“巨火”——你可能不喜欢它,但你无法避免它

IF 6.3 1区 环境科学与生态学 Q1 ECOLOGY
Grant D. Linley, Chris J. Jolly, Tim S. Doherty, William L. Geary, Dolors Armenteras, Claire M. Belcher, Rebecca Bliege Bird, Andrea Duane, Michael-Shawn Fletcher, Melisa A. Giorgis, Angie Haslem, Gavin M. Jones, Luke T. Kelly, Calvin K. F. Lee, Rachael H. Nolan, Catherine L. Parr, Juli G. Pausas, Jodi N. Price, Adrián Regos, Euan G. Ritchie, Julien Ruffault, Grant J. Williamson, Qianhan Wu, Dale G. Nimmo
{"title":"“巨火”——你可能不喜欢它,但你无法避免它","authors":"Grant D. Linley,&nbsp;Chris J. Jolly,&nbsp;Tim S. Doherty,&nbsp;William L. Geary,&nbsp;Dolors Armenteras,&nbsp;Claire M. Belcher,&nbsp;Rebecca Bliege Bird,&nbsp;Andrea Duane,&nbsp;Michael-Shawn Fletcher,&nbsp;Melisa A. Giorgis,&nbsp;Angie Haslem,&nbsp;Gavin M. Jones,&nbsp;Luke T. Kelly,&nbsp;Calvin K. F. Lee,&nbsp;Rachael H. Nolan,&nbsp;Catherine L. Parr,&nbsp;Juli G. Pausas,&nbsp;Jodi N. Price,&nbsp;Adrián Regos,&nbsp;Euan G. Ritchie,&nbsp;Julien Ruffault,&nbsp;Grant J. Williamson,&nbsp;Qianhan Wu,&nbsp;Dale G. Nimmo","doi":"10.1111/geb.70032","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Aim</h3>\n \n <p>The term ‘megafire’ is increasingly used to describe large fires worldwide. We proposed a size-based definition of megafire—fires exceeding 10,000 ha arising from single or multiple related ignition events. A recent perspective in <i>Global Ecology and Biogeography</i> argues against a size-based definition of megafire and suggest that the term is too emotive for scientific use. We highlight that many scientific terms originate from common terms. These terms are often defined once they enter the scientific lexicon, enhancing both scientific understanding and public communication. We argue that standardised definitions facilitate better prediction, preparation, and management of fire events.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Location</h3>\n \n <p>Worldwide.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Time Period</h3>\n \n <p>2022–2023.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>We conducted an updated structured review of the term ‘megafire’ and its use and definition in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, collating definitions and descriptions and identifying the criteria frequently invoked to define the term.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>We demonstrate an increase in the use of ‘megafire’ in the scientific literature since our original definition in 2022, with many studies adopting the &gt; 10,000 ha size-based criterion.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Main Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>We contend that abandoning the term is neither practical, possible, nor beneficial. Instead, consistent usage underpinned by clear definitions is essential. Adopting a clear, size-based definition of megafire strengthens clarity and comparability across research and management practices globally. Precision in terminology is crucial for advancing research, improving communication, and informing effective fire management and policy.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":176,"journal":{"name":"Global Ecology and Biogeography","volume":"34 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":6.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"‘Megafire’—You May Not Like It, But You Cannot Avoid It\",\"authors\":\"Grant D. Linley,&nbsp;Chris J. Jolly,&nbsp;Tim S. Doherty,&nbsp;William L. Geary,&nbsp;Dolors Armenteras,&nbsp;Claire M. Belcher,&nbsp;Rebecca Bliege Bird,&nbsp;Andrea Duane,&nbsp;Michael-Shawn Fletcher,&nbsp;Melisa A. Giorgis,&nbsp;Angie Haslem,&nbsp;Gavin M. Jones,&nbsp;Luke T. Kelly,&nbsp;Calvin K. F. Lee,&nbsp;Rachael H. Nolan,&nbsp;Catherine L. Parr,&nbsp;Juli G. Pausas,&nbsp;Jodi N. Price,&nbsp;Adrián Regos,&nbsp;Euan G. Ritchie,&nbsp;Julien Ruffault,&nbsp;Grant J. Williamson,&nbsp;Qianhan Wu,&nbsp;Dale G. Nimmo\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/geb.70032\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Aim</h3>\\n \\n <p>The term ‘megafire’ is increasingly used to describe large fires worldwide. We proposed a size-based definition of megafire—fires exceeding 10,000 ha arising from single or multiple related ignition events. A recent perspective in <i>Global Ecology and Biogeography</i> argues against a size-based definition of megafire and suggest that the term is too emotive for scientific use. We highlight that many scientific terms originate from common terms. These terms are often defined once they enter the scientific lexicon, enhancing both scientific understanding and public communication. We argue that standardised definitions facilitate better prediction, preparation, and management of fire events.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Location</h3>\\n \\n <p>Worldwide.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Time Period</h3>\\n \\n <p>2022–2023.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Methods</h3>\\n \\n <p>We conducted an updated structured review of the term ‘megafire’ and its use and definition in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, collating definitions and descriptions and identifying the criteria frequently invoked to define the term.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Results</h3>\\n \\n <p>We demonstrate an increase in the use of ‘megafire’ in the scientific literature since our original definition in 2022, with many studies adopting the &gt; 10,000 ha size-based criterion.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Main Conclusions</h3>\\n \\n <p>We contend that abandoning the term is neither practical, possible, nor beneficial. Instead, consistent usage underpinned by clear definitions is essential. Adopting a clear, size-based definition of megafire strengthens clarity and comparability across research and management practices globally. Precision in terminology is crucial for advancing research, improving communication, and informing effective fire management and policy.</p>\\n </section>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":176,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Global Ecology and Biogeography\",\"volume\":\"34 4\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":6.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Global Ecology and Biogeography\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"93\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/geb.70032\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"环境科学与生态学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ECOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Global Ecology and Biogeography","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/geb.70032","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

“特大火灾”一词越来越多地用于描述世界范围内的大型火灾。我们提出了一个基于规模的特大火灾的定义-由单个或多个相关的点火事件引起的超过10,000公顷的火灾。《全球生态学和生物地理学》最近发表的一篇文章反对以大小为基础的megafire定义,认为该术语过于情绪化,不适合科学使用。我们强调,许多科学术语起源于普通术语。这些术语一旦进入科学词典,通常就会被定义,从而加强科学理解和公众交流。我们认为,标准化的定义有助于更好地预测、准备和管理火灾事件。位置 全球。时间段2022-2023。方法我们对同行评议的科学文献中的术语“megafire”及其用法和定义进行了更新的结构化回顾,整理了定义和描述,并确定了经常用于定义该术语的标准。我们发现,自2022年我们最初的定义以来,科学文献中“megafire”的使用有所增加,许多研究采用了基于1万公顷大小的标准。我们认为,放弃这一术语既不实际,也不可能,也无益。相反,以明确定义为基础的一致用法是必不可少的。采用清晰的、基于大小的megafire定义加强了全球研究和管理实践的明确性和可比性。术语的精确对于推进研究、改善沟通以及为有效的火灾管理和政策提供信息至关重要。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
‘Megafire’—You May Not Like It, But You Cannot Avoid It

Aim

The term ‘megafire’ is increasingly used to describe large fires worldwide. We proposed a size-based definition of megafire—fires exceeding 10,000 ha arising from single or multiple related ignition events. A recent perspective in Global Ecology and Biogeography argues against a size-based definition of megafire and suggest that the term is too emotive for scientific use. We highlight that many scientific terms originate from common terms. These terms are often defined once they enter the scientific lexicon, enhancing both scientific understanding and public communication. We argue that standardised definitions facilitate better prediction, preparation, and management of fire events.

Location

Worldwide.

Time Period

2022–2023.

Methods

We conducted an updated structured review of the term ‘megafire’ and its use and definition in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, collating definitions and descriptions and identifying the criteria frequently invoked to define the term.

Results

We demonstrate an increase in the use of ‘megafire’ in the scientific literature since our original definition in 2022, with many studies adopting the > 10,000 ha size-based criterion.

Main Conclusions

We contend that abandoning the term is neither practical, possible, nor beneficial. Instead, consistent usage underpinned by clear definitions is essential. Adopting a clear, size-based definition of megafire strengthens clarity and comparability across research and management practices globally. Precision in terminology is crucial for advancing research, improving communication, and informing effective fire management and policy.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Global Ecology and Biogeography
Global Ecology and Biogeography 环境科学-生态学
CiteScore
12.10
自引率
3.10%
发文量
170
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: Global Ecology and Biogeography (GEB) welcomes papers that investigate broad-scale (in space, time and/or taxonomy), general patterns in the organization of ecological systems and assemblages, and the processes that underlie them. In particular, GEB welcomes studies that use macroecological methods, comparative analyses, meta-analyses, reviews, spatial analyses and modelling to arrive at general, conceptual conclusions. Studies in GEB need not be global in spatial extent, but the conclusions and implications of the study must be relevant to ecologists and biogeographers globally, rather than being limited to local areas, or specific taxa. Similarly, GEB is not limited to spatial studies; we are equally interested in the general patterns of nature through time, among taxa (e.g., body sizes, dispersal abilities), through the course of evolution, etc. Further, GEB welcomes papers that investigate general impacts of human activities on ecological systems in accordance with the above criteria.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信