Evaluating the reliability of global historical land use scenarios for forest data in China

Fan YANG; Fanneng HE; Meijiao LI; Shicheng LI

doi:10.1007/s11442-020-1771-2

Journal of Geographical Sciences, Volume. 30, Issue 7, 1083(2020)

Evaluating the reliability of global historical land use scenarios for forest data in China

Fan YANG^1,2, Fanneng HE^1、*, Meijiao LI^1,2, and Shicheng LI³

¹Key Laboratory of Land Surface Pattern and Simulation, Institute of Geographic Sciences and Natural Resources Research, CAS, Beijing 100101, China

²University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, China

³School of Public Administration, China University of Geosciences, Wuhan 430074, China

show less

Figures & Tables(6)

Fig. 1. Forested areas of China since 1700 according to the SAGE, PJ, KK10, and CHFD datasets

Download full size

View in Article

Fig. 2. Provincial forested area of China for 1700-1990 from the PJ and CHFD datasets

Download full size

View in Article

Fig. 3. The spatial patterns of distribution of forests, and relative biases between the PJ and CHFD datasets

Download full size

View in Article

Table 1.
Details of the SAGE, PJ, KK10, and CHFD datasets

View table

View in Article

Table 1.
Details of the SAGE, PJ, KK10, and CHFD datasets

Datasets	Thematic coverage	Temporal coverage	Temporal resolution	Spatial resolution
SAGE	Cropland, natural vegetation (forest, grassland)	1700-1992	1-50 a	0.5°×0.5°
PJ	Agricultural area (cropland, pasture), natural vegetation (forest, grassland, shrub, and tundra)	800-1992	1 a	0.5°×0.5°
KK10	Anthropogenic deforestation	8000-1850	1 a	5°×5°
CHFD	Forest	1700-2000	5-50 a	10 km×10 km

Table 2.
Forest area of China and relative biases among the SAGE, PJ, KK10, and CHFD datasets

View table

View in Article

Table 2.
Forest area of China and relative biases among the SAGE, PJ, KK10, and CHFD datasets

Years	CHFDForest area(10⁴ km²)	SAGE		PJ		KK10
Years	CHFDForest area(10⁴ km²)	Forest area(10⁴ km²)	Relative bias (%)	Forest area(10⁴ km²)	Relative bias (%)	Forest area(10⁴ km²)	Relative bias (%)
1700	241.27	296.00	20.44	265.23	9.47	333.04	32.23
1720	235.58	286.40	19.53	256.30	8.43	339.63	36.58
1740	229.89	276.80	18.57	246.37	6.92	318.04	32.46
1760	222.81	267.20	18.17	236.41	5.92	311.20	33.41
1780	214.34	257.60	18.38	226.41	5.48	303.65	34.83
1800	205.87	248.00	18.62	216.35	4.97	299.10	37.35
1820	194.99	238.00	19.93	206.22	5.60	294.55	41.25
1840	184.11	228.00	21.38	195.91	6.21	292.50	46.29
1860	172.74	218.00	23.27	185.66	7.21
1880	160.88	208.00	25.69	176.21	9.10
1900	149.02	200.00	29.42	167.80	11.87
1920	133.48	190.00	35.31	158.20	16.99
1940	117.94	177.00	40.60	144.44	20.27
1960	87.88	169.00	65.39	143.98	49.37
1980	111.92	167.00	40.02	144.86	25.80

Table 3.
The percentage of grid cells of different relative biases between the PJ and CHFD datasets
View table
View in Article
Table 3.
The percentage of grid cells of different relative biases between the PJ and CHFD datasets
Relative biases (%) 1720 1780 1840 1900 1960
<10 9.32 7.59 6.47 4.81 3.05
10-30 17.14 14.51 11.73 9.47 7.18
30-50 7.97 9.70 9.85 8.05 5.04
50-70 5.71 6.39 6.24 7.14 4.81
70-90 4.66 4.81 4.74 4.21 4.66
>90 55.19 56.99 60.98 66.32 75.27

Tools

Get Citation

Copy Citation Text

Fan YANG, Fanneng HE, Meijiao LI, Shicheng LI. Evaluating the reliability of global historical land use scenarios for forest data in China[J]. Journal of Geographical Sciences, 2020, 30(7): 1083

Download Citation

EndNote(RIS)BibTex Plain Text

Set citation alerts for article

Save article for my favorites

Paper Information

Category: Research Articles

Received: Oct. 20, 2019

Accepted: Dec. 30, 2019

Published Online: Apr. 21, 2021

The Author Email: HE Fanneng (hefn@igsnrr.ac.cn)

DOI:10.1007/s11442-020-1771-2

Topics

Resource Economy

Research Articles

Table 1. Details of the SAGE, PJ, KK10, and CHFD datasets

Table 1. Details of the SAGE, PJ, KK10, and CHFD datasets

Table 2. Forest area of China and relative biases among the SAGE, PJ, KK10, and CHFD datasets

Table 2. Forest area of China and relative biases among the SAGE, PJ, KK10, and CHFD datasets

Table 3. The percentage of grid cells of different relative biases between the PJ and CHFD datasets

Table 3. The percentage of grid cells of different relative biases between the PJ and CHFD datasets

Table 1.
Details of the SAGE, PJ, KK10, and CHFD datasets

Table 1.
Details of the SAGE, PJ, KK10, and CHFD datasets

Table 2.
Forest area of China and relative biases among the SAGE, PJ, KK10, and CHFD datasets

Table 2.
Forest area of China and relative biases among the SAGE, PJ, KK10, and CHFD datasets

Table 3.
The percentage of grid cells of different relative biases between the PJ and CHFD datasets

Table 3.
The percentage of grid cells of different relative biases between the PJ and CHFD datasets