Is Anthropogenic Pyrodiversity Invisible in Paleofire Records?
Is Anthropogenic Pyrodiversity Invisible in Paleofire Records?
复制标题
人为火法多样性在古火记录中是看不见的吗？
作者：
Christopher I. Roos;G. Williamson;D. Bowman
古火研究经常忽略人类活动对过去火种的影响。在全球范围内，我们知道人为燃烧制度的一个常见模式是高频率地燃烧许多小块土地，从而产生景观异质性。由于这些记录的基本局限性，这种人为的热多样性是否必然在古火记录中被掩盖？我们用一个元胞自动机模型来评估这一点，该模型旨在复制不同的火灾制度，具有相同的火灾旋转，但不同的火灾频率和斑块。我们的研究结果表明，在相对适度的采样强度下，树木年轮记录中可以识别出高频斑块燃烧。然而，标准的方法过滤掉了由少数树木代表的火灾，系统地使记录偏向于斑块燃烧。在模拟的火灾状态变化中，衰落记录、样本量和变化的火灾状态之间的对比都相互作用，使得在没有其他信息的情况下，对状态变化的统计识别具有挑战性。最近的研究表明，将历史、考古学或人类学的信息与古火数据相结合，可以得出与文化变化相关的人为斑块燃烧和火种制度变化的最可靠推断。
Paleofire studies frequently discount the impact of human activities in past fire regimes. Globally, we know that a common pattern of anthropogenic burning regimes is to burn many small patches at high frequency, thereby generating landscape heterogeneity. Is this type of anthropogenic pyrodiversity necessarily obscured in paleofire records because of fundamental limitations of those records? We evaluate this with a cellular automata model designed to replicate different fire regimes with identical fire rotations but different fire frequencies and patchiness. Our results indicate that high frequency patch burning can be identified in tree-ring records at relatively modest sampling intensities. However, standard methods that filter out fires represented by few trees systematically biases the records against patch burning. In simulated fire regime shifts, fading records, sample size, and the contrast between the shifted fire regimes all interact to make statistical identification of regime shifts challenging without other information. Recent studies indicate that integration of information from history, archaeology, or anthropology and paleofire data generate the most reliable inferences of anthropogenic patch burning and fire regime changes associated with cultural changes.
生活在易燃星球上：跨学科、跨尺度和多样化的文化教训、前景和挑战
DOI：
10.1098/rstb.2015.0469
发表时间：
2016
期刊：
Biological Sciences
影响因子：
--
作者：
Roos C
通讯作者：
Roos C