↓ Skip to main content

Markedly divergent estimates of Amazon forest carbon density from ground plots and satellites

Overview of attention for article published in Global Ecology & Biogeography, April 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • One of the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#6 of 118)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (97th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
blogs
5 blogs
policy
2 policy sources
twitter
18 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
253 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
696 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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
Markedly divergent estimates of Amazon forest carbon density from ground plots and satellites
Published in
Global Ecology & Biogeography, April 2014
DOI 10.1111/geb.12168
Pubmed ID
Authors

Edward T. A. Mitchard, Ted R. Feldpausch, Roel J. W. Brienen, Gabriela Lopez‐Gonzalez, Abel Monteagudo, Timothy R. Baker, Simon L. Lewis, Jon Lloyd, Carlos A. Quesada, Manuel Gloor, Hans ter Steege, Patrick Meir, Esteban Alvarez, Alejandro Araujo‐Murakami, Luiz E. O. C. Aragão, Luzmila Arroyo, Gerardo Aymard, Olaf Banki, Damien Bonal, Sandra Brown, Foster I. Brown, Carlos E. Cerón, Victor Chama Moscoso, Jerome Chave, James A. Comiskey, Fernando Cornejo, Massiel Corrales Medina, Lola Da Costa, Flavia R. C. Costa, Anthony Di Fiore, Tomas F. Domingues, Terry L. Erwin, Todd Frederickson, Niro Higuchi, Euridice N. Honorio Coronado, Tim J. Killeen, William F. Laurance, Carolina Levis, William E. Magnusson, Beatriz S. Marimon, Ben Hur Marimon Junior, Irina Mendoza Polo, Piyush Mishra, Marcelo T. Nascimento, David Neill, Mario P. Núñez Vargas, Walter A. Palacios, Alexander Parada, Guido Pardo Molina, Marielos Peña‐Claros, Nigel Pitman, Carlos A. Peres, Lourens Poorter, Adriana Prieto, Hirma Ramirez‐Angulo, Zorayda Restrepo Correa, Anand Roopsind, Katherine H. Roucoux, Agustin Rudas, Rafael P. Salomão, Juliana Schietti, Marcos Silveira, Priscila F. de Souza, Marc K. Steininger, Juliana Stropp, John Terborgh, Raquel Thomas, Marisol Toledo, Armando Torres‐Lezama, Tinde R. van Andel, Geertje M. F. van der Heijden, Ima C. G. Vieira, Simone Vieira, Emilio Vilanova‐Torre, Vincent A. Vos, Ophelia Wang, Charles E. Zartman, Yadvinder Malhi, Oliver L. Phillips

Abstract

The accurate mapping of forest carbon stocks is essential for understanding the global carbon cycle, for assessing emissions from deforestation, and for rational land-use planning. Remote sensing (RS) is currently the key tool for this purpose, but RS does not estimate vegetation biomass directly, and thus may miss significant spatial variations in forest structure. We test the stated accuracy of pantropical carbon maps using a large independent field dataset. Tropical forests of the Amazon basin. The permanent archive of the field plot data can be accessed at: http://dx.doi.org/10.5521/FORESTPLOTS.NET/2014_1. Two recent pantropical RS maps of vegetation carbon are compared to a unique ground-plot dataset, involving tree measurements in 413 large inventory plots located in nine countries. The RS maps were compared directly to field plots, and kriging of the field data was used to allow area-based comparisons. The two RS carbon maps fail to capture the main gradient in Amazon forest carbon detected using 413 ground plots, from the densely wooded tall forests of the north-east, to the light-wooded, shorter forests of the south-west. The differences between plots and RS maps far exceed the uncertainties given in these studies, with whole regions over- or under-estimated by > 25%, whereas regional uncertainties for the maps were reported to be < 5%. Pantropical biomass maps are widely used by governments and by projects aiming to reduce deforestation using carbon offsets, but may have significant regional biases. Carbon-mapping techniques must be revised to account for the known ecological variation in tree wood density and allometry to create maps suitable for carbon accounting. The use of single relationships between tree canopy height and above-ground biomass inevitably yields large, spatially correlated errors. This presents a significant challenge to both the forest conservation and remote sensing communities, because neither wood density nor species assemblages can be reliably mapped from space.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 18 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 696 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 9 1%
United Kingdom 7 1%
United States 5 <1%
Netherlands 2 <1%
Colombia 2 <1%
Spain 2 <1%
Argentina 2 <1%
Germany 2 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Other 7 1%
Unknown 657 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 151 22%
Student > Ph. D. Student 122 18%
Student > Master 102 15%
Student > Bachelor 52 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 50 7%
Other 117 17%
Unknown 102 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Environmental Science 226 32%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 185 27%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 80 11%
Engineering 13 2%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 9 1%
Other 33 5%
Unknown 150 22%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 68. 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 07 November 2022.
All research outputs
#650,004
of 25,986,827 outputs
Outputs from Global Ecology & Biogeography
#6
of 118 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#5,684
of 242,745 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Global Ecology & Biogeography
#1
of 3 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,986,827 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 118 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% 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 242,745 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them