ArticleScientific reports2026
Consensus land-cover mapping improves grassland classification in European mountain landscapes.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. 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
Accurate land-cover information is essential for biodiversity monitoring, yet existing 10-m global and continental land-cover datasets vary in accuracy and thematic consistency, particularly for grasslands in complex mountain environments. We assessed six state-of-the-art land-cover products (Dynamic World, ESA WorldCover, Esri Land Cover, Corine Land Cover+ Backbone, ELC10, S2GLC) across the Alps and Carpathians and developed three consensus maps using weighted voting, accuracy-confusion weighting, and an accuracy-weighted Random Forest ensemble. All datasets were validated against an independent set of expert-interpreted reference samples. Individual products showed large discrepancies in grassland extent, elevation distribution, and landscape structure. Global datasets (Dynamic World, Esri Land Cover) underestimated grassland extent, whereas ESA WorldCover and Corine Land Cover+ reported higher proportions. Consensus approaches substantially reduced these inconsistencies. The Random Forest ensemble achieved the highest accuracy (overall 90–92%), outperforming individual datasets and improving both user’s and producer’s accuracies for grassland (> 84%). Consensus datasets also better captured expected elevation and slope gradients, producing more spatially coherent and ecologically realistic grassland patterns. By integrating multiple land-cover sources, consensus approaches effectively mitigated dataset-specific biases and increased the reliability of grassland mapping in heterogeneous mountain systems. Consequently, consensus land-cover products provide a robust and ecologically meaningful alternative to single-source datasets for environmental assessments in complex mountain regions.
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.