4.5 Article

The early/late fire dichotomy: Time for a reassessment of Aubreville's savanna fire experiments

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1177/0309133316665570

关键词

Savanna; fire; burning experiments; Africa; fire timing; critical physical geography

资金

  1. National Science Foundation [1313820]
  2. National Geographic Society
  3. NASA
  4. Direct For Social, Behav & Economic Scie
  5. Division Of Behavioral and Cognitive Sci [1313820] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A fundamental principal of savanna fire ecology is that the fire regime determines vegetation cover, especially as it pertains to trees. A corollary is that late fires are more damaging to trees than early fires. Much evidence in support of this principle has been derived from a series of long-term burning experiments based on the pioneering work of Andre Aubreville. Eighty years ago, Aubreville devised an experiment to study the impacts of fire on savanna trees in Africa. The design conventions of this study remain highly influential. It is now clear, however, that the dates chosen by Aubreville and his followers do not reflect the burning practices of West African people. Dates that were chosen for early and late are not representative of actual fire timing; they represent extremes. This study has four goals: (i) to critically review the results of the burning experiments; (ii) to examine them in the context of results from recent savanna fire studies; (iii) to evaluate their limitations based on data for actual burning practices and fires from West Africa; and (iv) to critically evaluate the use of the early/late terminology in contemporary fire research. We find the majority of West African fires occur during the middle of the fire season. Our field studies find that fire temperature and burn completeness are highest in the middle-season. We conclude that the early/late fire dichotomy is not sufficient for understanding the impacts of anthropogenic fires in the region and we make suggestions for rethinking its use more broadly.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据