the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
The newly developed Multi-ensemble Biomass-burning Emissions Inventory (MBEI): Characterizing and unraveling spatiotemporal uncertainty in global biomass burning emissions
Abstract. Against the backdrop of global climate change, the spatiotemporal patterns of biomass burning are undergoing significant changes. However, large discrepancies among different emission inventories hinder a consensus on the true magnitude and long-term trends of global emissions. This study constructs a framework for estimating biomass burning emissions by integrating bottom-up and top-down approaches with various combinations of multi-source data inputs, resulting in the development of the Multi-ensemble Biomass-burning Emissions Inventory (MBEI). Leveraging this framework, we develop the MBEI global emission dataset covering the period 2003–2023, which comprises eight sub-inventories and provides emission estimates for 11 representative greenhouse gases, aerosols, and atmospheric pollutants, including CO2, PM2.5, BC, NO2, and others. A unique feature of MBEI is its ability to quantify the uncertainty in biomass burning emission estimates across various spatial scales, achieved by calculating the average emissions and their Max-Min band at a 0.1° grid scale from these sub-inventories. The analysis reveals that the global annual CO2 emissions from biomass burning are approximately 7304 (4400–9657) Tg, with the maximum value being more than double the minimum. Furthermore, the uncertainty in global biomass burning emissions exhibits significant spatial heterogeneity: in low-emission regions such as Australia and the Middle East, the ratio of maximum to minimum emission estimates can reach 6–7 fold, whereas in traditional hotspots like Africa and South America, this ratio is lower, around 1.9 fold. In terms of temporal trends, global emissions showed a decreasing trend from 2003 to 2013, primarily driven by a reduction in burning activities in tropical regions. This trend, however, reversed to an increase from 2013 to 2023, with the primary drivers being intensified burning in northern high-latitude regions and the frequent occurrence of extreme events. Finally, a comparison with existing inventories confirms the reliability of the MBEI dataset. At both global and regional scales, the average of our inventory is centrally positioned among other inventory estimates in most years, offering a more robust central estimate for assessing biomass burning emission intensity during extreme event years. Moreover, its maximum-minimum range encompasses the estimates of other inventories across most regions and time periods. This capability to characterize uncertainty enables the integration of the new datasets MBEI into analytical frameworks, such as atmospheric chemistry models and exposure risk assessments, thereby enhancing the reliability of global biomass burning dynamics analyses and the robustness of the conclusions. The Multi-ensemble Biomass-burning Emissions Inventory (MBEI) dataset is publicly available at https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17128279 (Liu and Yin, 2023).
- Preprint
(2898 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(5369 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 11 Dec 2025)
- RC1: 'Comment on essd-2025-588', Anonymous Referee #1, 13 Nov 2025 reply
-
RC2: 'Comment on essd-2025-588', Anonymous Referee #2, 09 Dec 2025
reply
The research entitled " The newly developed Multi-ensemble Biomass-burning Emissions Inventory (MBEI): Characterizing and unraveling spatiotemporal uncertainty in global biomass burning emissions" develops the Multi-ensemble Biomass-burning Emissions Inventory (MBEI), a global emission dataset for 2003–2023, by integrating multi-source data and bottom-up/top-down approaches. It quantifies spatiotemporal uncertainty and reveals heterogeneous emission trends, providing a robust framework for atmospheric and climate analyses. The article is well-written and demonstrates strong logical coherence. However, a few points need to be addressed.
- How were the considerations addressed for the selection of multi-source data in this study? Specifically, as shown in Table 1, the temporal resolutions of the listed data sources vary significantly. How were annual-average data interpolated into monthly-average values?
- Section 2.2 provides detailed descriptions of the bottom-up and top-down approaches. However, the explanation of the integrated approach employed in this study remains insufficiently clear. Please provide further clarification.
- As noted by the authors, significant discrepancies exist among different emission inventories. In integrating the bottom-up and top-down approaches in this study, how were the inherent differences between these two methodologies accounted for? Could these uncertainties propagate into the integrated results and consequently affect the accuracy of MBEI?
- A detailed explanation should be provided on how the uncertainty in global biomass burning emissions is quantified.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2025-588-RC2
Data sets
Multi-ensemble Biomass-burning Emissions Inventory (MBEI)_v1.1 Xinlu Liu and Shuai Yin https://zenodo.org/records/17128279
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 302 | 43 | 20 | 365 | 48 | 25 | 35 |
- HTML: 302
- PDF: 43
- XML: 20
- Total: 365
- Supplement: 48
- BibTeX: 25
- EndNote: 35
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
This study presents a new framework (MBEI) that integrates top-down and bottom-up algorithms by combining two fire-detection products with four sets of key input variables, yielding eight distinct sub-inventories of biomass-burning emissions. Compared to existing inventories, these new datasets uniquely provide the maximum–minimum range of all eight sub-inventories, thereby quantifying estimation uncertainty. This rich information allows data users to directly incorporate sensitivity analyses into their own studies and thus provides critical support for exploring complex global biomass-burning dynamics. The paper is well written and offers new insight into biomass-burning research. However, a few points need to be addressed. Therefore, I recommend that the manuscript be accepted for publication after a revision.
Major concerns:
Minor comments: