Cited by 47Fire effects on ecosystemsPlant Water Relations and Carbon DynamicsLand Use and Ecosystem Services

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 7 of the 7 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Human impact on wildfires varies between regions and with vegetation productivity

Open access
Lasslop, Gitta, Kloster, Silvia·2017·Environmental Research Letters

Abstract

We assess the influence of humans on burned area simulated with a dynamic global vegetation model. The human impact in the model is based on population density and cropland fraction, which were identified as important drivers of burned area in analyses of global datasets, and are commonly used in global models. After an evaluation of the sensitivity to these two variables we extend the model by including an additional effect of the cropland fraction on the fire duration. The general pattern of human influence is similar in both model versions: the strongest human impact is found in regions with intermediate productivity, where fire occurrence is not limited by fuel load or climatic conditions. Human effects in the model increases burned area in the tropics, while in temperate regions burned area is reduced. While the population density is similar on average for the tropical and temperate regions, the cropland fraction is higher in temperate regions, and leads to a strong suppression of fire. The model shows a low human impact in the boreal region, where both population density and cropland fraction is very low and the climatic conditions, as well as the vegetation productivity limit fire. Previous studies attributed a decrease in fire activity found in global charcoal datasets to human activity. This is confirmed by our simulations, which only show a decrease in burned area when the human influence on fire is accounted for, and not with only natural effects on fires. We assess how the vegetation–fire feedback influences the results, by comparing simulations with dynamic vegetation biogeography to simulations with prescribed vegetation. The vegetation–fire feedback increases the human impact on burned area by 10% for present day conditions. These results emphasize that projections of burned area need to account for the interactions between fire, climate, vegetation and humans.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1088/1748-9326/aa8c82

Cites

7 of 7 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 7 references

Research works printed but not linked: 38

  1. 10.1038/nclimate2313 · DOI
  2. 10.1073/pnas.1211466110 · DOI · Paper page
  3. 10.1111/j.1365-2486.2008.01754.x · DOI · Paper page
  4. 10.1073/pnas.1117620109 · DOI · Paper page
  5. 10.5194/bg-11-5087-2014 · DOI
  6. 10.1371/journal.pone.0081188 · DOI · Paper page
  7. 10.1029/2009gl041303 · DOI
  8. 10.5194/cp-10-811-2014 · DOI
  9. 10.1126/science.284.5421.1832 · DOI
  10. 10.1002/jgrg.20042 · DOI · Paper page
  11. 10.5194/bg-7-1171-2010 · DOI
  12. 10.1002/jame.20038 · DOI
  13. 10.1002/2014gb004988 · DOI
  14. 10.1038/294125a0 · DOI
  15. 10.5194/bg-13-3359-2016 · DOI · Paper page
  16. 10.1111/geb.12246 · DOI
  17. 10.1007/s10584-011-0153-2 · DOI · Paper page
  18. 10.1029/1999GB001232 · DOI · Paper page
  19. 10.5194/bg-11-1085-2014 · DOI · Paper page
  20. 10.1890/09-1843.1 · DOI · Paper page
  21. 10.1002/2016gl069365 · DOI
  22. Lasslop G, 2015, Int. J. Wildl. Fire, 24, 989, 10.1071/WF15052 · DOI
  23. 10.1002/2013ms000284 · DOI · Paper page
  24. 10.5194/bg-9-3003-2012 · DOI
  25. 10.1111/geb.12038 · DOI · Paper page
  26. Parisien M-A, 2016, Environ. Res. Lett., 11
  27. 10.1111/j.1469-8137.2011.04010.x · DOI
  28. 10.5194/gmd-6-643-2013 · DOI
  29. 10.5194/gmd-10-1175-2017 · DOI
  30. 10.1007/s00382-007-0247-8 · DOI
  31. 10.1029/2012JG002128 · DOI
  32. 10.1002/jame.20022 · DOI
  33. 10.1016/s0031-0182(00)00192-9 · DOI · Paper page
  34. 10.5194/bg-7-1991-2010 · DOI
  35. 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2004.00362.x · DOI · Paper page
  36. 10.1126/science.1197257 · DOI
  37. 10.5194/bg-11-4817-2014 · DOI
  38. 10.5194/gmdd-7-2377-2014 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 47

Metadata

Authors
Lasslop, G., & Kloster, S.
Affiliations
  • Senckenberg Biodiversity and Climate Research Centre (DE)
  • Max Planck Institute for Meteorology (DE)
Corresponding author
Lasslop, Gitta
Venue
Environmental Research Letters
Published
2017-11-01
Volume
12
Issue
11
Pages
115011
ISSN
1748-9326 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2755656393
Cited by
47
References
7
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 3
FWCI
2.27
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Environmental Research Letters (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
  • Informationszentrum Lebenswissenschaften (ZB MED) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • MPG.PuRe (Max Planck Society) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Fire effects on ecosystems
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Plant Water Relations and Carbon Dynamics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Land Use and Ecosystem Services
Keywords
burned area, population density, vegetation productivity, fire duration, dynamic global vegetation models, charcoal records, fire suppression, boreal forest fires

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