Show simple item record

Files in this item

Thumbnail

Item metadata

dc.contributor.authorHill, Timothy Charles
dc.contributor.authorWilliams, Mathew
dc.contributor.authorBloom, A. Anthony
dc.contributor.authorMitchard, Edward
dc.contributor.authorRyan, Casey
dc.date.accessioned2013-10-17T14:31:03Z
dc.date.available2013-10-17T14:31:03Z
dc.date.issued2013-09-19
dc.identifier.citationHill , T C , Williams , M , Bloom , A A , Mitchard , E & Ryan , C 2013 , ' Are inventory based and remotely sensed above-ground biomass estimates consistent? ' , PLoS One , vol. 8 , no. 9 , e74170 . https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0074170en
dc.identifier.issn1932-6203
dc.identifier.otherPURE: 64778756
dc.identifier.otherPURE UUID: 8741a317-43e4-4a8e-a247-f5f3adb2d458
dc.identifier.otherScopus: 84884364357
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10023/4106
dc.description.abstractCarbon emissions resulting from deforestation and forest degradation are poorly known at local, national and global scales. In part, this lack of knowledge results from uncertain above-ground biomass estimates. It is generally assumed that using more sophisticated methods of estimating above-ground biomass, which make use of remote sensing, will improve accuracy. We examine this assumption by calculating, and then comparing, above-ground biomass area density (AGBD) estimates from studies with differing levels of methodological sophistication. We consider estimates based on information from nine different studies at the scale of Africa, Mozambique and a 1160 km2 study area within Mozambique. The true AGBD is not known for these scales and so accuracy cannot be determined. Instead we consider the overall precision of estimates by grouping different studies. Since an the accuracy of an estimate cannot exceed its precision, this approach provides an upper limit on the overall accuracy of the group. This reveals poor precision at all scales, even between studies that are based on conceptually similar approaches. Mean AGBD estimates for Africa vary from 19.9 to 44.3 Mg ha−1, for Mozambique from 12.7 to 68.3 Mg ha−1, and for the 1160 km2 study area estimates range from 35.6 to 102.4 Mg ha−1. The original uncertainty estimates for each study, when available, are generally small in comparison with the differences between mean biomass estimates of different studies. We find that increasing methodological sophistication does not appear to result in improved precision of AGBD estimates, and moreover, inadequate estimates of uncertainty obscure any improvements in accuracy. Therefore, despite the clear advantages of remote sensing, there is a need to improve remotely sensed AGBD estimates if they are to provide accurate information on above-ground biomass. In particular, more robust and comprehensive uncertainty estimates are needed.
dc.language.isoeng
dc.relation.ispartofPLoS Oneen
dc.rights© 2013 Hill et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.en
dc.subjectGE Environmental Sciencesen
dc.subject.lccGEen
dc.titleAre inventory based and remotely sensed above-ground biomass estimates consistent?en
dc.typeJournal articleen
dc.description.versionPublisher PDFen
dc.contributor.institutionUniversity of St Andrews.Earth and Environmental Sciencesen
dc.identifier.doihttps://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0074170
dc.description.statusPeer revieweden


This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record