Cited by 609

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

An integrated pan‐tropical biomass map using multiple reference datasets

Avitabile, Valerio, Herold, Martin, Heuvelink, Gerard B. M., Lewis, Simon L., Phillips, Oliver L., Asner, Gregory P., Armston, John, Ashton, Peter S., Banin, Lindsay, Bayol, Nicolas, Berry, Nicholas J., Boeckx, Pascal, de Jong, Bernardus H. J., DeVries, Ben, Girardin, Cecile A. J., Kearsley, Elizabeth, Lindsell, Jeremy A., Lopez‐Gonzalez, Gabriela, Lucas, Richard, Malhi, Yadvinder, Morel, Alexandra, Mitchard, Edward T. A., Nagy, Laszlo, Qie, Lan, Quinones, Marcela J., Ryan, Casey M., Ferry, Slik J. W., Sunderland, Terry, Laurin, Gaia Vaglio, Gatti, Roberto Cazzolla, Valentini, Riccardo, Verbeeck, Hans, Wijaya, Arief, Willcock, Simon·2016·Global Change Biology

Abstract

We combined two existing datasets of vegetation aboveground biomass ( AGB ) ( Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America , 108 , 2011, 9899; Nature Climate Change , 2 , 2012, 182) into a pan‐tropical AGB map at 1‐km resolution using an independent reference dataset of field observations and locally calibrated high‐resolution biomass maps, harmonized and upscaled to 14 477 1‐km AGB estimates. Our data fusion approach uses bias removal and weighted linear averaging that incorporates and spatializes the biomass patterns indicated by the reference data. The method was applied independently in areas (strata) with homogeneous error patterns of the input (Saatchi and Baccini) maps, which were estimated from the reference data and additional covariates. Based on the fused map, we estimated AGB stock for the tropics (23.4 N–23.4 S) of 375 Pg dry mass, 9–18% lower than the Saatchi and Baccini estimates. The fused map also showed differing spatial patterns of AGB over large areas, with higher AGB density in the dense forest areas in the Congo basin, Eastern Amazon and South‐East Asia, and lower values in Central America and in most dry vegetation areas of Africa than either of the input maps. The validation exercise, based on 2118 estimates from the reference dataset not used in the fusion process, showed that the fused map had a RMSE 15–21% lower than that of the input maps and, most importantly, nearly unbiased estimates (mean bias 5 Mg dry mass ha −1 vs. 21 and 28 Mg ha −1 for the input maps). The fusion method can be applied at any scale including the policy‐relevant national level, where it can provide improved biomass estimates by integrating existing regional biomass maps as input maps and additional, country‐specific reference datasets.

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 · 10.1111/gcb.13139

Cites

6 of 6 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?

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: 54

  1. 10.1111/gcb.12605 · DOI
  2. 10.1016/j.rse.2013.09.023 · DOI
  3. 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2009.01333.x · DOI
  4. 10.1073/pnas.1004875107 · DOI
  5. 10.5194/bg-9-2683-2012 · DOI
  6. 10.1186/1750-0680-7-2 · DOI
  7. 10.1186/1750-0680-8-7 · DOI
  8. 10.1073/pnas.1419550111 · DOI
  9. 10.1186/1750-0680-6-7 · DOI
  10. 10.1016/j.rse.2011.10.012 · DOI
  11. 10.4155/cmt.13.66 · DOI
  12. 10.1111/j.1365-2486.2004.00751.x · DOI
  13. 10.1080/01431160412331291297 · DOI
  14. 10.4155/cmt.13.49 · DOI
  15. 10.1111/2041-210X.12301 · DOI
  16. 10.3390/rs6065559 · DOI
  17. 10.1017/S0266467408005075 · DOI
  18. Di Miceli CM, 2011, Annual Global Automated MODIS Vegetation Continuous Fields (MOD44B) at 250 m Spatial Resolution for Data Years Beginning Day 65, 2000–2010, Collection 5 Percent Tree Cover
  19. 10.1098/rsbl.2013.0301 · DOI
  20. 10.5194/bg-8-1081-2011 · DOI
  21. 10.5194/bg-9-3381-2012 · DOI
  22. 10.1016/j.jag.2014.02.011 · DOI
  23. 10.4155/cmt.11.18 · DOI
  24. Gonzalez de TanagoJ BartholomeusH JosephSet al. (2015)Terrestrial LiDAR and 3D tree Quantitative Structure Model for quantification of aboveground biomass loss from selective logging in a tropical rainforest of Peru. In:Proceedings of Silvilaser 2015 Conference. La Grande Motte France. 28‐30 September 2015.
  25. 10.1111/gcb.12600 · DOI
  26. 10.1126/science.1217962 · DOI
  27. 10.1371/journal.pone.0074170 · DOI
  28. 10.5194/bg-9-5125-2012 · DOI
  29. IPCC, 2003, Good Practice Guidance for Land Use, Land‐Use Change and Forestry. IPCC National Greenhouse Gas Inventories Programme, Technical Support Unit
  30. IPCC, 2006, 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories, Prepared by the National Greenhouse Gas Inventories Programme, 4.1
  31. 10.1038/ncomms3269 · DOI
  32. 10.1088/1748-9326/9/12/124008 · DOI
  33. 10.1038/nature07771 · DOI
  34. 10.1098/rstb.2012.0295 · DOI
  35. 10.1111/j.1365-2486.2006.01120.x · DOI
  36. 10.1111/geb.12168 · DOI
  37. 10.1590/S1517-83822006000100002 · DOI
  38. Pearson TRH, 2014, Carbon emissions from tropical forest degradation caused by logging, Environmental Research Letters, 034017, 11
  39. 10.1111/gcb.12423 · DOI
  40. 10.1038/nature00926 · DOI
  41. 10.1126/science.282.5388.439 · DOI
  42. 10.1126/science.1164033 · DOI
  43. 10.5751/ES-02670-130251 · DOI
  44. 10.1016/j.envsci.2012.01.005 · DOI
  45. 10.1073/pnas.1019576108 · DOI
  46. Saatchi SS, 2014, Seeing the forest beyond the trees, Global Ecology & Biogeography, 23, 935
  47. Searle SR, 1971, Linear Models
  48. 10.1029/2011JG001708 · DOI
  49. 10.1111/j.1466-8238.2009.00489.x · DOI
  50. 10.1111/geb.12092 · DOI
  51. 10.1111/j.1365-2699.2005.01219.x · DOI
  52. 10.1371/journal.pone.0044795 · DOI
  53. 10.1111/j.1365-2486.2012.02747.x · DOI
  54. 10.1016/j.rse.2012.10.017 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Avitabile, V., Herold, M., Heuvelink, G. B. M., Lewis, S. L., Phillips, O. L., Asner, G. P., Armston, J., Ashton, P. S., Banin, L., Bayol, N., Berry, N. J., Boeckx, P., de Jong, B. H. J., DeVries, B., Girardin, C. A. J., Kearsley, E., Lindsell, J. A., Lopez‐Gonzalez, G., Lucas, R., Malhi, Y., Morel, A., Mitchard, E. T. A., Nagy, L., Qie, L., Quinones, M. J., Ryan, C. M., Ferry, S. J. W., Sunderland, T., Laurin, G. V., Gatti, R. C., Valentini, R., Verbeeck, H., Wijaya, A., & Willcock, S.
Venue
Global Change Biology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2016-01-10
Volume
22
Issue
4
Pages
1406-1420
ISSN
  • 1354-1013
  • 1365-2486
Cited by
609
References
6
Language
en
Funders
  • Seventh Framework Programme (283080)
  • Direktoratet for Utviklingssamarbeid (QZA‐10/0468)
  • Epilepsy Society of Australia (4000113100/14/I‐NB)
  • Australian Agency for International Development (46167)
  • Bundesministerium für Umwelt, Naturschutz und Reaktorsicherheit
  • Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa Agropecuária
  • U.S. Forest Service
  • United States Agency for International Development
  • Aberystwyth University
  • University of New South Wales
  • John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation
  • National Science Foundation (1146206)
  • European Research Council

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