ArticleEnvironmental science and pollution research international2020
Estimation of potential ecological carrying capacity in China.
Article in Environmental science and pollution research international, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
It is urgent to explore the potential ecological carrying capacity (PECC) of regions where the study of ecological carrying capacity (ECC) is difficult to meet the real-world requirements of building an ecological civilization. In this study, classification and regression tree models were applied for estimating potential normalized difference vegetation index (PNDVI) based on climate variables and training data of actual NDVI. Then, potential net primary productivity (PNPP) was simulated by using Carnegie-Ames-Stanford Approach (CASA) model and PNDVI. On this basis, PECC of 31 provinces in China was estimated using the improved ecological footprint model and compared results with actual condition in 2015. The results showed the following: per capita PECC presented immense spatial differences, with high values in the northwest and low values in the southeast. The total PECCs of eight provinces were far greater than their actual total ECCs in 2015. Human activities in five provinces had the greatest negative impact on the ecological environment and the greatest pressure on ecological restoration. This study provided a new way to estimate the spatial distribution of potential ecological carrying capacity and found that spatial simulations of PNDVI, PNPP, and PECC can better quantify the difference between actual and potential ecological conditions under external pressures and can provide a trustworthy scientific basis for formulating differentiated ecological restoration strategies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
32170613What 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.