4.3 Article

Interaction of fire, climate and vegetation change at a large landscape scale in the Big Woods of Minnesota, USA

期刊

HOLOCENE
卷 14, 期 5, 页码 661-676

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1191/0959683604hl745rp

关键词

charcoal analysis; fire; climate; vegetation; 'Little ice age'; 'Mediaeval Climate Anomaly'; pollen record; prairie-forest border; Big Woods; Minnesota

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The Big Woods region of Minnesota is on the prairie-forest border and is a much studied model for the interaction of climate,. re and vegetation. The purpose of this study was (a) to document the extent and timing of changes in vegetation and. re over the past 2000 years and (b) to examine the link between charcoal influx and vegetation during the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. To reconstruct changes in vegetation,. re and climate, sieve charcoal (120 mum), pollen, environmental magnetism and loss-on-ignition were used. Charcoal deposition at prairie lakes was 3-4 times greater than for woodland or forest lakes, consistent with current understanding of the. re dependence of prairies, but charcoal influxes to forests were considerably higher than reported elsewhere, suggesting that ground. res were more common than assumed. Regionally, charcoal deposition at a subset of 17 lakes began to change at cal. AD 1100, dating to the period of the 'Mediaeval Climate Anomaly' (MCA; cal. AD 900-1250) but preceding the 'Little Ice Age' (LIA; cal. AD 1250). For seven of 14 lakes the MCA was characterized by a significant increase in charcoal deposition. This was followed by a decrease with the onset of the LIA, which for most sites continued into the nineteenth century. Relative timing of changes in charcoal and pollen and the other proxies differed from site to site, suggesting no one single response to climatic change. This variation most likely derives from local differences in fuels and topography, as compounded by strong positive feedbacks between fuels and fire.

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

4.3
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