ArticleCarbon balance and management2024
Improved aboveground biomass estimation and regional assessment with aerial lidar in California's subalpine forests.
Article in Carbon balance and management, 2024. 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.
- Multi-scale remote sensing monitoring of aboveground vegetation carbon storage in long-distance expressways.Carbon balance and management · 2026Article
- Extracting rubber tree parameters and estimating carbon storage using airborne LiDAR.PloS one · 2025Article
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
backgroundUnderstanding the impacts of climate change on forest aboveground biomass is a high priority for land managers. High elevation subalpine forests provide many important ecosystem services, including carbon sequestration, and are vulnerable to climate change, which has altered forest structure and disturbance regimes. Although large, regional studies have advanced aboveground biomass mapping with satellite data, typically using a general approach broadly calibrated or trained with available field data, it is unclear how well these models work in less prevalent and highly heterogeneous forest types such as the subalpine. Monitoring biomass using methods that model uncertainty at multiple scales is critical to ensure that local relationships between biomass and input variables are retained. Forest structure metrics from lidar are particularly valuable alongside field data for mapping aboveground biomass, due to their high correlation with biomass.
resultsWe estimated aboveground woody biomass of live and dead trees and uncertainty at 30 m resolution in subalpine forests of the Sierra Nevada, California, from aerial lidar data in combination with a collection of field inventory data, using a Bayesian geostatistical model. The ten-fold cross-validation resulted in excellent model calibration of our subalpine-specific model (94.7% of measured plot biomass within the predicted 95% credible interval). When evaluated against two commonly referenced regional estimates based on Landsat optical imagery, root mean square error, relative standard error, and bias of our estimations were substantially lower, demonstrating the benefits of local modeling for subalpine forests. We mapped AGB over four management units in the Sierra Nevada and found variable biomass density ranging from 92.4 to 199.2 Mg/ha across these management units, highlighting the importance of high quality, local field and remote sensing data.
conclusionsBy applying a relatively new Bayesian geostatistical modeling method to a novel forest type, our study produced the most accurate and precise aboveground biomass estimates to date for Sierra Nevada subalpine forests at 30 m pixel and management unit scales. Our estimates of total aboveground biomass within the management units had low uncertainty and can be used effectively in carbon accounting and carbon trading markets.
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.