Estimating Aboveground Carbon Dynamic of China Using Optical and Microwave Remote-Sensing Datasets from 2013 to 2019
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Over the past 2 to 3 decades, Chinese forests are estimated to act as a large carbon sink, yet the magnitude and spatial patterns of this sink differ considerably among studies. Using 3 microwave (L- and X-band vegetation optical depth [VOD]) and 3 optical (normalized difference vegetation index, leaf area index, and tree cover) remote-sensing vegetation products, this study compared the estimated live woody aboveground biomass carbon (AGC) dynamics over China between 2013 and 2019. Our results showed that tree cover has the highest spatial consistency with 3 published AGC maps (mean correlation value R = 0.84), followed by L-VOD ( R = 0.83), which outperform the other VODs. An AGC estimation model was proposed to combine all indices to estimate the annual AGC dynamics in China during 2013 to 2019. The performance of the AGC estimation model was good (root mean square error = 0.05 Pg C and R 2 = 0.90 with a mean relative uncertainty of 9.8% at pixel scale [0.25°]). Results of the AGC estimation model showed that carbon uptake by the forests in China was about +0.17 Pg C year −1 from 2013 to 2019. At the regional level, provinces in southwest China including Guizhou (+22.35 Tg C year −1 ), Sichuan (+14.49 Tg C year −1 ), and Hunan (+11.42 Tg C year −1 ) provinces had the highest carbon sink rates during 2013 to 2019. Most of the carbon-sink regions have been afforested recently, implying that afforestation and ecological engineering projects have been effective means for carbon sequestration in these regions.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".