Cited by 807Fire effects on ecosystemsAtmospheric chemistry and aerosolsAtmospheric aerosols and clouds

Biomass burning in Asia: annual and seasonal estimates and atmospheric emissions

Open access
Streets, D. G., Yarber, K. F., Woo, J.‐H., Carmichael, G. R.·2003·Global Biogeochemical Cycles

Abstract

Estimates of biomass burning in Asia are developed to facilitate the modeling of Asian and global air quality. A survey of national, regional, and international publications on biomass burning is conducted to yield consensus estimates of “typical” (i.e., non‐year‐specific) estimates of open burning (excluding biofuels). We conclude that 730 Tg of biomass are burned in a typical year from both anthropogenic and natural causes. Forest burning comprises 45% of the total, the burning of crop residues in the field comprises 34%, and 20% comes from the burning of grassland and savanna. China contributes 25% of the total, India 18%, Indonesia 13%, and Myanmar 8%. Regionally, forest burning in Southeast Asia dominates. National, annual totals are converted to daily and monthly estimates at 1° × 1° spatial resolution using distributions based on AVHRR fire counts for 1999–2000. Several adjustment schemes are applied to correct for the deficiencies of AVHRR data, including the use of moving averages, normalization, TOMS Aerosol Index, and masks for dust, clouds, landcover, and other fire sources. Good agreement between the national estimates of biomass burning and adjusted fire counts is obtained (R 2 = 0.71–0.78). Biomass burning amounts are converted to atmospheric emissions, yielding the following estimates: 0.37 Tg of SO 2 , 2.8 Tg of NO x , 1100 Tg of CO 2 , 67 Tg of CO, 3.1 Tg of CH 4 , 12 Tg of NMVOC, 0.45 Tg of BC, 3.3 Tg of OC, and 0.92 Tg of NH 3 . Uncertainties in the emission estimates, measured as 95% confidence intervals, range from a low of ±65% for CO 2 emissions in Japan to a high of ±700% for BC emissions in India.

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 · 10.1029/2003gb002040

Cites

33 of 33 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. Ahuja, D. R., Estimating regional anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases, in Indian Geosphere Biosphere Programme: Some Aspects, edited by T. N. Khoshoo and M. Sharma, pp. 131 -162, Haranand, New Delhi, 1991.
  2. Houghton, R. A., and K. Ramakrishna, A review of national emissions inventories from select non-annex I countries: Implications for counting sources and sinks of carbon, Annu. Rev. Energy Environ., 24, 571 -605, 1999.
  3. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Greenhouse Gas Inventory Workbook: Revised 1996 IPCC Guidelines for National Green- house Gas Inventories, vol. 2, edited by J. T. Houghton, Bracknell, U.K., 1997.
  4. Lin, C.-C., Analysis of fires in national forests in Taiwan (1963 -1991), Bull. Taiwan For. Res. Inst., 7(2), 169 -178, 1992.
  5. Strehler, A., and W. Stutzle, Biomass residues, in Biomass, edited by D. O. Hall and R. P. Overend, pp. 75 -102, John Wiley, New York, 1987.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Streets, D. G., Yarber, K. F., Woo, J. ‐., & Carmichael, G. R.
Affiliations
  • Argonne National Laboratory (US)
  • University of Iowa (US)
Venue
Global Biogeochemical Cycles
Published
2003-10-15
Volume
17
Issue
4
ISSN
  • 0886-6236 (ISSN-L)
  • 1944-9224
OpenAlex
W2084089284
Cited by
807
References
32
Citations by year
2026: 19 · 2025: 21 · 2024: 44 · 2023: 43 · 2022: 60 · 2021: 50 · 2020: 57 · 2019: 53 · 2018: 54 · 2017: 52 · 2016: 41 · 2015: 44 · 2014: 44 · 2013: 34 · 2012: 39
FWCI
13.32
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Global Biogeochemical Cycles (publishedVersion)
  • NCHU Institutional Repository CRIS (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • U.S. Department of Energy
  • National Aeronautics and Space Administration
  • University of Chicago
  • Argonne National Laboratory
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Fire effects on ecosystems
  • Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Atmospheric Science › Atmospheric chemistry and aerosols
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Atmospheric aerosols and clouds
Keywords
biomass burning, forest burning, crop residue burning, emission estimates, TOMS aerosol index, black carbon, organic carbon, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, methane, non-methane volatile organic compounds, air quality modeling, emission uncertainty, seasonal and spatial distribution

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