Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33641100›Full record

ReviewEnvironmental science and pollution research international2021

Carbon emissions from the peat fire problem-a review.

Nor Azizah Che Azmi, Nazirah Mohd Apandi, Ahmad Safuan A Rashid

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Environmental science and pollution research international, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Fire regime of peatlands in the Angolan Highlands.Environmental monitoring and assessment · 2022
    Article
  2. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Nor Azizah Che AzmiDepartment of Geotechnics and Transportation, School of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, 81310 Johor, Malaysia.
Nazirah Mohd ApandiCentre of Tropical Geoengineering (GEOTROPIK), Department of Geotechnics and Transportation, School of Civil Engineering, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, 81310, Johor, Malaysia. nazirahapandi@utm.my.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8679-0650
Ahmad Safuan A RashidDepartment of Geotechnics and Transportation, School of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, 81310 Johor, Malaysia.

Funding

Ministry of Education R.J130000.7851.5F131
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Peat fires in tropical peatland release a substantial amount of carbon into the environment and cause significant harm to peatlands and the ecology, resulting in climate change, biodiversity loss, and the alteration of the ecosystem. It is essential to understand peat fires and to develop more effective methods for controlling them. To estimate carbon emissions and monitor fires, the depth of burning can measure the overall burnt down the volume, which is proportional to the carbon emissions that are emitted to the environment. The first step is to understand the technique of measuring the depth of the burn. However, there is a lack of integrated information regarding the burning depth for peat fires. This review paper discusses the techniques used to measure the burning depth, with particular attention given to quantifying carbon emissions. The article also provides information on the types of methods used to determine the burning depths. This research contributes to the field of peat fire by providing a readily available reference for practitioners and researchers on the current state of knowledge on peat fire monitoring systems.

Indexed as

FiresSoilBiodiversityCarbonEcosystemCarbonSoilBurn depth assessment techniquesBurn of depthCarbon emissionsCarbon emissions assessment

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.