ArticleScience advances2026
Near-term, geospatial opportunity for biomass carbon storage to address the wildfire and climate crises.
Article in Science advances, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Climate change and fire suppression are intensifying wildfires, prompting fuel reduction treatments that will generate gigatonnes of waste biomass residues in the near term. We evaluate the potential for anoxic biomass burial to serve as a scalable approach to offtake these residues while simultaneously providing durable carbon storage. Using geospatial water balance modeling across the western United States, we find that minimum soil cover thickness varies over four orders of magnitude, reflecting strong site dependence. Life cycle emissions modeling indicates that burial is more carbon efficient than decomposition, pile burning, or biochar production. Although bioenergy with carbon capture and storage ultimately yields greater carbon benefits, infrastructure requirements and economic analysis indicate that burial is a more immediate, cost-effective option. Burial could thus provide a scalable, carbon-efficient bridge, pending further study of decay and storage controls. Combining biomass carbon removal and storage with wildfire mitigation forestry illustrates the opportunity to leverage shared underlying goals for net climate and economic benefit.
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.