Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36993850›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in plant science2023

Inversion models of aboveground grassland biomass in Xinjiang based on multisource data.

R P Zhang, J H Zhou, J Guo, Y H Miao, L L Zhang

Full text read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in plant science, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

R P ZhangCollege of Ecology and Environment, Xinjiang University, Urumqi, China.
J H ZhouCollege of Ecology and Environment, Xinjiang University, Urumqi, China.
J GuoXinjiang Academy Forestry, Urumqi, China.
Y H MiaoCollege of Ecology and Environment, Xinjiang University, Urumqi, China.
L L ZhangCollege of Ecology and Environment, Xinjiang University, Urumqi, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Grassland biomass monitoring is essential for assessing grassland health and carbon cycling. However, monitoring grassland biomass in drylands based on satellite remote sensing is challenging.Statistical regression models and machine learning have been used for the construction of grassland biomass models, but the predictive power for different grassland types is unclear. Additionally, the selection of the most appropriate variables to construct a biomass inversion model for different grassland types must be explored. Therefore,1201 ground-truthed data points collected from 2014-2021,including 15 Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) vegetation indices,geographic location and topographic data,and meteorological factors and vegetation biophysical indicators were screened for key variables using principal component analysis (PCA). The accuracy of multiple linear regression models, exponential regression models, power function models, support vector machine (SVM) models, random forest (RF) models, and neural network models was evaluated for the inversion of three types of grassland biomass. The results were as follows: (1) The biomass inversion accuracy of single vegetation indices was low, and the optimal vegetation indices were the soil-adjusted vegetation index (SAVI) (R2 = 0.255), normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI) (R2 = 0.372) and optimized soil-adjusted vegetation index (OSAVI) (R2 = 0.285). (2)Grassland above-ground biomass (AGB) was affected by various factors such as geographic location,topography, and meteorological factors, and the inverse models using a single environmental variable had large errors. (3) The main variables used to model biomass in the three types of grasslands were different. SAVI, aspect, slope, and precipitation (Prec.) were selected for desert grasslands; NDVI,shortwave infrared 2 (SWI2), longitude, mean temperature, and annual precipitation were selected for steppe;and OSAVI, phytochrome ratio (PPR), longitude, precipitation, and temperature were selected for meadows. (4) The non-parametric meadow biomass model was superior to the statistical regression model. (5) The RF model was the best model for the inversion of grassland biomass in Xinjiang, and this model had the highest accuracy for grassland biomass inversion (R2 = 0.656, root mean square error (RMSE) = 815.6 kg/ha),followed by meadow (R2 = 0.610, RMSE = 547.9 kg/ha) and desert grassland (R2 = 0.441, RMSE = 353.6 kg/ha).

Indexed as

biomassgrasslandmachine learningprincipal component analysisvegetation indexXinjiang

Identifiers

PMID36993850
PMCPMC10040755

What OpenQuestion holds

Textfull text, public
LicenceCC BY
reference markers read1
measurements read23
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.