Remote Sensing Methods and GIS Approaches for Carbon Sequestration Measurement: A General Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Geospatial technologies like Remote Sensing (RS) and Geographic Information Systems (GIS) provide a platform for swiftly evaluating terrestrial Carbon Stock (CS) across extensive regions. Employing an integrated RS-GIS method for estimating Above-Ground Biomass (AGB) and precise carbon management emerges as a timely and economical strategy for implementing effective management plans on a localized and regional level. This study reviews different RS-related techniques utilized in CS assessment, particularly in arid lands, shedding light on the challenges, opportunities, and future trends associated with the process. As global warming poses adverse impacts on major ecosystems through temperature and precipitation changes, professionals have a call to develop evidence-based interventions to mitigate them. Carbon sequestration involves harnessing and storing carbon stocks from the atmosphere to minimize the adverse effects of climate change. The review explores the effectiveness of integrating remote sensing and GIS methodologies in quantifying carbon sequestration within agroforestry landscapes. In addition, this review also assesses the traditional methods, including their limitations, and deeply delves into recent techniques, emphasizing key remote sensing (RS) variables for biophysical predictions. This study showcases the efficacy of geospatial technologies in evaluating terrestrial carbon stock, particularly in arid regions. The study reviews diverse techniques and sensors, like optical Radio Detection and Ranging (RADAR), and Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR), extensively employed for above-ground biomass (AGB) estimation and carbon stock assessment with RS data, introducing and discussing new methods. Existing literature was examined to present knowledge and evidence on the effectiveness of these technologies in carbon sequestration. The key findings of this review will inform future research and integration of technology, policy formulation, and carbon sequestration management to mitigate the impacts of climate change.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".