ArticleScientific reports2024
Disentangling linkages between satellite-derived indicators of forest structure and productivity for ecosystem monitoring.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The essential biodiversity variables (EBV) framework has been proposed as a monitoring system of standardized, comparable variables that represents a minimum set of biological information to monitor biodiversity change at large spatial extents. Six classes of EBVs (genetic composition, species populations, species traits, community composition, ecosystem structure and ecosystem function) are defined, a number of which are ideally suited to observation and monitoring by remote sensing systems. We used moderate-resolution remotely sensed indicators representing two ecosystem-level EBV classes (ecosystem structure and function) to assess their complementarity and redundancy across a range of ecosystems encompassing significant environmental gradients. Redundancy analyses found that remote sensing indicators of forest structure were not strongly related to indicators of ecosystem productivity (represented by the Dynamic Habitat Indices; DHIs), with the structural information only explaining 15.7% of the variation in the DHIs. Complex metrics of forest structure, such as aboveground biomass, did not contribute additional information over simpler height-based attributes that can be directly estimated with light detection and ranging (LIDAR) observations. With respect to ecosystem conditions, we found that forest types and ecosystems dominated by coniferous trees had less redundancy between the remote sensing indicators when compared to broadleaf or mixed forest types. Likewise, higher productivity environments exhibited the least redundancy between indicators, in contrast to more environmentally stressed regions. We suggest that biodiversity researchers continue to exploit multiple dimensions of remote sensing data given the complementary information they provide on structure and function focused EBVs, which makes them jointly suitable for monitoring forest ecosystems.
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.