Forest Areas in China Are Recovering Since the 21st Century
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract China is reported as the leading country in the Earth's greening. However, it is a challenge to capture the gradual recovery in forest cover and distinguish the contribution of trees from herbaceous vegetation using remote sensing data. We developed a new fractional tree cover product (GLOBMAP FTC China) from MODIS time series data to investigate change patterns of China's forests during 2000–2022. This annual product showed high consistency with China's National Forest Inventory. We found a significant increase (∼4 Mha/year) in the annual forest area in China from ∼154.47 Mha in 2000 to ∼236.01 Mha in 2015. This rate then slowed by 50% in 2015–2022 (∼2 Mha/year). The forest recovery primarily started in 2000–2004, and reached saturation in 2015. It was primarily contributed by the tree cover gain (92%) from forest conservation and restoration programs. Our findings can support forest management and carbon neutrality achievement for the country.
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 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".