Effects of Land Cover Changes on Net Primary Productivity in the Terrestrial Ecosystems of China from 2001 to 2012
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The 2001–2012 MODIS MCD12Q1 land cover data and MOD17A3 NPP data were used to calculate changes in land cover in China and annual changes in net primary productivity (NPP) during a 12-year period and to quantitatively analyze the effects of land cover change on the NPP of China’s terrestrial ecosystems. The results revealed that during the study period, no changes in land cover type occurred in 7447.31 thousand km2 of China, while the area of vegetation cover increased by 160.97 thousand km2 in the rest of the country. Forest cover increased to 20.91%, which was mainly due to the conversion of large areas of savanna (345.19 thousand km2) and cropland (178.96 thousand km2) to forest. During the 12-year study period, the annual mean NPP of China was 2.70 PgC and increased by 0.25 PgC, from 2.50 to 2.75 PgC. Of this change, 0.21 PgC occurred in areas where there was no land cover change, while 0.04 PgC occurred in areas where there was land cover change. The contributions of forest and cropland to NPP exhibited increasing trends, while the contributions of shrubland and grassland to NPP decreased. Among these land cover types, the contributions of forest and cropland to the national NPP were the greatest, accounting for 40.97% and 27.95%, respectively, of the annual total NPP. There was no significant correlation between changes in forest area and changes in total annual NPP (R2 < 0.1), while the correlation coefficient for changes in cropland area and total annual NPP was 0.48. Additionally, the area of cropland converted to other land cover types was negatively correlated with the changes in NPP, and the loss of cropland caused a reduction in the national NPP.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".