Anthropogenic effects on global mean fire size
Abstract
Wildland fires are an important agent in the earth’s system. Multiple efforts are currently in progress to better represent wildland fires in earth system models. Although wildland fires are a natural disturbance factor, humans have an important effect on fire occurrence by directly igniting and suppressing fires and indirectly influencing fire behaviour by changing land cover and landscape structure. Although these factors are recognised, their quantitative effect on fire growth and burned area are not well understood and therefore only partly taken into account in current process-based fire models. Here we analyse the influence of humans on mean fire size globally. The mean fire size was extracted from the global Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) burned area product MCD45. We found a linear decreasing trend between population density and observed mean fire size over the globe, as well as a negative effect of cropland cover and net income. We implemented the effect of population density on fire growth in a global vegetation model including a process-based fire model (SPITFIRE–JSBACH). When including this demographic control, spatial trends in modelled fraction of burned area generally improved when compared with satellite-derived burned area data. More process-based solutions to limit fire spread are needed in the future, but the empirical relations described here serve as an intermediate step to improve current fire models.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Many fire models now explicitly include ignitions and their sources.
“Many fire models now explicitly include ignitions and their sources (Hantson, Lasslop, Kloster, & Chuvieco, 2015;Lasslop, Thonicke, & Kloster, 2014;Li, Levis, & Ward, 2013;Mangeon et al., 2016;Scheller, Kretchun, Hawbaker, & Henne, 2019;Yue et al., 2014).”
From Fire as a fundamental ecological process: Research advances and frontiers (2020) · cites this paper as Hantson et al., 2015
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 46 · Cited by 62
- Authors
- Hantson, S., Lasslop, G., Kloster, S., & Chuvieco, E.
- Affiliations
- Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (DE)
- Max Planck Society (DE)
- Universidad de Alcalá (ES)
- Corresponding author
- Hantson, Stijn
- Venue
- International Journal of Wildland Fire
- Publisher
- CSIRO Publishing
- Published
- 2015-06-15
- Volume
- 24
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 589-596
- ISSN
- 1049-8001 (ISSN-L)
- 1448-5516
- OpenAlex
- W1900295523
- Cited by
- 62
- References
- 46
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 1
- FWCI
- 6.83
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- International Journal of Wildland Fire (publishedVersion)
- MPG.PuRe (Max Planck Society) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Fire effects on ecosystems
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Safety, Risk, Reliability and Quality › Fire dynamics and safety research
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Safety, Risk, Reliability and Quality › Fire Detection and Safety Systems
- Keywords
- forest fires, fire size, anthropogenic impacts, population density, cropland cover, net income, burned area, fire suppression, fire growth, MODIS burned area, global vegetation models, land cover change
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