ArticleEnvironmental monitoring and assessment2020
Monitoring vegetation change and their potential drivers in Yangtze River Basin of China from 1982 to 2015.
Article in Environmental monitoring and assessment, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Evaluation of vegetation restoration effectiveness along the Yangtze River shoreline and its response to land use changes.Scientific reports · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Monitoring vegetation change and their potential drivers are important to environmental management. Previous studies on vegetation change detection and driver discrimination were two independent fields. Specifically, change detection methods focus on nonlinear and linear change behaviors, i.e., abrupt change (AC) and gradual change (GC). But driver discrimination studies mainly used linear coupling models which rarely concerned the nonlinear behaviors of vegetation. The two diagnoses need be treated as sequential flow because they have inner causality mechanisms. Furthermore, ACs concealed in time series may induce over/under-estimate contributions from human. We chose the Yangtze River Basin of China (YRB) as a study area, first separated ACs from GCs using breaks for additive and seasonal trend method, then discriminated drivers of GCs using optimized Restrend method. Results showed that (1) 2.83% of YRB were ACs with hotspots in 1998 (30.2%), 2003 (10.4%), and 2002 (7.6%); 66.7% of YRB experienced GC with 94.8% of which were positive; and (2) climate induced more area but less dramatic GCs than human activities. Further analysis showed that temperature was the main climate driver to GCs, while human-induced GCs were related to local eco-policies. The widely occurring ACs in 1998 were related to the flooding catastrophe, while the dramatic ACs in sub-basin 12 in 2003 may result from urbanization. This paper provides clear insights on the vegetation changes and their drivers at a relatively long perspective (i.e., 34 years). Sequential combination of specifying different vegetation behaviors with driver analysis could improve driver characterizations, which is key to environmental assessment and management in YRB.
Indexed as
Identifiers
32935275What 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.