Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 245

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Satellite estimates of productivity and light use efficiency in United States agriculture, 1982–98

Lobell, D. B., Hicke, J. A., Asner, G. P., Field, C. B., Tucker, C. J., Los, S. O.·2002·Global Change Biology

Abstract

Remote sensing of net primary production (NPP) is a critical tool for assessing spatial and temporal patterns of carbon exchange between the atmosphere and biosphere. However, satellite estimates suffer from a lack of large‐scale field data needed for validation, as well as the need to parameterize plant light‐use efficiencies (LUEs). In this study, we estimated cropland NPP with the Carnegie‐Ames‐Stanford‐Approach (CASA), a biogeochemical model driven by satellite observations, and then compared these results with field estimates based on harvest data from United States Department of Agriculture National Agriculture Statistics Service (NASS) county statistics. Observed interannual variations in NPP over a 17‐year period were well modelled by CASA, with exceptions mainly due to occasional difficulties in estimating NPP from harvest yields. The role of environmental stressors in agriculture was investigated by running CASA with and without temperature and moisture down‐regulators, which are used in the model to simulate climate impacts on plant LUE. In most cases, correlations with NASS data were highest with modelled stresses, while the opposite was true for irrigated and temperature resistant crops. Analysis of the spatial variability in computed LUE revealed significantly higher values for corn than for other crops, suggesting a simple parameterization of LUE for future studies based on the fraction of area with corn. Absolute values of LUE were much lower than those reported in field trials, due to uncommonly high yields in most field trials, as well as overestimates of absorbed radiation in CASA attributed to bias from temporal compositing of satellite data. Total NPP for US croplands, excluding Alaska and Hawaii, was estimated as 0.62 Pg C year−1, representing ∼20% of total US NPP, and exhibited a positive trend of 3.7 Tg C year−2. These results have several implications for large‐scale carbon cycle research that are discussed, and are especially relevant for studies of the role of agriculture in the global carbon balance.

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 · 10.1046/j.1365-2486.2002.00503.x

Cites

2 of 2 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

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

Show all 2 references

Cited by

See all 245

Metadata

Authors
Lobell, D. B., Hicke, J. A., Asner, G. P., Field, C. B., Tucker, C. J., & Los, S. O.
Venue
Global Change Biology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2002-07-11
Volume
8
Issue
8
Pages
722-735
ISSN
  • 1354-1013 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2486
OpenAlex
W1982024602
Cited by
245
References
2
FWCI
7.65
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Satellite estimates of productivity and light use efficiency in United States agriculture, 1982–98. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1046/j.1365-2486.2002.00503.x
The paper
Lobell, D. B., Hicke, J. A., Asner, G. P., Field, C. B., Tucker, C. J., & Los, S. O. (2002). Satellite estimates of productivity and light use efficiency in United States agriculture, 1982–98. Global Change Biology. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2486.2002.00503.x

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.