THE AMBIGUITY IN FOREST PROFILES AND XTINCTION ESTIMATED FROM MULTIBASELINE INTERFEROMETRIC SAR

This paper demonstrates by simulation that in the estimation of vegetation profiles from multibaseline interferometric synthetic aperture radar (InSAR), the peak extinction coefficient is poorly determined for typical interferometric coherence and phase accuracies. This coefficient determines overall density and affects the relative density profiles estimated from interferometry. This paper shows that a given radar power profile gives rise to a family of vegetation density profiles, depending on the peak extinction assumed. It is further  demonstrated that estimating the peak extinction requires coherence accuracies of better than 0.1% and phase accuracies of better than a few tenths of a degree, both of which exceed the performance of typical or envisioned SAR systems. Two recommended approaches to profile production with InSAR are 1) use the radar power profile instead of the vegetation density profile for biomass estimation and other ecosystem characterization (in analogy to LIDAR power which is most frequently used for lidar studies of biomass) or 2) apply external information to establish the extinction characteristics needed for vegetation density profiles.Esse artigo procura demonstrar, por simulação, que na estimativa de perfis de volume da vegetação por interferometria  com múltiplas linhas de base, o pico de extinção não é adequadamente determinado pela coerência interferométrica e fase, com acurácias típicas de InSAR. Esse pico determina a densidade global, afetando os perfis de densidade relativa da vegetação estimados por interferometria. Esse trabalho mostra que para um dado perfil de potência-radar há uma série de perfis de densidade da vegetação, dependendo do pico de extinção assumido. É ainda demonstrado que a estimativa do pico de  extinção requer exatidões de coerência melhores que 0,1%, bem como, de acurácias de fases que alguns décimos de graus, valores esses que atualmente excedem o desempenho de sistemas SAR em operação ou aqueles previstos. As duas abordagens recomendadas para a produção de perfis com InSAR são: (1) utilizar o perfil-radar, ao invés do perfil de densidade de vegetação, para estimação de biomassa e outras caracterizações de ecossistema (em nalogia à potência-lidar, a qual é mais  frequentemente utilizada nos estudos de biomassa baseados em LIDAR); ou (2) aplicar informação externa para estabelecer as características de extinção necessárias aos perfis de densidade de vegetação

Pervasive gaps in Amazonian ecological research

Biodiversity loss is one of the main challenges of our time,1,2 and attempts to address it require a clear un derstanding of how ecological communities respond to environmental change across time and space.3,4 While the increasing availability of global databases on ecological communities has advanced our knowledge of biodiversity sensitivity to environmental changes,5–7 vast areas of the tropics remain understudied.8–11 In the American tropics, Amazonia stands out as the world’s most diverse rainforest and the primary source of Neotropical biodiversity,12 but it remains among the least known forests in America and is often underrepre sented in biodiversity databases.13–15 To worsen this situation, human-induced modifications16,17 may elim inate pieces of the Amazon’s biodiversity puzzle before we can use them to understand how ecological com munities are responding. To increase generalization and applicability of biodiversity knowledge,18,19 it is thus crucial to reduce biases in ecological research, particularly in regions projected to face the most pronounced environmental changes. We integrate ecological community metadata of 7,694 sampling sites for multiple or ganism groups in a machine learning model framework to map the research probability across the Brazilian Amazonia, while identifying the region’s vulnerability to environmental change. 15%–18% of the most ne glected areas in ecological research are expected to experience severe climate or land use changes by 2050. This means that unless we take immediate action, we will not be able to establish their current status, much less monitor how it is changing and what is being lostinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio

The Changing Landscape for Stroke\ua0Prevention in AF: Findings From the GLORIA-AF Registry Phase 2

Background GLORIA-AF (Global Registry on Long-Term Oral Antithrombotic Treatment in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation) is a prospective, global registry program describing antithrombotic treatment patterns in patients with newly diagnosed nonvalvular atrial fibrillation at risk of stroke. Phase 2 began when dabigatran, the first non\u2013vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulant (NOAC), became available. Objectives This study sought to describe phase 2 baseline data and compare these with the pre-NOAC era collected during phase 1. Methods During phase 2, 15,641 consenting patients were enrolled (November 2011 to December 2014); 15,092 were eligible. This pre-specified cross-sectional analysis describes eligible patients\u2019 baseline characteristics. Atrial fibrillation disease characteristics, medical outcomes, and concomitant diseases and medications were collected. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Results Of the total patients, 45.5% were female; median age was 71 (interquartile range: 64, 78) years. Patients were from Europe (47.1%), North America (22.5%), Asia (20.3%), Latin America (6.0%), and the Middle East/Africa (4.0%). Most had high stroke risk (CHA2DS2-VASc [Congestive heart failure, Hypertension, Age  6575 years, Diabetes mellitus, previous Stroke, Vascular disease, Age 65 to 74 years, Sex category] score  652; 86.1%); 13.9% had moderate risk (CHA2DS2-VASc = 1). Overall, 79.9% received oral anticoagulants, of whom 47.6% received NOAC and 32.3% vitamin K antagonists (VKA); 12.1% received antiplatelet agents; 7.8% received no antithrombotic treatment. For comparison, the proportion of phase 1 patients (of N = 1,063 all eligible) prescribed VKA was 32.8%, acetylsalicylic acid 41.7%, and no therapy 20.2%. In Europe in phase 2, treatment with NOAC was more common than VKA (52.3% and 37.8%, respectively); 6.0% of patients received antiplatelet treatment; and 3.8% received no antithrombotic treatment. In North America, 52.1%, 26.2%, and 14.0% of patients received NOAC, VKA, and antiplatelet drugs, respectively; 7.5% received no antithrombotic treatment. NOAC use was less common in Asia (27.7%), where 27.5% of patients received VKA, 25.0% antiplatelet drugs, and 19.8% no antithrombotic treatment. Conclusions The baseline data from GLORIA-AF phase 2 demonstrate that in newly diagnosed nonvalvular atrial fibrillation patients, NOAC have been highly adopted into practice, becoming more frequently prescribed than VKA in Europe and North America. Worldwide, however, a large proportion of patients remain undertreated, particularly in Asia and North America. (Global Registry on Long-Term Oral Antithrombotic Treatment in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation [GLORIA-AF]; NCT01468701