the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Dynamic savanna burning emission factors based on satellite data using a machine learning approach
Abstract. Landscape fires, predominantly in the frequently burning global savannas, are a substantial source of greenhouse gases and aerosols. The impact of these fires on atmospheric composition is partially determined by the chemical breakup of the elements in the fuel into individual emitted chemical species, which is described by emission factors (EFs). These EFs are known to be dependent on, amongst others, the type of fuel consumed, the moisture content of that fuel and the meteorological conditions during the fire, indicating that savanna EFs are temporally and spatially dynamic. Global emission inventories, however, rely on static biome-averaged EFs which makes them ill-suited for the estimation of regional biomass burning (BB) emissions and for capturing the effects of shifts in fire regimes. In this study we explore the main drivers of EF-variability within the savanna biome and assess which geospatial proxies can be used to estimate dynamic EFs for global models. We collected over 4500 EF bag measurements of CO2, CO, CH4 and N2O using an unmanned aerial system (UAS), and measured fuel parameters and fire severity proxies during 129 individual fires. The measurements cover a variety of savanna ecosystems under different seasonal conditions, sampled over the course of six fire seasons between 2017 and 2022. We complemented our own data with EFs from 85 fires with known locations and dates listed in the literature. Based on the locations, dates and time of the fires we retrieved a variety of fuel-, weather- and fire severity proxies (i.e. possible predictors) using globally available satellite and reanalysis data. We then trained random forest (RF) regressors to estimate dynamic EFs for CO2, CO, CH4 and N2O and calculated the spatiotemporal impact on BB emissions over the 2002–2016 period using the Global Fire Emissions Database version 4 with small fires (GFED4s). We found that the most important field indicators for the EFs of CO2, CO and CH4 were tree cover density, fuel moisture content and the grass to litter ratio. The grass to litter ratio and the nitrogen to carbon ratio were important indicators for N2O EFs. RF models using satellite observations performed well for the prediction of EF variability in the measured fires with out-of-sample correlation coefficients between 0.80 and 0.99, reducing the error in EF estimates by 60–85 % compared to static biome averages. Using dynamic EFs, global savanna emission estimates for 2002–2016 were 1.8 % higher for CO while CH4 and N2O emissions were respectively 5 % and 18 % lower compared to GFED4s. On a regional scale we found a spatial redistribution compared to GFED4s with higher CO, CH4 and N2O EFs in mesic regions and lower ones in xeric regions. Seasonal drying resulted in a decrease of the EFs of these species with the fire season progressing, with a stronger trend in open savannas than woodlands. Contrary to the minor impact on annual savanna average emissions, the model predicts localized reductions in EFs of CO, CH4 and N2O exceeding 60 % under seasonal conditions.
-
Notice on discussion status
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
-
Preprint
(7208 KB)
-
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(7208 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
- Final revised paper
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
CC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-267', Paul Laris, 19 Apr 2023
Great work. I have enjoyed following this project. Drones seem the ideal way to determine how emissions vary from savanna fires given the heterogeneity of landscapes and fires. I have several thoughts and a few critical comments on the findings and methods.
Can you clarify that these fires were all "head" fires as opposed to backfires? And, if so, can you comment on why the following dimensions are adequate? We question wether 10m is wide enough for head fires to fully develop. This width is fine for backfires. Also, if only head fires were examined, can you justify given that many fires are purposefully set as backfires in Africa. Headfires have long been used in research on African fires, yet research finds more backfires are set.
You do not appear to have published local or ground data on weather conditions. While T and H can be collected from regional weather stations, wind speed is critical to determining fire intensity and will influence MCE as well. Do you have wind data, it would seem critical for accurate fire intensity and MCE results.
I wonder about this comment: "
The grasslands with the highest EFs (found in high-rainfall savanna Dambos) were "uncharacteristically green for the time of the season" given that many fires are set to "green" grasses in African savannas, especially the perennials (See Le Page who documented this back in 2010 as well as many West African case studies).
I think Laris et al found very similar results to: "The strongest predictors for the MCE and the CO and CH4 EF were the tree density in the plots, the grass to litter ratio, the combustion completeness and the moisture content of the consumed fuel. It might be useful to compare and to consider the hypothesis that burning of green leaves on shrubs and trees vs. dried leaves on the ground may explain why EF CH4 is not linerally related to MCE. This reasoning may also explain the following finding, "For CO and CH4, the dominant effect is a spatial redistribution with higher CO and CH4 EFs in mesic, high-tree cover savannas and lower EFs in xeric savannas compared to previous estimates. The Higher CH4 EF in mesic may well be a function of leaf burning. This is logical given the findings from Senegal research by Barker finding burning trees emitted smoke with the highest methane EF.
This needs further explanation: "Although CO and CH4 followed the same spatial pattern, we found that MCE affected the CH4 which resulted in lower CH4 to MCE ratios in open (lower tree density?) savannas…. Do you mean higher CH4/MCE in wooded savannas as compared to grass-dominated ones? What is “open”? Clarify. Again, see works in Mali and Senegal which agree with this finding.
Not sure I agree with this logic: "Contrary to previous research which indicated that dryer conditions in the LDS would lead to higher-MCE fires late-LDS conditions (Fig. 3). In part, this may be because our measurement campaigns missed the peak-season fires when the fires may be hotter..." Winds are the critical factor here. When do they peak in areas studied. High winds (especially if fires studied are head fires) result in higher intensity regardless of fuel moisture. Laris also found lower MCE in LDS due to leaf litter in the fuel load and lighter winds with much higher winds in MDS for the region studied. Note that these factors are key reasons why binary (LDS/EDS) is problematic for determining emissions.
Again, see research in Mali and Senegal which support this finding: In accordance with previous studies (e.g. Korontzi et al., 2003b; van Leeuwen and van der Werf, 2011), we found steeper CH4 EF to MCE regression slopes in woodlands compared to grasslands.
Comments
Figure 3. What is “typical savanna” there is no such thing.
Also, use more specific terminology, what is "open"?
This and other data rely on 500 x 500 MODIS is this relevant given efforts to burn patchy EDS fires which operate at a hectare level scale? Can you justify using 500m data for the following? For fire severity proxies we used the differential Normalized Burn Ratio (dNBR) and 5 the differential Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (dNDVI) retrieved before and after the fire. These were based on the MODIS surface spectral reflectance, corrected for atmospheric conditions (MOD09GAV6; Vermote
Respectfully submitted
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-267-CC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on CC1', Roland Vernooij, 20 Jun 2023
We sincerely thank Paul Laris for taking the time and effort to read and comment on our manuscript, and the detailed and constructive comments both on this platform and in earlier conversations, which helped to improve the quality of this paper. Please find below our point-to-point response to the review. The revised text and updated figures are included in the updated manuscript. A separate ‘track-changes’ document is included to highlight the changes we made to the manuscript.
-
AC1: 'Reply on CC1', Roland Vernooij, 20 Jun 2023
-
RC1: 'Referee report on egusphere-2023-267', Robert Yokelson, 20 Apr 2023
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC1', Roland Vernooij, 20 Jun 2023
We sincerely appreciate the considerable time and effort spent in assessing our manuscript, and the detailed and constructive comments which helped to improve the quality of this paper. Please find below our point-to-point response to the review. The revised text and updated figures are included in the updated manuscript. A separate ‘track-changes’ document is included to highlight the changes to the manuscript. Additional explanatory figures which we refer to in the answers are added to the bottom of this document.
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC1', Roland Vernooij, 20 Jun 2023
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-267', Anonymous Referee #2, 27 Apr 2023
This study collected a large dataset of savanna emission factors (EFs), including over 4500 EF bag measurements of CO2, CO, CH4 and N20 during 129 individual fires from 2017 to 2022. Based on this in-situ observations, the authors identified the drivers of EF variability and implemented this variability into global models through dynamic EFs. The optimized machine learning reduced the error in EF estimates by 60-85% compared to static biome averages. They also found seasonal drying resulted in a decrease of the EFs with the fire season progressing, with a stronger trend in open savannas than woodlands. Overall, this is an important study to understand the variability and mechanisms for biome-specific carbon emissions, particularly at the spatial scales. The generated global EF products can be used to better estimate fire-induced greenhouse gas emissions. However, I do have some concerns on the methodology parts, which may need to be addressed before publication.
1). Biomass burning EFs are highly dynamic both at the spatial and temporal scales for a given fire. For example, EFs may differ a lot as the fire spreads across different vegetation covers and terrain/moisture gradients at the local scale. How well did the collected EF bag measurements represent the total or averaged EFs for each selected fire? Is there a consistent spatial-temporal framework to integrate the concrete EF measurements to reflect the total EFs for all involved fires? Such processing details need to be provided for better understanding the uncertainty of “in-situ” measurement itself.
2). How did the fire induced EFs match the possible drivers at the spatial scale? Are they overlayed by the actual size of each fire, or just at the grid size of 0.25 degree? The latter may introduce large uncertainties.
3). The authors tested a series of machine learning methods and concluded that random forest performed best. Such a part may need data support. Past experiences suggest that the gradient boost MLs such as lightGBM and Xgboost tend to be better than random forest.
4). To predict BB EFs, the authors included a series of factors for each group driver (seen in Table 2). However, it seems that some of them are highly correlated, e.g., NDVI VS LAI VS FPAR, VPD VS evaporative stress index VS Relative humidity. The rationale for including these redundant factors may need to be clarified. In addition, given the potential uncertainty in remote sensing and reanalysis data, it may not be wise to include all predictors without doing a feature selection. One way to include a specific driver or not is to compare its effect with a randomly generated variable. If its effect is equal or worse than the random variable, it may not be included in the final training.
5). Satellite data over tropical regions usually suffers from the contamination of clouds. When deriving the global EFs, how the authors gap-filled relevant remote sensing data is not clear.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-267-RC2 -
AC3: 'Reply on RC2', Roland Vernooij, 20 Jun 2023
We sincerely thank the reviewer for the time and effort in assessing our manuscript, and the constructive comments which helped to improve the quality of this paper. Please find below our point-to-point response to the review. The revised text and updated figures are included in the updated manuscript. A separate ‘track-changes’ document is included to highlight the changes to the manuscript. Tables and figures referred to in the answers are added at the bottom of this document.
-
AC3: 'Reply on RC2', Roland Vernooij, 20 Jun 2023
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
CC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-267', Paul Laris, 19 Apr 2023
Great work. I have enjoyed following this project. Drones seem the ideal way to determine how emissions vary from savanna fires given the heterogeneity of landscapes and fires. I have several thoughts and a few critical comments on the findings and methods.
Can you clarify that these fires were all "head" fires as opposed to backfires? And, if so, can you comment on why the following dimensions are adequate? We question wether 10m is wide enough for head fires to fully develop. This width is fine for backfires. Also, if only head fires were examined, can you justify given that many fires are purposefully set as backfires in Africa. Headfires have long been used in research on African fires, yet research finds more backfires are set.
You do not appear to have published local or ground data on weather conditions. While T and H can be collected from regional weather stations, wind speed is critical to determining fire intensity and will influence MCE as well. Do you have wind data, it would seem critical for accurate fire intensity and MCE results.
I wonder about this comment: "
The grasslands with the highest EFs (found in high-rainfall savanna Dambos) were "uncharacteristically green for the time of the season" given that many fires are set to "green" grasses in African savannas, especially the perennials (See Le Page who documented this back in 2010 as well as many West African case studies).
I think Laris et al found very similar results to: "The strongest predictors for the MCE and the CO and CH4 EF were the tree density in the plots, the grass to litter ratio, the combustion completeness and the moisture content of the consumed fuel. It might be useful to compare and to consider the hypothesis that burning of green leaves on shrubs and trees vs. dried leaves on the ground may explain why EF CH4 is not linerally related to MCE. This reasoning may also explain the following finding, "For CO and CH4, the dominant effect is a spatial redistribution with higher CO and CH4 EFs in mesic, high-tree cover savannas and lower EFs in xeric savannas compared to previous estimates. The Higher CH4 EF in mesic may well be a function of leaf burning. This is logical given the findings from Senegal research by Barker finding burning trees emitted smoke with the highest methane EF.
This needs further explanation: "Although CO and CH4 followed the same spatial pattern, we found that MCE affected the CH4 which resulted in lower CH4 to MCE ratios in open (lower tree density?) savannas…. Do you mean higher CH4/MCE in wooded savannas as compared to grass-dominated ones? What is “open”? Clarify. Again, see works in Mali and Senegal which agree with this finding.
Not sure I agree with this logic: "Contrary to previous research which indicated that dryer conditions in the LDS would lead to higher-MCE fires late-LDS conditions (Fig. 3). In part, this may be because our measurement campaigns missed the peak-season fires when the fires may be hotter..." Winds are the critical factor here. When do they peak in areas studied. High winds (especially if fires studied are head fires) result in higher intensity regardless of fuel moisture. Laris also found lower MCE in LDS due to leaf litter in the fuel load and lighter winds with much higher winds in MDS for the region studied. Note that these factors are key reasons why binary (LDS/EDS) is problematic for determining emissions.
Again, see research in Mali and Senegal which support this finding: In accordance with previous studies (e.g. Korontzi et al., 2003b; van Leeuwen and van der Werf, 2011), we found steeper CH4 EF to MCE regression slopes in woodlands compared to grasslands.
Comments
Figure 3. What is “typical savanna” there is no such thing.
Also, use more specific terminology, what is "open"?
This and other data rely on 500 x 500 MODIS is this relevant given efforts to burn patchy EDS fires which operate at a hectare level scale? Can you justify using 500m data for the following? For fire severity proxies we used the differential Normalized Burn Ratio (dNBR) and 5 the differential Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (dNDVI) retrieved before and after the fire. These were based on the MODIS surface spectral reflectance, corrected for atmospheric conditions (MOD09GAV6; Vermote
Respectfully submitted
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-267-CC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on CC1', Roland Vernooij, 20 Jun 2023
We sincerely thank Paul Laris for taking the time and effort to read and comment on our manuscript, and the detailed and constructive comments both on this platform and in earlier conversations, which helped to improve the quality of this paper. Please find below our point-to-point response to the review. The revised text and updated figures are included in the updated manuscript. A separate ‘track-changes’ document is included to highlight the changes we made to the manuscript.
-
AC1: 'Reply on CC1', Roland Vernooij, 20 Jun 2023
-
RC1: 'Referee report on egusphere-2023-267', Robert Yokelson, 20 Apr 2023
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC1', Roland Vernooij, 20 Jun 2023
We sincerely appreciate the considerable time and effort spent in assessing our manuscript, and the detailed and constructive comments which helped to improve the quality of this paper. Please find below our point-to-point response to the review. The revised text and updated figures are included in the updated manuscript. A separate ‘track-changes’ document is included to highlight the changes to the manuscript. Additional explanatory figures which we refer to in the answers are added to the bottom of this document.
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC1', Roland Vernooij, 20 Jun 2023
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-267', Anonymous Referee #2, 27 Apr 2023
This study collected a large dataset of savanna emission factors (EFs), including over 4500 EF bag measurements of CO2, CO, CH4 and N20 during 129 individual fires from 2017 to 2022. Based on this in-situ observations, the authors identified the drivers of EF variability and implemented this variability into global models through dynamic EFs. The optimized machine learning reduced the error in EF estimates by 60-85% compared to static biome averages. They also found seasonal drying resulted in a decrease of the EFs with the fire season progressing, with a stronger trend in open savannas than woodlands. Overall, this is an important study to understand the variability and mechanisms for biome-specific carbon emissions, particularly at the spatial scales. The generated global EF products can be used to better estimate fire-induced greenhouse gas emissions. However, I do have some concerns on the methodology parts, which may need to be addressed before publication.
1). Biomass burning EFs are highly dynamic both at the spatial and temporal scales for a given fire. For example, EFs may differ a lot as the fire spreads across different vegetation covers and terrain/moisture gradients at the local scale. How well did the collected EF bag measurements represent the total or averaged EFs for each selected fire? Is there a consistent spatial-temporal framework to integrate the concrete EF measurements to reflect the total EFs for all involved fires? Such processing details need to be provided for better understanding the uncertainty of “in-situ” measurement itself.
2). How did the fire induced EFs match the possible drivers at the spatial scale? Are they overlayed by the actual size of each fire, or just at the grid size of 0.25 degree? The latter may introduce large uncertainties.
3). The authors tested a series of machine learning methods and concluded that random forest performed best. Such a part may need data support. Past experiences suggest that the gradient boost MLs such as lightGBM and Xgboost tend to be better than random forest.
4). To predict BB EFs, the authors included a series of factors for each group driver (seen in Table 2). However, it seems that some of them are highly correlated, e.g., NDVI VS LAI VS FPAR, VPD VS evaporative stress index VS Relative humidity. The rationale for including these redundant factors may need to be clarified. In addition, given the potential uncertainty in remote sensing and reanalysis data, it may not be wise to include all predictors without doing a feature selection. One way to include a specific driver or not is to compare its effect with a randomly generated variable. If its effect is equal or worse than the random variable, it may not be included in the final training.
5). Satellite data over tropical regions usually suffers from the contamination of clouds. When deriving the global EFs, how the authors gap-filled relevant remote sensing data is not clear.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-267-RC2 -
AC3: 'Reply on RC2', Roland Vernooij, 20 Jun 2023
We sincerely thank the reviewer for the time and effort in assessing our manuscript, and the constructive comments which helped to improve the quality of this paper. Please find below our point-to-point response to the review. The revised text and updated figures are included in the updated manuscript. A separate ‘track-changes’ document is included to highlight the changes to the manuscript. Tables and figures referred to in the answers are added at the bottom of this document.
-
AC3: 'Reply on RC2', Roland Vernooij, 20 Jun 2023
Peer review completion
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Data sets
Measurements of savanna landscap fire emission factors for CO2, CO, CH4 and N2O using a UAV-based sampling methodology Roland Vernooij https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7689032
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
365 | 154 | 27 | 546 | 11 | 10 |
- HTML: 365
- PDF: 154
- XML: 27
- Total: 546
- BibTeX: 11
- EndNote: 10
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1
Tom Eames
Jeremy Russel-Smith
Cameron Yates
Robin Beatty
Jay Evans
Andrew Edwards
Natasha Ribeiro
Martin Wooster
Tercia Strydom
Marcos Giongo
Marco Borges
Máximo Menezes
Carol Barradas
Dave van Wees
Guido van der Werf
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(7208 KB) - Metadata XML