Anthropogenic activities dominated tropical forest carbon balance in two contrary ways over the Greater Mekong Subregion in the 21st century
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The tropical forest carbon (C) balance threatened by extensive socio-economic development in the Greater Mekong Subregion (GMS) in Asia is a notable data gap and remains contentious. Here we generated a long-term spatially quantified assessment of changes in forests and C stocks from 1999 to 2019 at a spatial resolution of 30 m, based on multiple streams of state-of-the-art high-resolution satellite imagery and in situ observations. Our results show that (i) about 0.54 million square kilometers (21.0% of the region) experienced forest cover transitions with a net increase in forest cover by 4.3% (0.11 million square kilometers, equivalent to 0.31 petagram of C [Pg C] stocks); (ii) forest losses mainly in Cambodia, Thailand, and in the south of Vietnam, were also counteracted by forest gains in China due mainly to afforestation; and (iii) at the national level during the study period an increase in both C stocks and C sequestration (net C gain of 0.087 Pg C) in China from new plantation, offset anthropogenetic emissions (net C loss of 0.074 Pg C) mainly in Cambodia and Thailand from deforestation. Political, social, and economic factors significantly influenced forest cover change and C sequestration in the GMS, positively in China while negatively in other countries, especially in Cambodia and Thailand. These findings have implications on national strategies for climate change mitigation and adaptation in other hotspots of tropical forests.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".