ArticleThe New phytologist2026
Key sources of uncertainty in process-based modeling of live fuel moisture content.
Article in The New phytologist, 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
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Process-based models that mechanistically represent water-carbon balances in the atmosphere-soil-plant continuum are an attractive tool for monitoring live fuel moisture content (LFMC) dynamics, a key variable when assessing fire danger. However, their application as operational tools to assess near-term wildfire danger at regional scale faces important challenges. Here, we explored key sources of prediction uncertainty in process-based modeling of LFMC. We applied the SurEau-ECOS model of plant hydraulics embedded within the MEDFATE modeling framework to assess how the accuracy of LFMC predictions was influenced by input data sources, by the availability of species-specific plant traits and by the level of mechanistic detail used to model water content of plant tissues. A lack of accurate data describing soil physical properties compromises the application of process-based models for predicting LFMC. Nonetheless, using global meteorological and vegetation data allows for successful regional-scale applications. Fully mechanistic approaches that model LFMC from plant water status using ecophysiological knowledge yield more accurate predictions. However, when reliable plant traits are lacking, semimechanistic approaches based on empirical equations offer a robust alternative. Overall, addressing the sources of uncertainty highlighted here could pave the way for developing operational tools to forecast near-term wildfire danger through process-based modeling of LFMC dynamics.
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.