↓ Skip to main content

Comparison of national level biomass maps for conterminous US: understanding pattern and causes of differences

Overview of attention for article published in Carbon Balance and Management, August 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (66th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
30 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Comparison of national level biomass maps for conterminous US: understanding pattern and causes of differences
Published in
Carbon Balance and Management, August 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13021-016-0060-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

N. Neeti, R. Kennedy

Abstract

As Earth observation satellite data proliferate, so too do maps derived from them. Even when two co-located maps are produced with low overall error, the spatial distribution of error may not be the same. Increasingly, methods will be needed to understand differences among purportedly similar products. For this study, we have used the four aboveground biomass (AGB) maps for conterminous US generated under NASA's Carbon Monitoring System. We have developed systematic approach to (1) assess both the absolute accuracy of individual maps and assess the spatial patterns of agreement among maps, and (2) investigate potential causes of the spatial structure of agreement among maps to gain insight into reliability of methodological choices in map making. The comparison of the four biomass maps with FIA based total biomass estimates at national scale suggest that all the maps have higher biomass estimate compared to FIA. When the four maps were compared among each other, the result shows that the maps S and K have more similar spatial structure whereas the maps K and W have more similar absolute values. Although the maps K and W were generated using completely different methodological workflow, they agree remarkably. All the maps did well in the dominant forest type with maximum agreement between them. The comparison of difference between maps S and K with regional maps suggests that these maps were able to capture the disturbance and not so much regrowth pattern. The study provides a comprehensive systematic approach to compare and evaluate different real data products using examples of four AGB maps. Although ostensibly the four maps map the same variable, they have different spatial distribution at different scale. Except the 2003 map, one can use other maps at the coarser spatial resolution. Finally, the disparate information available through different maps indicates a need for a temporal framework for consistent monitoring of carbon stock at national scale.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 30 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 30 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 9 30%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 13%
Other 3 10%
Student > Master 3 10%
Professor > Associate Professor 2 7%
Other 1 3%
Unknown 8 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Environmental Science 7 23%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 10%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 3 10%
Social Sciences 3 10%
Engineering 2 7%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 12 40%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 01 September 2016.
All research outputs
#12,669,792
of 22,884,315 outputs
Outputs from Carbon Balance and Management
#135
of 236 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#166,768
of 338,621 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Carbon Balance and Management
#2
of 6 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,884,315 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 236 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.9. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 338,621 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 6 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 4 of them.