{"status":"ok","message-type":"work","message-version":"1.0.0","message":{"indexed":{"date-parts":[[2025,10,12]],"date-time":"2025-10-12T04:39:05Z","timestamp":1760243945629,"version":"build-2065373602"},"reference-count":4,"publisher":"MDPI AG","issue":"10","license":[{"start":{"date-parts":[[2010,10,19]],"date-time":"2010-10-19T00:00:00Z","timestamp":1287446400000},"content-version":"vor","delay-in-days":0,"URL":"https:\/\/creativecommons.org\/licenses\/by\/3.0\/"}],"content-domain":{"domain":[],"crossmark-restriction":false},"short-container-title":["Remote Sensing"],"abstract":"<jats:p>Evaluating ecological patterns and processes is crucial for the conservation of ecosystems [1]. In this view, remote sensing is a powerful tool for monitoring their status and change. This involves several tasks like biodiversity estimate, landscape ecology, and species distribution modeling, to name a few [2]. Due to the difficulties associated with field-based data collection [3], the use of remote sensing for estimating ecological status and change is promising since it provides a synoptic view of an area with a high temporal resolution [4]. Of course in some cases remote sensing should be viewed as a help to plan a field survey rather than a replacement of it. Further, its improper use may lead to pitfalls and misleading results. [...]<\/jats:p>","DOI":"10.3390\/rs2102424","type":"journal-article","created":{"date-parts":[[2010,10,19]],"date-time":"2010-10-19T11:51:56Z","timestamp":1287489116000},"page":"2424-2425","update-policy":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.3390\/mdpi_crossmark_policy","source":"Crossref","is-referenced-by-count":4,"title":["Ecological Status and Change by Remote Sensing"],"prefix":"10.3390","volume":"2","author":[{"given":"Duccio","family":"Rocchini","sequence":"first","affiliation":[{"name":"IASMA Research and Innovation Centre, Fondazione Edmund Mach, Environment and Natural Resources Area, Via E. Mach 1, 38010 S. Michele all\u2019Adige, TN, Italy"}],"role":[{"role":"author","vocabulary":"crossref"}]}],"member":"1968","published-online":{"date-parts":[[2010,10,19]]},"reference":[{"key":"ref_1","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"220","DOI":"10.1038\/35012228","article-title":"Global patterns in biodiversity","volume":"405","author":"Gaston","year":"2000","journal-title":"Nature"},{"key":"ref_2","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"203","DOI":"10.1177\/0309133308093606","article-title":"Measuring and modelling biodiversity from space","volume":"32","author":"Gillespie","year":"2008","journal-title":"Prog. Phys. Geog."},{"key":"ref_3","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"104","DOI":"10.1191\/030913305pp437pr","article-title":"Remote sensing: Ecology","volume":"29","author":"Aplin","year":"2005","journal-title":"Prog. Phys. Geog."},{"key":"ref_4","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"630","DOI":"10.1016\/j.tree.2007.08.018","article-title":"Satellites miss environmental priorities","volume":"22","author":"Loarie","year":"2007","journal-title":"Trends Ecol. Evol."}],"container-title":["Remote Sensing"],"original-title":[],"language":"en","link":[{"URL":"https:\/\/www.mdpi.com\/2072-4292\/2\/10\/2424\/pdf","content-type":"unspecified","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"similarity-checking"}],"deposited":{"date-parts":[[2025,10,11]],"date-time":"2025-10-11T22:03:37Z","timestamp":1760220217000},"score":1,"resource":{"primary":{"URL":"https:\/\/www.mdpi.com\/2072-4292\/2\/10\/2424"}},"subtitle":[],"short-title":[],"issued":{"date-parts":[[2010,10,19]]},"references-count":4,"journal-issue":{"issue":"10","published-online":{"date-parts":[[2010,10]]}},"alternative-id":["rs2102424"],"URL":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.3390\/rs2102424","relation":{},"ISSN":["2072-4292"],"issn-type":[{"type":"electronic","value":"2072-4292"}],"subject":[],"published":{"date-parts":[[2010,10,19]]}}}