4.8 Article

A pan-tropical cascade of fire driven by El Nino/Southern Oscillation

期刊

NATURE CLIMATE CHANGE
卷 7, 期 12, 页码 906-+

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/s41558-017-0014-8

关键词

-

资金

  1. Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation [GBMF3269]
  2. NASA's Terrestrial Hydrology, Interdisciplinary Science and Carbon Monitoring System programs
  3. NASA's Interdisciplinary Science and Carbon Monitoring System Programs
  4. European Research Center [280061]
  5. European Research Council (ERC) [280061] Funding Source: European Research Council (ERC)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The El Nino/Southern Oscillation (ENSO) has a pronounced influence on year-to-year variations in climate(1). The response of fires to this forcing(2) is complex and has not been evaluated systematically across different continents. Here we use satellite data to create a climatology of burned-area and fire-emissions responses, drawing on six El Nino and six La Nina events during 1997-2016. On average, reductions in precipitation and terrestrial water storage increased fire emissions in pan-tropical forests by 133% during and following El Nino as compared with La Nina. Fires peaked in equatorial Asia early in the ENSO cycle when El Nino was strengthening (Aug-Oct), before moving to southeast Asia and northern South America (Jan-Apr), Central America (Mar-May) and the southern Amazon (Jul-Oct) during the following year. Large decreases in fire occurred across northern Australia during Sep-Oct of the second year from a reduced fuel availability. Satellite observations of aerosols and carbon monoxide provided independent confirmation of the spatiotemporal evolution of fire anomalies. The predictable cascade of fire across different tropical continents described here highlights an important time delay in the Earth system's response to precipitation redistribution. These observations help to explain why the growth rate of atmospheric CO2 increases during El Nino(3) and may contribute to improved seasonal fire forecasts.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据