↓ Skip to main content

Harmonization of forest disturbance datasets of the conterminous USA from 1986 to 2011

Overview of attention for article published in Environmental Monitoring & Assessment, March 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#42 of 1,181)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (81st percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (92nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
13 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
16 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
Harmonization of forest disturbance datasets of the conterminous USA from 1986 to 2011
Published in
Environmental Monitoring & Assessment, March 2017
DOI 10.1007/s10661-017-5879-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Christopher E. Soulard, William Acevedo, Warren B. Cohen, Zhiqiang Yang, Stephen V. Stehman, Janis L. Taylor

Abstract

Several spatial forest disturbance datasets exist for the conterminous USA. The major problem with forest disturbance mapping is that variability between map products leads to uncertainty regarding the actual rate of disturbance. In this article, harmonized maps were produced from multiple data sources (i.e., Global Forest Change, LANDFIRE Vegetation Disturbance, National Land Cover Database, Vegetation Change Tracker, and Web-Enabled Landsat Data). The harmonization process involved fitting common class ontologies and determining spatial congruency to produce forest disturbance maps for four time intervals (1986-1992, 1992-2001, 2001-2006, and 2006-2011). Pixels mapped as disturbed for two or more datasets were labeled as disturbed in the harmonized maps. The primary advantage gained by harmonization was improvement in commission error rates relative to the individual disturbance products. Disturbance omission errors were high for both harmonized and individual forest disturbance maps due to underlying limitations in mapping subtle disturbances with Landsat classification algorithms. To enhance the value of the harmonized disturbance products, we used fire perimeter maps to add information on the cause of disturbance.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 13 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 16 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Canada 1 6%
Unknown 15 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 5 31%
Unspecified 3 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 19%
Student > Master 2 13%
Other 1 6%
Other 2 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Environmental Science 6 38%
Unspecified 4 25%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 19%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 3 19%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 22 April 2017.
All research outputs
#1,299,542
of 11,841,248 outputs
Outputs from Environmental Monitoring & Assessment
#42
of 1,181 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#48,426
of 265,282 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Environmental Monitoring & Assessment
#2
of 41 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 11,841,248 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,181 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its peers.
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 265,282 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 41 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.