Integration of terrain-corrected GEDI, Landsat, and PALSAR-2 improves carbon density mapping, suggesting better climate policy support.
Accurate quantification of forest biomass carbon (C) stocks is essential for regional carbon accounting and climate change mitigation. However, high-resolution mapping remained challenging as contemporary satellite LiDAR-based methods faced an inherent trade-off between spatial resolution and prediction accuracy due to their limited spatial coverage. In this study, we proposed ForestCarbonNet, a scatter-supervised image-to-image U-Net framework that integrated in-situ measurements with terrain corrected GEDI LiDAR observations, Landsat imagery, and ALOS-2 PALSAR-2 radar backscatter data to overcome this resolution-accuracy compromise. We generated high-resolution (30-m) forest aboveground C density maps and achieved robust model performance (R2 = 0.83, %RMSE = 24.02%) across temperate forests in northeast China for 2020. Our approach offered three key advantages: (1) the locally calibrated allometric model effectively bridged in-situ measurements with terrain-corrected GEDI observations (3.69 million samples), enabling robust C density estimation at GEDI footprint scale; (2) GEDI expanded C density sampling across climatic gradients while mitigating saturation effects in high-biomass forests, reducing RMSE by 24.8%; and (3) ForestCarbonNet preserved spatial contextual information and outperformed traditional pixel-based methods, reducing RMSE by 12.3%. We estimated the total forest aboveground biomass carbon stock to be 2.74 ± 0.38 PgC, with projected carbon sink peak at 4.21–5.08 TgC year−1 in the 2060s but decline to only 32% of peak levels by 2100s. The proposed method enables accurate quantification of forest carbon stocks, providing critical data that strengthens evidence-based forest management strategies and informs climate policy decisions.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Lyu et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: