ArticleCarbon balance and management2026
Influence of simulated vs. satellite-based burned areas on modelled terrestrial carbon fluxes.
Article in Carbon balance and management, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe Global Carbon Project provides annual updates on anthropogenic and natural components of the Global Carbon Budget. Dynamic Global Vegetation Models (DGVMs) contribute to these estimates and are used to simulate the evolution of terrestrial carbon sinks. However, DGVMs are known to poorly represent disturbances such as fire, leading to uncertainties in estimates of mean, interannual variability (IAV), and trends in land carbon fluxes. To address this issue, we propose a hybrid-process-based assessmentby constraining three DGVMs (OCN, JULES-INFERNO, and ORCHIDEE-MICT) with remotely-sensed burned areas from ESA CCI (FIRECCI51) and climate data from ERA5 reanalysis. We aim to improve the representation of the spatio-temporal variability of regional carbon budgets, namely fire emissions, above-ground biomass carbon (AGC), and vegetation-related variables—leaf area index (LAI) and gross primary productivity (GPP).
resultsPrescribing burned area (BA) in DGVMs reveals contrasting patterns between prognostic (model simulations) and diagnostic (simulations with prescribed BA) runs. As prognostic tends to overestimate BA, particularly across tropical and high-latitude regions, diagnostic simulations correct this issue, by reducing bias and improving the IAV and the agreement with satellite-based datasets of BA and fire emissions in these regions. Moreover, enhanced IAV of AGC is simulated by diagnostic runs, essentially due to better representation of biomass carbon in the mentioned regions. Although moderate improvements are found in LAI and GPP, as the differences between the two runs are more limited, the improvements between prognostic and diagnostic are more evident in their IAV, particularly for LAI, rather than on long-term means, indicating that prescribed fire can improve the representation of some variability patterns.
conclusionsPrescribing remotely-sensed BA in models can lead to a better representation of global BA, fire emissions and AGC, particularly improving the IAV, reducing bias and enhancing the agreement with satellite datasets. The moderate improvements in vegetation-related variables underscore the need to better constrain fire impacts and vegetation dynamics in models, to enhance the simulation of spatio-temporal variability and dynamics of regional-scale vegetation and carbon-related fluxes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.