ArticlePloS one2020
Mapping Atlantic rainforest degradation and regeneration history with indicator species using convolutional network.
Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Hybrid CNN-GNN architectures with distributed training for heathland plant classification.Environmental monitoring and assessment · 2026Article
- Genetic Characterization and Zoonotic Potential ofTropical medicine and infectious disease · 2025Article
- Spatial heterogeneity in climate change effects across Brazilian biomes.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Article
- Automated mapping ofPeerJ · 2022Article
- The flowering of Atlantic Forest Pleroma trees.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- Anticipation of common buzzard population patterns in the changing UK landscape.Proceedings. Biological sciences · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The Atlantic rainforest of Brazil is one of the global terrestrial hotspots of biodiversity. Despite having undergone large scale deforestation, forest cover has shown signs of increases in the last decades. Here, to understand the degradation and regeneration history of Atlantic rainforest remnants near São Paulo, we combine a unique dataset of very high resolution images from Worldview-2 and Worldview-3 (0.5 and 0.3m spatial resolution, respectively), georeferenced aerial photographs from 1962 and use a deep learning method called U-net to map (i) the forest cover and changes and (ii) two pioneer tree species, Cecropia hololeuca and Tibouchina pulchra. For Tibouchina pulchra, all the individuals were mapped in February, when the trees undergo mass-flowering with purple and pink blossoms. Additionally, elevation data at 30m spatial resolution from NASA Shuttle Radar Topography Mission (SRTM) and annual mean climate variables (Terraclimate datasets at ∼ 4km of spatial resolution) were used to analyse the forest and species distributions. We found that natural forests are currently more frequently found on south-facing slopes, likely because of geomorphology and past land use, and that Tibouchina is restricted to the wetter part of the region (southern part), which annually receives at least 1600 mm of precipitation. Tibouchina pulchra was found to clearly indicate forest regeneration as almost all individuals were found within or adjacent to forests regrown after 1962. By contrast, Cecropia hololeuca was found to indicate older disturbed forests, with all individuals almost exclusively found in forest fragments already present in 1962. At the regional scale, using the dominance maps of both species, we show that at least 4.3% of the current region's natural forests have regrown after 1962 (Tibouchina dominated, ∼ 4757 ha) and that ∼ 9% of the old natural forests have experienced significant disturbance (Cecropia dominated).
Indexed as
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.