Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39822881›Full record

ArticleMethodsX2024

Development of national post-fire restoration system to assess net GHG impacts and salvage biomass availability.

C Smyth, M Fellows, S Morken, M Magnan

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in MethodsX, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

4 authors.

C SmythNatural Resources Canada, Canadian Forest Service, 506 Burnside Road West, Victoria, BC, V8Z1M5, Canada.
M FellowsNatural Resources Canada, Canadian Forest Service, 506 Burnside Road West, Victoria, BC, V8Z1M5, Canada.
S MorkenNatural Resources Canada, Canadian Forest Service, 506 Burnside Road West, Victoria, BC, V8Z1M5, Canada.
M MagnanNatural Resources Canada, Canadian Forest Service, 506 Burnside Road West, Victoria, BC, V8Z1M5, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In light of the recent unprecedented wildfires in Canada and the potential for increasing burned areas in the future, there is a need to explore post-fire salvage harvest and restoration and the implications for greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Salvage logging and replanting initiatives offer a potential solution by regrowing forests more quickly while meeting societal demands for wood and bioenergy. This study presents a comprehensive modeling framework to estimate post-fire salvage biomass and net GHG emissions relative to a 'do-nothing' baseline for all of Canada's harvest-eligible forests. Forest ecosystem carbon emissions and removals were modeled at 1-ha spatial resolution for Canadian forests using the Generic Carbon Budget Model (GCBM) from 1990 to 2070 using several forest inventory data sources with future harvest and wildfires. Building upon previous research, our work integrated the Canadian Forest Fire Danger Rating System fire intensity to estimate fire severity of future wildfires. For 2024 to 2070, we assessed the changes in ecosystem carbon, emissions from harvested wood products, and substitution benefits from avoided emissions-intensive materials, relative to a forward-looking baseline. Our prototype system provides a comprehensive framework, configuration files, links to datasets to quantify the net GHG of post-fire restoration, and sample results for validation

Indexed as

Climate change mitigationGcbmSpatially explicit carbon budget modelSpatially explicit carbon modeling of future post-fire restoration in CanadaWildfire

Identifiers

PMID39822881
PMCPMC11738040

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.