| Title |
Evaluation of modelled net primary production using MODIS and landsat satellite data fusion
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Carbon Balance and Management, June 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13021-016-0049-6 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Steven Jay, Christopher Potter, Robert Crabtree, Vanessa Genovese, Daniel J. Weiss, Maggi Kraft |
| Abstract |
To improve estimates of net primary production for terrestrial ecosystems of the continental United States, we evaluated a new image fusion technique to incorporate high resolution Landsat land cover data into a modified version of the CASA ecosystem model. The proportion of each Landsat land cover type within each 0.004 degree resolution CASA pixel was used to influence the ecosystem model result by a pure-pixel interpolation method. Seventeen Ameriflux tower flux records spread across the country were combined to evaluate monthly NPP estimates from the modified CASA model. Monthly measured NPP data values plotted against the revised CASA model outputs resulted in an overall R(2) of 0.72, mainly due to cropland locations where irrigation and crop rotation were not accounted for by the CASA model. When managed and disturbed locations are removed from the validation, the R(2) increases to 0.82. The revised CASA model with pure-pixel interpolated vegetation index performed well at tower sites where vegetation was not manipulated or managed and had not been recently disturbed. Tower locations that showed relatively low correlations with CASA-estimated NPP were regularly disturbed by either human or natural forces. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 3 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 68 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| India | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 67 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 14 | 21% |
| Lecturer | 5 | 7% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 7% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 5 | 7% |
| Student > Master | 5 | 7% |
| Other | 17 | 25% |
| Unknown | 17 | 25% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Environmental Science | 16 | 24% |
| Earth and Planetary Sciences | 11 | 16% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 8 | 12% |
| Engineering | 5 | 7% |
| Computer Science | 3 | 4% |
| Other | 4 | 6% |
| Unknown | 21 | 31% |
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 19 March 2017.
All research outputs
#13,517,540
of 23,322,258 outputs
Outputs from Carbon Balance and Management
#144
of 238 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#173,835
of 340,788 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Carbon Balance and Management
#6
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,322,258 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 238 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 16.3. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% 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 340,788 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 8 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.