ArticleScientific reports2017
Analyzing historical land use changes using a Historical Land Use Reconstruction Model: a case study in Zhenlai County, northeastern China.
Article in Scientific reports, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Sensitive shrubland and unique urbanization patterns: the key to understanding emerging towns growth in arid regions.Environmental monitoring and assessment · 2025Article
- The influence of city development on urban pedodiversity.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Large-Scale Marsh Loss Reconstructed from Satellite Data in the Small Sanjiang Plain since 1965: Process, Pattern and Driving Force.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Article
- Reconstructing Taiwan's land cover changes between 1904 and 2015 from historical maps and satellite images.Scientific reports · 2019Article
- Reconstruction of the cropland cover changes in eastern China between the 10Scientific reports · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Historical land use information is essential to understanding the impact of anthropogenic modification of land use/cover on the temporal dynamics of environmental and ecological issues. However, due to a lack of spatial explicitness, complete thematic details and the conversion types for historical land use changes, the majority of historical land use reconstructions do not sufficiently meet the requirements for an adequate model. Considering these shortcomings, we explored the possibility of constructing a spatially-explicit modeling framework (HLURM: Historical Land Use Reconstruction Model). Then a three-map comparison method was adopted to validate the projected reconstruction map. The reconstruction suggested that the HLURM model performed well in the spatial reconstruction of various land-use categories, and had a higher figure of merit (48.19%) than models used in other case studies. The largest land use/cover type in the study area was determined to be grassland, followed by arable land and wetland. Using the three-map comparison, we noticed that the major discrepancies in land use changes among the three maps were as a result of inconsistencies in the classification of land-use categories during the study period, rather than as a result of the simulation model.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.