MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4220667254 · doi:10.5194/egusphere-egu22-7392

Emerging trends in global forest above-ground biomass derived from a decadal time record of high-resolution satellite observations

2022· preprint· en· W4220667254 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Maurizio Santoro

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRemote Sensing and LiDAR Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVegetation (pathology)Remote sensingEnvironmental scienceSatelliteBiomass (ecology)Carbon cycleEarth observationRange (aeronautics)Atmospheric sciencesGeographyEcologyEcosystemGeologyOceanographyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Characterization and quantification of terrestrial global carbon stocks increasingly integrates spaceborne remote sensing data. The wide range of multi-decadal time series of temporally consistent observations is key to understanding global processes related to terrestrial vegetation. As the organic mass stored in vegetation cannot be sensed, uncertainties in estimates of carbon stocks from remote sensing data can only be reduced by complementing multiple observations. This aspect is even more crucial given the weak sensitivity of the signals acquired by most systems in space to vegetation structural parameters. High-resolution observations, in addition, better allow natural events (e.g., fires) or processes (e.g., forest dieback) or human activities (e.g., shifting cultivation) to be identified, which in turn, improves understanding and explanations of vegetation carbon dynamics. Time series of above-ground biomass (AGB, live) maps by the European Space Agency (ESA) Climate Change Initiative (CCI) Biomass for the years 2010, 2017, 2018 and 2020 were obtained from a combination of freely available high-resolution C- and L-band radar, laser and optical satellite observations. The pixel size of the maps was set at 100 m as a compromise between preserving spatial detail and reducing observational noise. The non-uniform temporal spacing of the mapping was selected to provide a first assessment of short- and long-term AGB dynamics. Independent assessment based on in situ plots distributed across the major forest biomes and LiDAR-derived maps of AGB indicated a reliable representation of forest AGB levels globally. This first version of the CCI Biomass maps is therefore sufficiently reliable for identifying areas of changes that impact on the terrestrial carbon cycle. On the contrary, the presence of local biases and a 30-40% uncertainty relative to the estimated value do not allow for an estimate of AGB dynamics at the level of individual pixels. Such errors can be attributed to data quality or approximations in the models relating AGB to the remote sensing data. Coupling biomass and land cover CCI data products revealed that, between 2010 and 2020, the terrestrial AGB pool in forests fluctuated between 550 Pg and 560 Pg while the global forest area increased by 1%. AGB changes were particularly evident in areas associated with persistent forest land, with areas such as western Canada and northeast Europe losing biomass whilst others (e.g., central and southeast Asia) experienced net gains. Differentiation between natural and plantation forests was not achieved and so the relative contribution of losses and gains associated with each was not able to be discerned. Conversion of forest to cropland and grassland resulted in a loss of approximately 0.8 Pg of AGB whilst conversion of these non-forest landscapes to forest increased the global AGB pool by 0.2 Pg. This presentation will review these emerging trends and give a perspective on the future suite of ESA CCI Biomass data products, which foresee a more regular temporal sampling, an extended time interval, and the inclusion of a wider range of recent satellite observations (e.g., by spaceborne LiDAR) and satellite data products with improved radiometric quality.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.238 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicRemote Sensing and LiDAR Applications→French-language works237,207→