User Tools

Site Tools

Trace:
working_groups:cp:collection_of_publications

Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

Link to this comparison view

Both sides previous revision Previous revision
Next revision 		Previous revision
Last revision Both sides next revision
working_groups:cp:collection_of_publications [2021/12/16 11:54]
ameier 		working_groups:cp:collection_of_publications [2021/12/22 11:51]
ameier
Line 1: Line 1:
-==== Collection of Publications ====+==== Collection of Publications and access to non-open-access publications ====
  
  
Line 8: Line 8:
 Here is a quick and dirty hack to access non-open-access articles in case they are included in the journals that the UPC has subscriptions for and supposing that you have UPC credentials. This method is particularly useful for DOI searches (That the UPC Library tries to keep a secret it seemed to me...): Here is a quick and dirty hack to access non-open-access articles in case they are included in the journals that the UPC has subscriptions for and supposing that you have UPC credentials. This method is particularly useful for DOI searches (That the UPC Library tries to keep a secret it seemed to me...):
  
-[[https://doi-org.recursos.biblioteca.upc.edu/ | UPC Library DOI search portal (https://doi-org.recursos.biblioteca.upc.edu/)]]+1) Visit: [[https://doi-org.recursos.biblioteca.upc.edu/ | UPC Library DOI search portal (https://doi-org.recursos.biblioteca.upc.edu/)]] (You may need to login first.)
  
-Then grab the tail of your DOI html address like "10.1111/gcb.14917" from+2) Then grab the DOI of interest as in this example "https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.14917" and paste it into the search field from step 1 and hit Enter. Heureka! (hopefully).
  
-   https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.14917 +If that fails, then try this hack [[.collection_of_publications:ups_doi_access_hack| UPC DOI access hack]]
-or directly from (restrictive) publisher site like this one +
-   https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/gcb.14917+
  
-and paste it in the DOI search field and hit enter.  +  
-If you are lucky your publication may be found and accessed that way as in this example.... +
  
 +== Tables of Literature potentially useful to our work... ==
 +Feel free to create more sub-pages as you see fit.
 +Please insert any additions alphabetically by sir name of the first author.
  
-   https://doi-org.recursos.biblioteca.upc.edu/10.1111/gcb.14917+[[.collection_of_publications:carbon_cycle  | Carbon Cycle related publications ]]
  
-== Table of Literature potentially useful to our work... == +[[.collection_of_publications:ecearth_inner_functioning  | EC-Earth inner functioning related publications ]] 
-Please insert any additions alphabetically by sir name of the first author.+ 
 +[[.collection_of_publications:LPJGUESS_inner_functioning_and_applications  | LPJGUESS inner functioning and application related publications ]] 
 + 
 +[[.collection_of_publications:lai_publications  | LAI Leaf Area Index related publications ]] 
 + 
 +[[.collection_of_publications:lulcc_publications  | LULCC Land Use & Land Cover Change publications ]]
  
 ^ Author      ^ Title, Description, DOI, Document ^ ^ Author      ^ Title, Description, DOI, Document ^
-| Masayuki Kondo | State of the science in reconciling top-down and bottom-up approaches for terrestrial CO2 budget | +| Suzanne E. Cotillon | West Africa land use and land cover time series: U.S. Geological Survey Fact Sheet 2017–3004 | 
-| 2019 | Their set of atmospheric inversions and bio-sphere models, showed a high level of agreement for global and hemispheric CO2 budgets in the 2000s as well as for the regions of North America and South-east Asia.  Differences in budget estimates are substantial for East Asia and South America. There is uncertainty in several regions as to whether these represent a carbon sink or source. Given these findings, caution should be taken when interpreting regional CO2 budgets.Those uncertainties continue to limit our ability to project the mitigation potential by the terrestrial biosphere. | +| 2017 | The data shows snapshots of 1975, 2000 and 2013 at typically 2km resolution, is based on Landsat imagery and validated with aerial photography, covering approx. 4 to 18 degrees North. The 24 LULC classes descriptions are provided here: https://eros.usgs.gov/westafrica/land-use-land-cover-map). The data products are available for download at no charge from: https://eros.usgs.gov/westafrica | 
-|  | https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.14917 | +|  | https://doi.org/10.3133/fs20173004, https://doi.org/10.5066/F73N21JF | 
-|  | {{ :working_groups:cp:kondo_-_status_of_reconciling_top-down_and_bottom-up_approaches_for_co2_-_2019.pdf |}} | +|  | {{ :working_groups:cp:usgs-west_africa_land_use_land_cover_time_series_fs20173004.pdf |}} | 
-| A. Krause | Legacy Effects from Historical Environmental Changes Dominate Future Terrestrial Carbon Uptake | +| Livia C.P. Dias  | Patterns of land use, extensification, and intensification of Brazilian agriculture | 
-| 2020 | They use LPJ‐GUESS to quantify legacy effects for the 21st century. LUH2 (historic) and bias-corrected IPSL‐CM5A‐LR climate mode (future) are employed to provide land use forcing. The combined legacy effects of historical (1850–2015) environmental changes result in a land carbon uptake of +126 Gt C over the future (2015–2099) period. This by far exceeds the impacts of future environmental changes (range −53 Gt C to +16 Gt C for three scenarios) and is comparable in magnitude to historical carbon losses (−154 Gt C). The response of the biosphere to historical environmental changes dominates future terrestrial carbon cycling at least until mid-century. | +| 2016 | Periods 1940-2000 and 2000-2012: Based on Hansen's annual maps (30m resolution) pixels that changed from woody to non-woody vegetation were identified and filled with land use classes or crops in proportion to the crops reported in survey data for the area. Pixels were aggregated to obtain a 1x1km annual land use map. Brazilian census data were performed in 1940, 1950, 1960, 1970, 1975, 1980, 1985, 1995, and 2006 at the municipality level. Also available are annual crop yields and cattle stocks since 1990. Census data was interpolated to annual data. They use a number of elaborate algorithms to grow or shrink crop areas by firstly varying the percentage of crops within a pixel that is not 100% natural vegetation (presumably before spilling to a neighbouring pixel). | 
-|  | https://doi.org/10.1029/2020EF001674 | +|  | https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.13314 | 
-|  | {{ :working_groups:cp:krause-legacy_effects_from_historical_environmental_changes_2020ef001674.pdf |}} | +|  | {{ :working_groups:cp:dias-patterns_of_land_use_of_brazilian_agriculture_1940-2010-_2016_.pdf |}} | 
-| Philip Vergragt et al  | Comparison of forest above-ground biomass from dynamic global vegetation models with spatially explicit remotely sensed observation-based estimates |  +| Yaqian He, E.L.Timothy & A. Warner | A time series of annual land use and land cover maps of China from 1982 to 2013 generated using AVHRR GIMMS NDVI3g data | 
-| 2011 | This paper investigates if and how carbon capture and storage (CCS) could help to avoid reinforcing fossil fuel lock-in. The outcome is that a large-scale BECCS development could be feasible under certain conditions, thus largely avoiding the risk of reinforced fossil fuel lock-in. //Keywords: Carbon capture and storage, Biomass, Fossil fuel// | +| 2017 | 1982-2013: A 32-year annual land use and land cover (LULC) maps of China were generated. The LULC map created for 2012 has no significant differences from the corresponding MODIS map (available since 2001). The LULC classification methods can be applied to other geographical regions. | 
-| | https://doi-org.recursos.biblioteca.upc.edu/10.1111/gcb.15117      |  +|  | https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2017.07.010 | 
-| | {{ :working_groups:cp:vergragt-comparison_of_forest_above-ground_biomass_from_dgvms-1-s2.0-s0959378011000215-main.pdf |}} |+|  | {{ :working_groups:cp:yaqian-he_a_time_series_of_annual_lulc_maps_of_china_from_1982-2013_using_avhrr-_2017_1-s2.0-s0034425717303255-main.pdf |}} | 
 +| Pete Smith | Which practices co-deliver food security, climate change mitigation and adaptation, and combat land degradation and desertification? | 
 +| 2019 |  | 
 +|  | https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.14878 | 
 +|  | {{ :working_groups:cp:smith_which_practices_co-deliver_food_security_climate_change_mitigation_and_adaptation-2019.pdf |}} | 
 +| Yidi XU et al. | Annual 30-m land use/land cover maps of China for 1980–2015 from the integration of AVHRR, MODIS and Landsat data using the BFAST algorithm | 
 +| 2020 | Annual land use land cover (LULC) change information at 30m spatial resolution covering 1980 to 2015. The data integrates MODIS and Global Inventory Modelling and Mapping Studies (GIMMS) normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI)) with high spatial resolution datasets (China’s Land-Use/cover Datasets (CLUDs) derived from 30-meter Landsat TM/ETM+/OLI) to generate annual nominal 30 m LULC maps for the whole of China. | 
 +|  | https://doi.org/10.1007/s11430-019-9606-4 | 
 +|  | {{ :working_groups:cp:xu_1980-2015-annual30-mlanduselandcovermapsforchina-2020.pdf |}} |
 | Hui Yang | Comparison of forest above-ground biomass from dynamic global vegetation models with spatially explicit remotely sensed observation-based estimates | | Hui Yang | Comparison of forest above-ground biomass from dynamic global vegetation models with spatially explicit remotely sensed observation-based estimates |
 | 2020 | Uses the GlobBiomass data set of forest above-ground biomass (AGB) density for the year 2010, obtained from multiple remote sensing and in situ observations at 100 m spatial resolution to evaluate AGB estimated by nine dynamic global vegetation models (DGVMs).Model estimates are 365 ± 66 Pg C compared to 275 (±13.5%) Pg C from GlobBiomass. The results suggest that TRENDY v6 DGVMs tend to underestimate biomass loss from anthropogenic disturbances.| | 2020 | Uses the GlobBiomass data set of forest above-ground biomass (AGB) density for the year 2010, obtained from multiple remote sensing and in situ observations at 100 m spatial resolution to evaluate AGB estimated by nine dynamic global vegetation models (DGVMs).Model estimates are 365 ± 66 Pg C compared to 275 (±13.5%) Pg C from GlobBiomass. The results suggest that TRENDY v6 DGVMs tend to underestimate biomass loss from anthropogenic disturbances.|
working_groups/cp/collection_of_publications.txt · Last modified: 2021/12/22 11:53 by ameier

Page Tools

Donate Powered by PHP Valid HTML5 Valid CSS Driven by DokuWiki