CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 495

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Aboveground biomass density models for NASA’s Global Ecosystem Dynamics Investigation (GEDI) lidar mission

Duncanson, Laura, Kellner, James R., Armston, John, Dubayah, Ralph, Minor, David M., Hancock, Steven, Healey, Sean P., Patterson, Paul L., Saarela, Svetlana, Marselis, Suzanne, Silva, Carlos E., Bruening, Jamis, Goetz, Scott J., Tang, Hao, Hofton, Michelle, Blair, Bryan, Luthcke, Scott, Fatoyinbo, Lola, Abernethy, Katharine, Alonso, Alfonso, Andersen, Hans-Erik, Aplin, Paul, Baker, Timothy R., Barbier, Nicolas, Bastin, Jean Francois, Biber, Peter, Boeckx, Pascal, Bogaert, Jan, Boschetti, Luigi, Boucher, Peter Brehm, Boyd, Doreen S., Burslem, David F.R.P., Calvo-Rodriguez, Sofia, Chave, Jérôme, Chazdon, Robin L., Clark, David B., Clark, Deborah A., Cohen, Warren B., Coomes, David A., Corona, Piermaria, Cushman, K.C., Cutler, Mark E.J., Dalling, James W., Dalponte, Michele, Dash, Jonathan, de-Miguel, Sergio, Deng, Songqiu, Ellis, Peter Woods, Erasmus, Barend, Fekety, Patrick A., Fernandez-Landa, Alfredo, Ferraz, Antonio, Fischer, Rico, Fisher, Adrian G., García-Abril, Antonio, Gobakken, Terje, Hacker, Jorg M., Heurich, Marco, Hill, Ross A., Hopkinson, Chris, Huang, Huabing, Hubbell, Stephen P., Hudak, Andrew T., Huth, Andreas, Imbach, Benedikt, Jeffery, Kathryn J., Katoh, Masato, Kearsley, Elizabeth, Kenfack, David, Kljun, Natascha, Knapp, Nikolai, Král, Kamil, Krůček, Martin, Labrière, Nicolas, Lewis, Simon L., Longo, Marcos, Lucas, Richard M., Main, Russell, Manzanera, Jose A., Martínez, Rodolfo Vásquez, Mathieu, Renaud, Memiaghe, Herve, Meyer, Victoria, Mendoza, Abel Monteagudo, Monerris, Alessandra, Montesano, Paul, Morsdorf, Felix, Næsset, Erik, Naidoo, Laven, Nilus, Reuben, O’Brien, Michael, Orwig, David A., Papathanassiou, Konstantinos, Parker, Geoffrey, Philipson, Christopher, Phillips, Oliver L., Pisek, Jan, Poulsen, John R., Pretzsch, Hans, Rüdiger, Christoph, Saatchi, Sassan, Sanchez-Azofeifa, Arturo, Sanchez-Lopez, Nuria, Scholes, Robert, Silva, Carlos A., Simard, Marc, Skidmore, Andrew, Stereńczak, Krzysztof, Tanase, Mihai, Torresan, Chiara, Valbuena, Ruben, Verbeeck, Hans, Vrska, Tomas, Wessels, Konrad, White, Joanne C., White, Lee J.T., Zahabu, Eliakimu, Zgraggen, Carlo·2022·Remote Sensing of Environment
DOI 10.1016/j.rse.2021.112845
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.rse.2021.112845

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The main objective of the GEDI mission is to provide high-accuracy and high global coverage data on canopy structure, which can be used to estimate biomass and canopy height.

    “The main objective of the GEDI mission is to provide high-accuracy and high global coverage data on canopy structure, which can be used to estimate biomass [39][40][41] and canopy height [30,38,42].”

    From ANADEM: A Digital Terrain Model for South America (2024) · cites this paper as [40]

  • Canopy-top height is an important indicator of biomass and the associated global aboveground carbon stock.

    “Canopy-top height is an important indicator of biomass and the associated, global aboveground carbon stock8.”

    From A high-resolution canopy height model of the Earth (2023) · cites this paper as [8]

  • Reliable uncertainty quantification is crucial to inform downstream investigations and decisions based on the map content.

    “But reliable uncertainty quantification is crucial to inform downstream investigations and decisions based on the map content8”

    From A high-resolution canopy height model of the Earth (2023) · cites this paper as [8]

  • Canopy-top height is a key indicator to study the global aboveground carbon stock stored in the form of biomass.

    “Canopy-top height is a key indicator to study the global aboveground carbon stock stored in the form of biomass8.”

    From A high-resolution canopy height model of the Earth (2023) · cites this paper as [8]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 106

  1. Andersen, 2006, A rigorous assessment of tree height measurements obtained using airborne lidar and conventional field methods, Can. J. Remote. Sens., 10.5589/m06-030 · DOI
  2. Andersen, 2011, Using multilevel remote sensing and ground data to estimate forest biomass resources in remote regions: a case study in the boreal forests of interior Alaska, Can. J. Remote. Sens., 37, 1, 10.5589/m12-003 · DOI
  3. Asner, 2014, Mapping tropical forest carbon: calibrating plot estimates to a simple LiDAR metric, Remote Sens. Environ., 10.1016/j.rse.2013.09.023 · DOI
  4. Avitabile, 2016, An integrated pan-tropical biomass map using multiple reference datasets, Glob. Chang. Biol., 22, 1406, 10.1111/gcb.13139 · DOI · Paper page
  5. Baccini, 2008, A first map of tropical Africa’s above-ground biomass derived from satellite imagery, Environ. Res. Lett., 10.1088/1748-9326/3/4/045011 · DOI
  6. Baccini, 2017, Tropical forests are a net carbon source based on aboveground measurements of gain and loss, Science, 358, 230, 10.1126/science.aam5962 · DOI · Paper page
  7. Banin, 2014, Tropical forest wood production: a cross-continental comparison, J. Ecol., 102, 1025, 10.1111/1365-2745.12263 · DOI
  8. Blair, 1999, Modeling laser altimeter return waveforms over complex vegetation using high-resolution elevation data, Geophys. Res. Lett., 10.1029/1999GL010484 · DOI
  9. Boudreau, 2008, Regional aboveground forest biomass using airborne and spaceborne LiDAR in Québec, Remote Sens. Environ., 10.1016/j.rse.2008.06.003 · DOI
  10. Carlucci, 2017, Phylogenetic composition and structure of tree communities shed light on historical processes influencing tropical rainforest diversity, Ecography., 10.1111/ecog.02104 · DOI
  11. Chave, 2004, Error propagation and scaling for tropical forest biomass estimates. Philos, Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci., 359, 409, 10.1098/rstb.2003.1425 · DOI
  12. Chave, 2014, Improved allometric models to estimate the aboveground biomass of tropical trees, Glob. Chang. Biol., 20, 3177, 10.1111/gcb.12629 · DOI · Paper page
  13. Clark, 2012, Tropical forest biomass estimation and the fallacy of misplaced concreteness, J. Veg. Sci., 23, 1191, 10.1111/j.1654-1103.2012.01471.x · DOI
  14. Coomes, 2017, Area-based vs tree-centric approaches to mapping forest carbon in Southeast Asian forests from airborne laser scanning data, Remote Sens. Environ., 10.1016/j.rse.2017.03.017 · DOI
  15. Coops, 2007, Estimating canopy structure of Douglas-fir forest stands from discrete-return LiDAR, Trees., 10.1007/s00468-006-0119-6 · DOI
  16. Corbera, 2011, Governing and implementing REDD+, Environ. Sci. Pol., 14, 89, 10.1016/j.envsci.2010.11.002 · DOI
  17. Corlett, 2006, Tropical rainforests and the need for cross-continental comparisons, Trends Ecol. Evol., 21, 104, 10.1016/j.tree.2005.12.002 · DOI
  18. Corte, 2020, Forest inventory with high-density UAV-Lidar: machine learning approaches for predicting individual tree attributes, Comput. Electron. Agric., 10.1016/j.compag.2020.105815 · DOI
  19. Diaz, 1997, Plant functional types and ecosystem function in relation to global change, J. Veg. Sci., 10.2307/3237198 · DOI
  20. Disney, 2020, New 3D measurements of large redwood trees for biomass and structure, Sci. Rep., 10, 16721, 10.1038/s41598-020-73733-6 · DOI
  21. Drake, 2002, Estimation of tropical forest structural characteristics using large-footprint lidar, Remote Sens. Environ., 79, 305, 10.1016/S0034-4257(01)00281-4 · DOI
  22. Drake, 2002, Estimation of tropical forest structural characteristics using large-footprint lidar, Remote Sens. Environ., 10.1016/S0034-4257(01)00281-4 · DOI
  23. Drake, 2003, Above-ground biomass estimation in closed canopy Neotropical forests using lidar remote sensing: factors affecting the generality of relationships, Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr., 10.1046/j.1466-822X.2003.00010.x · DOI
  24. Dubayah, 2020, The global ecosystem dynamics investigation: high-resolution laser ranging of the Earth’s forests and topography, Sci. Remote Sens., 10.1016/j.srs.2020.100002 · DOI · Paper page
  25. Duncanson, 2010, Estimating forest canopy height and terrain relief from GLAS waveform metrics, Remote Sens. Environ., 10.1016/j.rse.2009.08.018 · DOI
  26. Duncanson, 2020, Biomass estimation from simulated GEDI, ICESat-2 and NISAR across environmental gradients in Sonoma County, California, Remote Sens. Environ., 242, 111779, 10.1016/j.rse.2020.111779 · DOI
  27. Ene, 2016, Large-scale estimation of aboveground biomass in miombo woodlands using airborne laser scanning and national forest inventory data, Remote Sens. Environ., 186, 626, 10.1016/j.rse.2016.09.006 · DOI
  28. Enquist, 2009, Extensions and evaluations of a general quantitative theory of forest structure and dynamics, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A., 106, 7046, 10.1073/pnas.0812303106 · DOI
  29. Fatoyinbo, 2021, The NASA AfriSAR campaign: airborne SAR and lidar measurements of tropical forest structure and biomass in support of current and future space missions, Remote Sens. Environ., 264, 10.1016/j.rse.2021.112533 · DOI
  30. Feldpausch, 2012, Tree height integrated into pantropical forest biomass estimates, Biogeosciences, 9, 3381, 10.5194/bg-9-3381-2012 · DOI
  31. Ferraz, 2016, Airborne lidar estimation of aboveground forest biomass in the absence of field inventory, Remote Sens., 8, 653, 10.3390/rs8080653 · DOI
  32. Ferraz, 2018, Carbon storage potential in degraded forests of Kalimantan, Indonesia, Environ. Res. Lett., 13, 10.1088/1748-9326/aad782 · DOI
  33. Ferry, 2010, Higher treefall rates on slopes and waterlogged soils result in lower stand biomass and productivity in a tropical rain forest, J. Ecol., 10.1111/j.1365-2745.2009.01604.x · DOI
  34. Foody, 2003, Predictive relations of tropical forest biomass from Landsat TM data and their transferability between regions, Remote Sens. Environ., 10.1016/S0034-4257(03)00039-7 · DOI
  35. Friedl, 2010, MODIS Collection 5 global land cover: Algorithm refinements and characterization of new datasets, Remote Sens. Environ., 10.1016/j.rse.2009.08.016 · DOI
  36. Friedlingstein, 2019, Global carbon budget 2019, Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 11, 1783, 10.5194/essd-11-1783-2019 · DOI
  37. Friis, 2005, Plant diversity and complexity patterns: local, regional, and global dimensions, Biologiske Skrifter, 55
  38. Gibbs, 2007, Monitoring and estimating tropical forest carbon stocks: making REDD a reality, Environ. Res. Lett., 10.1088/1748-9326/2/4/045023 · DOI · Paper page
  39. Gleason, 2012, Forest biomass estimation from airborne LiDAR data using machine learning approaches, Remote Sens. Environ., 10.1016/j.rse.2012.07.006 · DOI
  40. Goetz, 2015, Measurement and monitoring needs, capabilities and potential for addressing reduced emissions from deforestation and forest degradation under REDD+, Environ. Res. Lett., 10, 10.1088/1748-9326/10/12/123001 · DOI
  41. Hancock, 2011, A threshold insensitive method for locating the forest canopy top with waveform lidar, Remote Sens. Environ., 10.1016/j.rse.2011.07.012 · DOI
  42. Hancock, 2015, Waveform lidar over vegetation: an evaluation of inversion methods for estimating return energy, Remote Sens. Environ., 10.1016/j.rse.2015.04.013 · DOI
  43. Hancock, 2019, The GEDI simulator: a large-footprint waveform lidar simulator for calibration and validation of spaceborne missions, Earth Space Sci., 6, 294, 10.1029/2018EA000506 · DOI
  44. Hansen, 2015, Modeling aboveground biomass in dense tropical submontane rainforest using airborne laser scanner data, Remote Sens., 7, 788, 10.3390/rs70100788 · DOI
  45. Hansen, 2017, Comparing empirical and semi-empirical approaches to forest biomass modelling in different biomes using airborne laser scanner data, Forests., 10.3390/f8050170 · DOI
  46. Healey, 2020, Highly local model calibration with a new GEDI LiDAR asset on Google Earth Engine reduces landsat forest height signal saturation, Remote Sens., 12, 2840, 10.3390/rs12172840 · DOI · Paper page
  47. Hernando, 2019, Estimation of forest biomass components using airborne LiDAR and multispectral sensors, iForest - Biogeosci. Forestry, 10.3832/ifor2735-012 · DOI
  48. Houghton, R.A., House, J.I., Pongratz, J., Werf, G.R. van der, DeFries, R.S., Hansen, M.C., Le Quéré, C., Ramankutty, N., 2012. Carbon emissions from land use and land-cover change. Biogeosciences 9, 5125–5142. · DOI
  49. Huang, 2013, Mapping biomass change after forest disturbance: Applying LiDAR footprint-derived models at key map scales, Remote Sens. Environ., 10.1016/j.rse.2013.03.017 · DOI
  50. Hudak, 2016, Mapping forest structure and composition from low-density LiDAR for informed forest, fuel, and fire management at Eglin Air Force Base, Florida, USA, Can. J. Remote. Sens., 10.1080/07038992.2016.1217482 · DOI
  51. Huete, 1997, A comparison of vegetation indices over a global set of TM images for EOS-MODIS, Remote Sens. Environ., 59, 440, 10.1016/S0034-4257(96)00112-5 · DOI
  52. Jucker, 2017, Allometric equations for integrating remote sensing imagery into forest monitoring programmes, Glob. Chang. Biol., 23, 177, 10.1111/gcb.13388 · DOI · Paper page
  53. Kearsley, 2013, Conventional tree height-diameter relationships significantly overestimate aboveground carbon stocks in the Central Congo Basin, Nat. Commun., 4, 2269, 10.1038/ncomms3269 · DOI
  54. Koetz, 2006, Inversion of a lidar waveform model for forest biophysical parameter estimation, IEEE Geosci. Remote Sens. Lett., 10.1109/LGRS.2005.856706 · DOI
  55. Labriere, 2018, In situ reference datasets from the TropiSAR and AfriSAR campaigns in support of upcoming spaceborne biomass missions, IEEE J. Select. Top. Appl. Earth Observ. Remote Sens., 10.1109/JSTARS.2018.2851606 · DOI
  56. Lang, 2019, Country-wide high-resolution vegetation height mapping with Sentinel-2, Remote Sens. Environ., 233, 111347, 10.1016/j.rse.2019.111347 · DOI · Paper page
  57. Laurin, 2014, Above ground biomass estimation in an African tropical forest with lidar and hyperspectral data, ISPRS J. Photogramm. Remote Sens.
  58. Le Quéré, 2016, Global Carbon Budget 2016, Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 8, 605, 10.5194/essd-8-605-2016 · DOI
  59. Le Toan, 1992, Relating forest biomass to SAR data, IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens., 30, 403, 10.1109/36.134089 · DOI
  60. Lefsky, 1999, Lidar remote sensing of the canopy structure and biophysical properties of douglas-fir western hemlock forests, Remote Sens. Environ., 10.1016/S0034-4257(99)00052-8 · DOI
  61. Lefsky, M.A., Cohen, W.B., Parker, G.G., Harding, D.J., 2002. Lidar remote sensing for ecosystem studies. BioScience. doi:10.1641/0006-3568(2002)052[0019,lrsfes]2.0.co;2. · DOI
  62. Lefsky, 2007, Revised method for forest canopy height estimation from Geoscience Laser Altimeter System waveforms, J. Appl. Remote. Sens., 1
  63. Los, 2012, Vegetation height and cover fraction between 60° S and 60° N from ICESat GLAS data, Geosci. Model Dev., 5, 413, 10.5194/gmd-5-413-2012 · DOI
  64. Lucas, 2008, Retrieving forest biomass through integration of CASI and LiDAR data, Int. J. Remote Sens., 10.1080/01431160701736497 · DOI
  65. Luckman, 1998, Tropical forest biomass density estimation using JERS-1 SAR: seasonal variation, confidence limits, and application to image mosaics, Remote Sens. Environ., 10.1016/S0034-4257(97)00133-8 · DOI
  66. Mahoney, 2014, Slope estimation from ICESat/GLAS, Remote Sens., 6, 10051, 10.3390/rs61010051 · DOI
  67. Margolis, 2015, Combining satellite lidar, airborne lidar, and ground plots to estimate the amount and distribution of aboveground biomass in the boreal forest of North America, Can. J. For. Res., 45, 838, 10.1139/cjfr-2015-0006 · DOI
  68. Mauya, 2015, Effects of field plot size on prediction accuracy of aboveground biomass in airborne laser scanning-assisted inventories in tropical rain forests of Tanzania, Carbon Balance Manag., 10.1186/s13021-015-0021-x · DOI
  69. Meyer, 2018, Canopy area of large trees explains aboveground biomass variations across neotropical forest landscapes, Biogeosciences, 15, 3377, 10.5194/bg-15-3377-2018 · DOI
  70. Meyer, 2019, Forest degradation and biomass loss along the Chocó region of Colombia, Carbon Balance Manag., 14, 2, 10.1186/s13021-019-0117-9 · DOI
  71. Mitchard, 2009, Using satellite radar backscatter to predict above-ground woody biomass: A consistent relationship across four different African landscapes, Geophys. Res. Lett., 10.1029/2009GL040692 · DOI
  72. Næsset, 2008, Estimation of above- and below-ground biomass across regions of the boreal forest zone using airborne laser, Remote Sens. Environ., 112, 3079, 10.1016/j.rse.2008.03.004 · DOI
  73. Næsset, 2013, Model-assisted estimation of change in forest biomass over an 11year period in a sample survey supported by airborne LiDAR: A case study with post-stratification to provide “activity data.”, Remote Sens. Environ., 10.1016/j.rse.2012.10.008 · DOI
  74. Næsset, 2015, The effects of field plot size on model-assisted estimation of aboveground biomass change using multitemporal interferometric SAR and airborne laser scanning data, Remote Sens. Environ., 168, 252, 10.1016/j.rse.2015.07.002 · DOI
  75. Naidoo, 2015, Savannah woody structure modelling and mapping using multi-frequency (X-, C- and L-band) Synthetic Aperture Radar data, ISPRS J. Photogramm. Remote Sens., 105, 234, 10.1016/j.isprsjprs.2015.04.007 · DOI
  76. Ni-Meister, 2010, Assessing general relationships between aboveground biomass and vegetation structure parameters for improved carbon estimate from lidar remote sensing, J. Geophys. Res. Biogeosci., 10.1029/2009JG000936 · DOI
  77. North, 2010, A Monte Carlo radiative transfer model of satellite waveform LiDAR, Int. J. Remote Sens., 10.1080/01431160903380664 · DOI
  78. Patterson, 2019, Statistical properties of hybrid estimators proposed for GEDI—NASA’s global ecosystem dynamics investigation, Environ. Res. Lett., 10.1088/1748-9326/ab18df · DOI
  79. Ploton, 2020, Spatial validation reveals poor predictive performance of large-scale ecological mapping models, Nat. Commun., 11, 4540, 10.1038/s41467-020-18321-y · DOI
  80. Potapov, 2021, Mapping global forest canopy height through integration of GEDI and Landsat data, Remote Sens. Environ., 253, 112165, 10.1016/j.rse.2020.112165 · DOI · Paper page
  81. Poulter, 2011, Plant functional type mapping for earth system models, Geosci. Model Dev., 10.5194/gmd-4-993-2011 · DOI
  82. Powell, 2010, Quantification of live aboveground forest biomass dynamics with Landsat time-series and field inventory data: a comparison of empirical modeling approaches, Remote Sens. Environ., 114, 1053, 10.1016/j.rse.2009.12.018 · DOI
  83. Ranson, 2000, Modeling lidar returns from forest canopies, IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens., 10.1109/36.885208 · DOI
  84. Réjou-Méchain, 2019, Upscaling forest biomass from field to satellite measurements: sources of errors and ways to reduce them, Surv. Geophys., 10.1007/s10712-019-09532-0 · DOI
  85. Rodríguez-Veiga, 2019, Forest biomass retrieval approaches from earth observation in different biomes, Int. J. Appl. Earth Obs. Geoinf., 77, 53
  86. Saarela, 2018, Generalized hierarchical model-based estimation for aboveground biomass assessment using GEDI and Landsat Data, Remote Sens., 10.3390/rs10111832 · DOI
  87. Saarela, 2021, Effects of multicollinearity in model-based inference predicting aboveground biomass using NASA’s GEDI and Landsat missions (research note), Silva Fennica.
  88. Saatchi, 2011, Benchmark map of forest carbon stocks in tropical regions across three continents, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., 10.1073/pnas.1019576108 · DOI
  89. Silva, 2021, Fusing simulated GEDI, ICESat-2 and NISAR data for regional aboveground biomass mapping, Remote Sens. Environ., 10.1016/j.rse.2020.112234 · DOI
  90. Simard, 2011, Mapping forest canopy height globally with spaceborne lidar, J. Geophys. Res., 116
  91. Simard, 2018, Mangrove canopy height globally related to precipitation, temperature and cyclone frequency, Nat. Geosci., 12, 40, 10.1038/s41561-018-0279-1 · DOI
  92. Smith, 2002, Forest inventory and analysis: a national inventory and monitoring program, Environ. Pollut., 116, S233, 10.1016/S0269-7491(01)00255-X · DOI
  93. Snowdon, 1991, A ratio estimator for bias correction in logarithmic regressions, Can. J. For. Res., 21, 720, 10.1139/x91-101 · DOI
  94. Sun, 2008, Forest vertical structure from GLAS: An evaluation using LVIS and SRTM data, Remote Sens. Environ., 10.1016/j.rse.2006.09.036 · DOI
  95. Sun, 2011, Forest biomass mapping from lidar and radar synergies, Remote Sens. Environ., 10.1016/j.rse.2011.03.021 · DOI
  96. Swatantran, 2011, Mapping biomass and stress in the Sierra Nevada using lidar and hyperspectral data fusion, Remote Sens. Environ., 10.1016/j.rse.2010.08.027 · DOI
  97. Tang, 2019, Characterizing global forest canopy cover distribution using spaceborne lidar, Remote. Sens. Environ., 231, 111262, 10.1016/j.rse.2019.111262 · DOI
  98. Tang, 2012, Retrieval of vertical LAI profiles over tropical rain forests using waveform lidar at La Selva, Costa Rica, Remote Sens. Environ., 10.1016/j.rse.2012.05.005 · DOI
  99. Tang, 2021, High-resolution forest carbon mapping for climate mitigation baselines over the RGGI region, USA, Environ. Res. Lett., 16, 10.1088/1748-9326/abd2ef · DOI
  100. Tubiello, 2020, Carbon emissions and removals by forests: New estimates 1990–2020, Earth Syst. Sci. Data.
  101. Valbuena, 2017, Enhancing of accuracy assessment for forest above-ground biomass estimates obtained from remote sensing via hypothesis testing and overfitting evaluation, Ecol. Model., 366, 15, 10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2017.10.009 · DOI
  102. Vorster, 2020, Variability and uncertainty in forest biomass estimates from the tree to landscape scale: the role of allometric equations, Carbon Balance Manag., 15, 8, 10.1186/s13021-020-00143-6 · DOI
  103. Wulder, 2012, Lidar sampling for large-area forest characterization: a review, Remote Sens. Environ., 10.1016/j.rse.2012.02.001 · DOI
  104. Xu, 2017, Spatial distribution of carbon stored in forests of the Democratic Republic of Congo, Sci. Rep., 7, 15030, 10.1038/s41598-017-15050-z · DOI
  105. Zhao, 2009, Lidar remote sensing of forest biomass: a scale-invariant estimation approach using airborne lasers, Remote Sens. Environ., 10.1016/j.rse.2008.09.009 · DOI
  106. Zolkos, 2013, A meta-analysis of terrestrial aboveground biomass estimation using lidar remote sensing, Remote Sens. Environ., 10.1016/j.rse.2012.10.017 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Duncanson, L., Kellner, J. R., Armston, J., Dubayah, R., Minor, D. M., Hancock, S., Healey, S. P., Patterson, P. L., Saarela, S., Marselis, S., Silva, C. E., Bruening, J., Goetz, S. J., Tang, H., Hofton, M., Blair, B., Luthcke, S., Fatoyinbo, L., Abernethy, K., Alonso, A., Andersen, H.-E., Aplin, P., Baker, T. R., Barbier, N., Bastin, J. F., Biber, P., Boeckx, P., Bogaert, J., Boschetti, L., Boucher, P. B., Boyd, D. S., Burslem, D. F. R. P., Calvo-Rodriguez, S., Chave, J., Chazdon, R. L., Clark, D. B., Clark, D. A., Cohen, W. B., Coomes, D. A., Corona, P., Cushman, K. C., Cutler, M. E. J., Dalling, J. W., Dalponte, M., Dash, J., de-Miguel, S., Deng, S., Ellis, P. W., Erasmus, B., Fekety, P. A., Fernandez-Landa, A., Ferraz, A., Fischer, R., Fisher, A. G., García-Abril, A., Gobakken, T., Hacker, J. M., Heurich, M., Hill, R. A., Hopkinson, C., Huang, H., Hubbell, S. P., Hudak, A. T., Huth, A., Imbach, B., Jeffery, K. J., Katoh, M., Kearsley, E., Kenfack, D., Kljun, N., Knapp, N., Král, K., Krůček, M., Labrière, N., Lewis, S. L., Longo, M., Lucas, R. M., Main, R., Manzanera, J. A., Martínez, R. V., Mathieu, R., Memiaghe, H., Meyer, V., Mendoza, A. M., Monerris, A., Montesano, P., Morsdorf, F., Næsset, E., Naidoo, L., Nilus, R., O’Brien, M., Orwig, D. A., Papathanassiou, K., Parker, G., Philipson, C., Phillips, O. L., Pisek, J., Poulsen, J. R., Pretzsch, H., Rüdiger, C., Saatchi, S., Sanchez-Azofeifa, A., Sanchez-Lopez, N., Scholes, R., Silva, C. A., Simard, M., Skidmore, A., Stereńczak, K., Tanase, M., Torresan, C., Valbuena, R., Verbeeck, H., Vrska, T., Wessels, K., White, J. C., White, L. J. T., Zahabu, E., & Zgraggen, C.
Venue
Remote Sensing of Environment
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2022-03
Volume
270
Pages
112845
ISSN
0034-4257
DOI
10.1016/j.rse.2021.112845
Cited by
495
References
1
Language
en
Licence
Funders
  • U.S. Department of State
  • Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa Agropecuária
  • United States Agency for International Development
  • National Science Foundation
  • Battelle
  • U.S. Forest Service
  • University of Maryland
  • NASA (15AA03C, NNH20ZDA001N)
  • Australian Research Council (DP0984586)

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review