Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41315284›Full record

ArticleScientific data2025

Sentinel-2 based estimates of rangeland fractional cover and canopy gap class for the western United States.

Brady W Allred, Sarah E McCord, Timothy J Assal, Brandon T Bestelmeyer, Chad S Boyd, Alexander C Brooks, Samantha M Cady, Michael C Duniway, Samuel D Fuhlendorf, Shane A Green and 19 more

Abstract readDataset
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific data, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Quantifying avian resilience to habitat change to support conservation decision-making.Ecological applications : a publication of the Ecological Society of America · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

29 authors.

Brady W AllredNumerical Terradynamic Simulation Group, University of Montana, Missoula, MT, USA. brady.allred@umontana.edu.
Sarah E McCordJornada Experimental Range, USDA Agricultural Research Service, Las Cruces, NM, USA.
Timothy J AssalBureau of Land Management, National Operations Center, Denver, CO, USA.
Brandon T BestelmeyerJornada Experimental Range, USDA Agricultural Research Service, Las Cruces, NM, USA.
Chad S BoydEastern Oregon Agricultural Research Center, USDA Agricultural Research Service, Burns, OR, USA.
Alexander C BrooksDesert Research Institute, Reno, NV, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-9742-4149
Samantha M CadyDepartment of Agronomy and Horticulture, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, NE, USA.
Michael C DuniwayU.S. Geological Survey, Southwest Biological Science Center, Moab, UT, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-9643-2785
Samuel D FuhlendorfNatural Resource Ecology and Management, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK, USA.
Shane A GreenUSDA Natural Resources Conservation Service, Central National Technology Support Center, Ft. Worth, TX, USA.
Georgia R HarrisonJornada Experimental Range, USDA Agricultural Research Service, Las Cruces, NM, USA.
Eric R JensenDesert Research Institute, Reno, NV, USA.
Emily J KachergisBureau of Land Management, National Operations Center, Denver, CO, USA.
Anna C KnightU.S. Geological Survey, Southwest Biological Science Center, Moab, UT, USA.
Chloe M MattilioUniversity of Wyoming Sheridan Research and Extension Center, Institute for Managing Annual Grasses Invading Natural Ecosystems, Sheridan, WY, USA.
Brian A MealorUniversity of Wyoming Sheridan Research and Extension Center, Institute for Managing Annual Grasses Invading Natural Ecosystems, Sheridan, WY, USA.
David E NaugleW.A. Franke College of Forestry and Conservation, University of Montana, Missoula, MT, USA.
Dylan O'LearyInstitute for Natural Resources, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR, USA.
Peter J OlsoyEastern Oregon Agricultural Research Center, USDA Agricultural Research Service, Burns, OR, USA.
Erika S PeirceRangeland Resources and Systems Research Unit, USDA Agricultural Research Service, Fort Collins, CO, USA.
Jason R ReinhardtUSDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Moscow, ID, USA.
Robert K ShriverDepartment of Natural Resources and Environmental Science, University of Nevada, Reno, NV, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-4590-4834
Joseph T SmithNumerical Terradynamic Simulation Group, University of Montana, Missoula, MT, USA.
Jason D TackU.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Habitat and Population Evaluation Team, Missoula, MT, USA.
Ashley M TannerCaesar Kleberg Wildlife Research Institute, Texas A&M University-Kingsville, Kingsville, TX, USA.
Evan P TannerCaesar Kleberg Wildlife Research Institute, Texas A&M University-Kingsville, Kingsville, TX, USA.
Dirac TwidwellDepartment of Agronomy and Horticulture, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, NE, USA.
Nicholas P WebbJornada Experimental Range, USDA Agricultural Research Service, Las Cruces, NM, USA.
Scott L MorfordNumerical Terradynamic Simulation Group, University of Montana, Missoula, MT, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Rangelands are extensive ecosystems, providing important ecosystem services while undergoing continuous change. As a result, improved monitoring technologies can help better characterize vegetation change. Satellite remote sensing has proven effective in this regard, tracking vegetation dynamics at broad and fine scales. We leveraged the spatial, spectral, and temporal resolution of Sentinel-2 satellites to estimate fractional cover and canopy gap across rangelands of the western United States. We produced annual, 10 m spatial resolution estimates of fractional cover and canopy gap size class for years 2018 to 2024. Fractional cover estimates include that of common plant functional types (annual forb and grass, bareground, littler, perennial forb and grass, shrub, tree) and select genera (including invasive annual grass species, pinyon-juniper species, and sagebrush species); canopy gap size classes include gap sizes 25 to 50, 51 to 100, 101 to 200, and greater than 200 cm. We make these data available as Cloud Optimized GeoTIFFs, organized as 75 × 75 km tiles covering the 17 western states of the United States.

Indexed as

EcosystemEnvironmental MonitoringRemote Sensing TechnologySatellite ImageryUnited States

Identifiers

PMID41315284
PMCPMC12663396

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.