unit area burnt of 96 ± 15 t ha−1 (9.6 ± 1.5 kg m−2). This corresponds to between 0.1% and 0.3% of the estimated total amount of carbon sequestered annually by UK peatlands. Our results also provide circumstantial evidence that afforestation of peatland soils, and associated site preparation, may contribute to an increased risk of peat fires. Smouldering fires are difficult to detect using remotely sensing techniques due to their low temperature and low heat release and the fact that the tree canopy remains intact for months afterwards. If similar smouldering fires are underreported in other temperate, boreal and tropical peatland regions then emissions from peatland burning may well be a substantially greater issue than currently assumed.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.foreco.2013.07.051

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 2 references

Cited by

See all 170

Metadata

Authors
Davies, G. M., Gray, A., Rein, G., & Legg, C. J.
Venue
Forest Ecology and Management
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2013-11
Volume
308
Pages
169-177
ISSN
0378-1127 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2132774088
Cited by
170
References
2
FWCI
8.81
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Peat consumption and carbon loss due to smouldering wildfire in a temperate peatland. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.foreco.2013.07.051
The paper
Davies, G. M., Gray, A., Rein, G., & Legg, C. J. (2013). Peat consumption and carbon loss due to smouldering wildfire in a temperate peatland. Forest Ecology and Management. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2013.07.051

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.