ArticleScientific data2024
Assessing Spatial Representativeness of Global Flux Tower Eddy-Covariance Measurements Using Data from FLUXNET2015.
Article in Scientific data, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Machine-learning emergent constraints on surface albedo feedback over Arctic land regions.Nature communications · 2026Article
- Flux Footprints: A Critical Link to Bridge Eddy-Covariance Measurements With Models, Remote Sensing, and Other Observations.Global change biology · 2026Review
- Assessing Spatial Representativeness of Global Flux Tower Eddy-Covariance Measurements Using Data from FLUXNET2015.Scientific data · 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Large datasets of carbon dioxide, energy, and water fluxes were measured with the eddy-covariance (EC) technique, such as FLUXNET2015. These datasets are widely used to validate remote-sensing products and benchmark models. One of the major challenges in utilizing EC-flux data is determining the spatial extent to which measurements taken at individual EC towers reflect model-grid or remote sensing pixels. To minimize the potential biases caused by the footprint-to-target area mismatch, it is important to use flux datasets with awareness of the footprint. This study analyze the spatial representativeness of global EC measurements based on the open-source FLUXNET2015 data, using the published flux footprint model (SAFE-f). The calculated annual cumulative footprint climatology (ACFC) was overlaid on land cover and vegetation index maps to create a spatial representativeness dataset of global flux towers. The dataset includes the following components: (1) the ACFC contour (ACFCC) data and areas representing 50%, 60%, 70%, and 80% ACFCC of each site, (2) the proportion of each land cover type weighted by the 80% ACFC (ACFCW), (3) the semivariogram calculated using Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI) considering the 80% ACFCW, and (4) the sensor location bias (SLB) between the 80% ACFCW and designated areas (e.g. 80% ACFCC and window sizes) proxied by NDVI. Finally, we conducted a comprehensive evaluation of the representativeness of each site from three aspects: (1) the underlying surface cover, (2) the semivariogram, and (3) the SLB between 80% ACFCW and 80% ACFCC, and categorized them into 3 levels. The goal of creating this dataset is to provide data quality guidance for international researchers to effectively utilize the FLUXNET2015 dataset in the future.
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.