Members Can Post Anonymously On This Site
-
Similar Topics
-
By NASA
Credit: NASA NASA has selected Troy Sierra JV, LLC of Huntsville, Alabama, to provide engineering, research, and scientific support at the agency’s Glenn Research Center in Cleveland.
The Test Facility Operations, Maintenance, and Engineering Services III contract is a cost-plus-fixed-fee, indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract with a maximum potential value of approximately $388.3 million. The performance period begins Jan. 1, 2026, with a three-year base period followed by a two-year option, and a potential six-month extension through June 2031.
This contract will provide and manage the engineering, technical, manufacturing, development, operations, maintenance, inspection, and certification support services needed to conduct aerospace testing in NASA Glenn’s facilities and laboratories.
For information about NASA and other agency programs, visit:
https://www.nasa.gov
-end-
Tiernan Doyle
Headquarters, Washington
202-358-1600
tiernan.doyle@nasa.gov
Jan Wittry
Glenn Research Center, Cleveland
216-433-5466
jan.m.wittry-1@nasa.gov
Share
Details
Last Updated Sep 12, 2025 LocationNASA Headquarters Related Terms
Glenn Research Center View the full article
-
By NASA
The Drag Prediction Workshop series is an extensive international effort to improve transonic aerodynamic predictions. This long-running collaborative effort seeks to mobilize the international aerospace community to improve the computational methods and tools to predict transonic aircraft performance, particularly drag.
More details on the workshop can be found at the workshop website: https://www.aiaa-dpw.org
NASA has a storied history with the workshop series from DPW-I (hosted in 2001) through the upcoming DPW-8, held in concert with Aeroelastic Prediction Workshop 4. In addition to code and methods improvements, the series also resulted in the NASA/Boeing Common Research Model (https://commonresearchmodel.larc.nasa.gov/), an open-access, commercially-relevant aircraft geometry. This geometry has been extensively tested in many facilities throughout the world and been the subject of multiple workshop series.
NASA’s contributions to the upcoming DPW-8 and subsequent work will be highlighted on this page.
Read More Keep Exploring Discover More Topics From NASA
Missions
Humans in Space
Climate Change
Solar System
Share
Details
Last Updated Sep 12, 2025 Related Terms
General View the full article
-
By NASA
Explore This Section Earth Earth Observer Editor’s Corner Feature Articles Meeting Summaries News Science in the News Calendars In Memoriam Announcements More Archives Conference Schedules Style Guide 21 min read
Summary of the 11th ABoVE Science Team Meeting
Introduction
The NASA Arctic–Boreal Vulnerability Experiment (ABoVE) is a large-scale ecological study in the northern regions of North America (Alaska and western Canada) that was developed to understand environmental changes in the region and the implications of those changes for society. Funded primarily by the NASA Terrestrial Ecology Program, this 10-year campaign has included field, airborne, and satellite remote sensing research to address its overarching scientific question of how environmental change in the Arctic and boreal region of western North America will affect vulnerable ecosystems and society.
ABoVE deployed in three phases: 1) ecosystem dynamics (2015–2018); 2) ecosystem services (2017–2022); and 3) analysis and synthesis (2023–present). Now in the last year of the third phase, the Science Team (ST) consists of 67 active NASA-funded projects with more than 1000 individuals participating. The ABoVE ST has met yearly to discuss the progress of individual teams, plan joint field work, and discuss synthesis activities. ABoVE was featured in a 2019 The Earth Observer article, titled “Summary of the 2019 ABoVE Science Team Meeting” [July–August 2019, Volume 31, Issue 4, pp. 19–22], as well as a 2022 The Earth Observer article, titled “Summary of the Eighth ABoVE Science Team Meeting” [September–October 2022, Volume 34, Issue 5, pp. 28–33].
Meeting Overview
The 11th – and final – ABoVE Science Team Meeting (ASTM11) was held May 12–15, 2025, with 96 registered in-person attendees meeting at the University of Alaska, Fairbanks (UAF) and 67 registered virtual attendees – see Photo 1. The meeting included presentations from Phase 3 projects and synthesis reports from thematic working groups (WGs). ABoVE partners, including collaborators [e.g., the Department of Energy’s Next Generation Ecosystem Experiment-Arctic (NGEE-Arctic), Polar Knowledge Canada (POLAR), the Canadian Forest Service (CFS), and the Government of the Northwest Territories (GNWT)] and representatives from upcoming NASA campaigns focusing on the Arctic, shared updates on their activities. Additionally, the meeting featured sessions highlighting cross-project activities, e.g., ABoVE’s participation in regional fire workshops. The meeting also focused on collaborations with the Scotty Creek Research Station in Canada, the many types of science communication activities during ABoVE, and projects conducting collaborative research with community or regional partners.
Photo 1.The 11th Arctic–Boreal Vulnerability Experiment Science Team (ABoVE) meeting group photo of in-person and virtual participants. Photo credit: Peter Griffith, Leane Kending, and David Stroud The meeting included additional team activities designed to encourage collaboration and understanding between team members. There were opportunities for multiple field trips for in-person attendees, including visits to the Alaska Satellite Facility (ASF) at the Geophysical Institute, the Permafrost Tunnel operated by the Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory (CRREL), the Yankovich Road Fire Interpretive Trail, and the Arctic Research Open House at UAF – see ABove Field Trips section to learn more. The meeting offered early career researchers a chance to receive feedback on their posters and participate in an Early Career lunch event. The meeting even hosted an ABoVE bingo competition, which encouraged attendees to make new scientific and social connections – see Photo 2.
Photo 2. Scott Goetz [University of Northern Arizona—ABoVE Science Team Lead] poses with ABoVE BINGO winner Wanwan Liang [University of Utah]. Photo credit: Wanwan Liang Meeting Opening
The first day of the meeting began with a series of opening remarks from the ABoVE leadership team. Peter Griffith [NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC)/Science Systems and Applications, Inc. (SSAI)—Chief Scientist, Carbon Cycle and Ecosystems Office (CCEO)], Scott Goetz [Northern Arizona University (NAU)—ABoVE ST Lead], and Ryan Pavlick [NASA Headquarters (HQ)—ABoVE Program Manager] all noted the significance of this final meeting and discussed the major scientific advances of ABoVE made possible through the dedication of ST members, WG leads, planning committees, and contributors who have made ABoVE a success. Goetz reviewed the meeting goals and objectives:
receive updates about currently funded projects; receive reports on Thematic WG advances with an emphasis on multiple WG and cross-phase synthesis activities; receive updates on research connections with partners and collaborators; discuss, reflect, and document the history of ABoVE, including major advances, lessons learned, and items to accomplish in the time remaining; and celebrate ABoVE success stories, with advice for potential future NASA large-scale coordinated campaigns. Working Group Presentations and Breakouts
Throughout the first few days of the meeting, leads for the thematic working groups (WG) presented synthetic overviews of the research efforts of their group members, identified current gaps in planned or completed research, and discussed potential future work. Following these presentations, breakout groups convened to discuss future activities of the WGs. Short summaries of each presentation are available below. Together, these presentations demonstrate the highly interconnected nature of carbon cycles, hydrology, permafrost dynamics, and disturbance regimes in Arctic–boreal ecosystems. The presentations also showcase the substantial ongoing WG efforts to synthesize findings and identify critical knowledge gaps for future research priorities.
Vegetation Dynamics Working Group
WG Leads: Matthew Macander [Alaska Biological Research, Inc. (ABR)] and Paul Montesano [GSFC/ADNET Systems Inc.]
The Vegetation Dynamics WG discussed new advances in understanding Arctic–boreal vegetation structure and function that have been made over the past 10 years through comprehensive biomass maps and multidecadal trend analyses. ABoVE research revealed a critical boreal forest biome shift with greening in nitrogen-rich northern forests and browning in drought-stressed southern forests. The group has identified key knowledge gaps in predicting post-fire vegetation recovery and detecting pervasive declines in vegetation resilience across southern boreal forests. The results suggest higher vulnerability to abrupt forest loss that could dampen the expected increase in carbon sequestration under future climate scenarios.
Spectral Imaging Working Group
WG Leads: Fred Huemmrich [GSFC/University of Maryland Baltimore County] and Peter Nelson [Laboratory of Ecological Spectroscopy (LECOSPEC)]
Over the past year, the Spectral Imaging WG focused on the fundamental scale problem in Arctic ecology, which refers to the mismatch between observation scales and ecological process scales, which span spatial scales from leaf level to larger study areas and temporal scales from minutes to decades. The Airborne Visible/Infrared Imaging Spectrometer – Next Generation (AVIRIS-NG) and AVIRIS-3 datasets provide the first broad-area and high-spatial and spectral resolution coverage of high-latitude terrestrial ecosystems. The WG is now completing a scaling synthesis paper and preparing for the new era of data-rich spectral imaging with improved capabilities in data management, machine learning, and modeling applications for high-latitude research.
Modeling Working Group
WG Lead: Josh Fisher [Chapman University]
The Modeling WG aims to reduce model uncertainties in simulations and projections in the Arctic–boreal region across all ABoVE ecosystem indicators. The WG had polled the ST to determine the variables most needed for their Earth system models and is now using the field, airborne, and satellite datasets to better constrain these models. This WG discussed the benefits to the modeling community of transforming the more than 100 ABoVE datasets into a common grid and projection format used by modelers.
Carbon Dynamics Working Group
WG Leads: Jonathan Wang [University of Utah] and Jennifer Watts [Woodwell Climate Research Center (WCRC)]
The Carbon Dynamics WG has focused its recent work on three areas: decadal syntheses of carbon dioxide (CO2) fluxes from eddy covariance towers, machine learning approaches to upscaling wetland and lake methane (CH4) emissions, and carbon flux modeling across the Arctic–boreal zone. The research integrated atmospheric CO2 observations to improve carbon flux estimates and examined wildfire impacts on both carbon emissions and albedo changes. A significant component of the work involved comparing top-down versus bottom-up carbon flux models, with particular attention to permafrost and peatland regions.
Hydrology-Permafrost-Wetlands Working Group
WG Leads: Laura Bourgeau-Chavez [Michigan Technological University], David Butman [University of Washington], John Kimball [University of Montana], and Melissa Schwab [University of California, Irvine]
The Hydrology–Permafrost–Wetlands WG focused on the processes controlling changes in permafrost distribution and properties and their impacts. There was discussion about the nature, causes, and consequences of hydrologic change (e.g. water storage, mobility, and distribution) and about ecosystem water, energy, and carbon cycle linkages. The presenters mentioned integration of ABoVE datasets with NASA satellite missions [e.g., NASA–Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO) Synthetic Aperture Radar (NISAR) and Surface Water and Ocean Topography (SWOT) missions]. WG members discussed the connections between ABoVE research and several crosscutting initiatives, including two NASA Arctic coastlines efforts [e.g., Frontlines Of Rapidly Transforming Ecosystems Earth Venture Suborbital (FORTE EVS) campaign and NASA’s Arctic-COastal Land Ocean InteRactionS (COLORS)] and the WCRC’s Permafrost Pathways.
Disturbance Working Group
WG Leads: Dong Chen [University of Maryland, College Park] and Jinhyuk Kim [University of California, Irvine]
The Disturbance WG leads presented their decade-long perspective on disturbance-related research in the ABoVE domain. The presentation incorporated artificial intelligence (AI)-generated summaries of ABoVE-affiliated research across multiple disturbance types, including boreal wildfires, tundra wildfires, and thermokarst/permafrost degradation processes. Chen and Kim acknowledged the extensive contributions from researchers and WG members while outlining future directions for disturbance research.
Success Stories
Four “Success Story” presentations and panels took place during ASTM11, which showcased efforts of ABoVE ST members and the leadership team to create and coordinate engagement efforts that spanned individual projects.
Success Story 1: ABoVE Participation in Regional Fire Workshops
A substantial portion of ABoVE research has focused on wildfire, and many members of the ST have participated in domestic and international wildfire efforts, connecting researchers with land managers across Alaska and Canada. Randi Jandt [UAF] discussed the Alaska Fire Science Consortium workshops (held in 2017 and 2022). Jenn Baltzer [Wilfred Laurier University (WLU), Canada] discussed Northwest Territories workshops (held in 2014 and 2025), both of which occurred in response to extreme fire seasons in the region. Laura Bourgeau-Chavez outlined ABoVE’s participation in all of these workshops. The workshops facilitated knowledge exchange and collaboration on critical wildfire management priorities, including fire risk assessment, real-time modeling, post-fire effects, and climate change impacts on fire regimes. Key features included small focus groups, field trips to command centers and fire-affected areas, and integration of Indigenous knowledge with new technologies to inform management practices and climate preparedness strategies.
Success Story 2: Collaborations with Scotty Creek Research Station (SCRS)
ASTM11 participants watched the film, “Scotty Creek Research Community – The Spirit of Collaboration,” about the SCRS, Canada’s first and only Indigenous-led research station. Following the film, station team members participated in a panel discussion. Ramona Pearson [Ramona Pearson Consulting, Canada], Maude Auclair [WLU], Mason Dominico [WLU], Michael McPhee [Sambaa K’e First Nation, Canada], and William “Bill” Quinton [WLU] discussed their decade-long collaboration with ABoVE. The partnership involved ABoVE collecting airborne hyperspectral, lidar, and radar imagery, while SCRS researchers provided field data for calibration and validation. In 2022, management of the station transitioned to Łı́ı́dlı̨ı̨ Kų́ę́ First Nation (LKFN, Canada), and ABoVE continued collaborating through knowledge exchange, including with early-career researchers and interns. When a 2022 fire destroyed the field station and surrounding area, ABoVE flew additional flights to capture airborne imagery observations to allow comparison of pre- and post-fire conditions.
Success Story 3: Science Communication
During the ABoVE field campaign, ST members and CCEO staff engaged in multiple strategies to communicate research results to the public. The activities included interactive engagement through airborne open houses and guest flights, ST member narratives in the “Notes from the Field” blog posts on the NASA Earth Observatory website, and professional multimedia production, including Earth Observatory content and award-winning videos. This multifaceted strategy demonstrates effective scientific communication through direct public engagement and high-quality, multimedia storytelling, making complex research accessible to diverse audiences.
Success Story 4: Engagement Activities
This session highlighted several examples of community engagement across the ABoVE domain. Gerald “J.J.” Frost [ABR] discussed synthesizing ecosystem responses and elder observations in western Alaska for his ABoVE project. In another example, ABoVE researchers from Michigan Tech Research Institute (MTRI) partnered with Ducks Unlimited Canada (DUC) and local organizations. Dana Redhuis [MTRI] and Rebecca Edwards [DUC] described their on-the-land camps that provide hands-on training for Northwest Territories youth in wetlands education and ecological monitoring. Kevin Turner [Brock University, Canada] showcased his work with members of the Vuntut Gwitchin First Nation in Old Crow Flats, Yukon, evaluating how climate and land cover change influence water dynamics and carbon balance. These activities demonstrate collaborative research that integrates Indigenous and Western knowledge approaches to address climate change impacts.
ABoVE Phase 3 Project Presentations
Project leads of the 20 NASA-funded ABoVE Phase 3 projects presented updates that were organized by scientific theme. The presentations spanned multiple days of the meeting. Table 1 below provides all the project titles, presenter names, and links to each project and presentation. Science results from four of the presentations are shown in Figures 1–4 below as indicated in the table.
Table 1. An overview ofABoVE Phase 3 projects and presenters. The Project name includes the last name of the Principal Investigator, NASA funding program (TE for Terrestrial Ecology), the year of the NASA solicitation funding the research, and provides a hyperlink to the Project Profile. A hyperlink to each presentation is provided as either PowerPoint (PPT) file or PDF.
Project Carbon Presenter(s) Bloom (TE 2021): Using CO2, CH4 and land-surface constraints to resolve sign and magnitude of northern high latitude carbon-climate feedbacks [PDF] Eren Bilir [NASA/Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL)]; Principal Investigator (PI): Alexis (Anthony) Bloom [NASA/Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL)] Butman (TE 2021): Do changing terrestrial-aquatic interfaces in Arctic-boreal landscapes control the form, processing, and fluxes of carbon? [PPT] David Butman [University of Washington] – see Figure 1 Watts (TE 2021): Contributions of tundra and boreal systems to radiative forcing in North America and Russia under contemporary and future conditions [PPT] Jennifer Watts [Woodwell Climate Research Center] Miller-S (TE 2021): A synthesis and reconciliation of greenhouse gas flux estimates across the ABoVE domain [PDF] Scot Miller [Johns Hopkins University] Michalak (TE 2021): Quantifying climate sensitivities of photosynthesis and respiration in Arctic and boreal ecosystems from top-down observational constraints [PDF] Wu Sun and Jiaming Wen [both Carnegie Institution for Science, CI]; PI: Anna Michalak, [Carnegie Institution for Science] Fire Presenter(s) Bourgeau-Chavez (TE 2021): Integrating remote sensing and modeling to better understand the vulnerability of boreal-taiga ecosystems to wildfire [PPT] Laura Bourgeau-Chavez [Michigan Technological University (MTU)] Walker (TE 2021): Drivers and Impacts of Reburning in boreal forest Ecosystems (DIRE) [PDF] Jeremy Forsythe [Northern Arizona University (NAU)]; PI: Xanthe Walker [NAU] Wang (TE 2021): Quantifying disturbance and global change impacts on multi-decadal trends in aboveground biomass and land cover across Arctic-boreal North America [PPT] Jonathan Wang [University of Utah]– see Figure 2 Wildlife Presenter(s) Boelman (TE 2021): The future of the Forest-Tundra Ecotone: A synthesis that adds interactions among snow, vegetation, and wildlife to the equation [PPT] Natalie Boelman [Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, Columbia University] French (TE 2021): Informing wetland policy and management for waterfowl habitat and other ecosystem services using multi-frequency synthetic aperture radar [PPT] Nancy French [MTU] – see Figure 3 Hydrology / Permafrost Presenter(s) Du (TE 2021): High resolution mapping of surface soil freeze thaw status and active layer thickness for improving the understanding of permafrost dynamics and vulnerability [PPT] Jinyang Du [University of Montana] Miller (TE 2021): Enhanced methane emissions in transitional permafrost environments: An ABoVE phase 3 synthesis investigation [PPT] Charles “Chip” Miller [NASA/JPL] Tape (TE 2021): Characterizing a widespread disturbance regime in the ABoVE domain: Beaver engineering [PPT] Kenneth Tape [University of Alaska, Fairbanks] Zhuang (TE 2021): Role of linked hydrological, permafrost, ground ice, and land cover changes in regional carbon balance across boreal and Arctic landscapes [PDF] Qianlai Zhuang [Purdue University] Vegetation Structure Presenter(s) Duncanson (TE 2021): Mapping boreal forest biomass recovery rates across gradients of vegetation structure and environmental change [PPT] Paul Montesano [GSFC/ADNET Systems Inc]; PI: Laura Duncanson [University of Maryland]—see Figure 4 Lara (TE 2021): ABoVE-Ground characterization of plant species succession in retrogressive thaw slumps using imaging spectroscopy [PPT] Mark Lara [University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign] Vegetation Dynamics Presenter(s) Frost (TE 2021): Towards a warmer, less frozen future Arctic: Synthesis of drivers, ecosystem responses, and elder observations along bioclimatic gradients in western Alaska [PPT] Gerald “J.J.” Frost [ABR] Goetz (TE 2021): Mapping and modeling attributes of an Arctic-boreal biome shift: Phase-3 applications within the ABoVE domain [PPT] Scott Goetz [NAU] Liu (TE 2021): Characterizing Arctic-boreal vegetation resilience under climate change and disturbances [PPT] Yanlan Liu [The Ohio State University] Townsend (TE 2021): Functional diversity as a driver of gross primary productivity variation across the ABoVE domain [PPT] Philip Townsend [University of Wisconsin] Determining Aboveground Biomass Density Using ICESat-2 Data and Modeling
Figure 1. Despite their relatively small coverage, surface water extent across boreal and arctic lowlands significantly impacts landscape-scale estimates of carbon emissions. The red points on the map in the figure indicates locations of available lake chemistry data derived from ABoVE-supported research, from collaborators, and from a preliminary literature search. Figure credit. David Butman Figure 2. The Arctic-boreal carbon cycle is inextricably linked to vegetation composition and demography, both of which are being altered by climate change, rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, and climate-induced changes in disturbance regimes. The map in the figure shows above-ground biomass (AGB) change across Arctic-boreal North America (2022–1984) created using a machine learning model of AGB trained on from more than 45,000 field plots and 200,000 km2 of airborne lidar data. Figure credit: Wanwan Liang Figure 3. Wetlands provide many ecosystem services, including waterfowl habitat, carbon sequestration, and water quality. Northern wetlands Iin the ABovE study area) are threatened from both land use expansion and climate change disruptions, prompting the need for informed management strategies. Copernicus Sentinel 1 synthetic aperture radar (SAR) data have been used to create this map of flooding (hydroperiod) in wetland areas around the Great Slave Lake in Canada The color code on the map corresponds to the number of times the SAR imagery indicated a place was flooded (inundated). Such information is helpful for predicting within-season changes in wetland extent. Figure credit: Nancy French Figure 4. Advances have been made in mapping aboveground biomass density (AGBD). Shown here as an example is an AGBD map created using stata from the ICESat-2 pan-Boreal 30-m (98-ft) tree height and biomass data product [left] and the ensemble mean of the standard deviation of AGBD, aggregated to modelling tiles [right]. Current research aims to expand these maps and understand regional vegetation changes. Figure credit. Laura Duncanson/data from ORNL DAAC ASTM11 Poster Sessions
ASTM11 featured 41 research posters across three sessions, organized by thematic area – see Table 3 and Photo 3. The Poster Session agenda details the range of topics that spanned airborne synthetic aperture radar (SAR) and satellite imagery to northern ecosystem fieldwork. Key research topics that emerged included CO2 and CH4 emissions from terrestrial and aquatic systems, ongoing permafrost thaw, fire impacts on carbon cycling, vegetation mapping and biomass estimation, and the impacts of wildlife on the landscape.
Table 2. A breakdown of ASTM11 poster presentations by science theme.
Poster Theme Poster Count Carbon Dynamics 5 Crosscutting, Modeling, or Other 6 Fire Disturbance 5 Permafrost, Hydrology, and Wetlands 13 Vegetation Dynamics and Distribution 7 Vegetation Structure and Function 4 Wildlife and Ecosystem Services 1 Photo 3. Poster presentations and sessions during ASTM11 offered opportunities for presenters to share their latest research findings with meeting participants. Photo credit: Elizabeth Hoy ABoVE Field Trips
ASTM11 offered multiple field trip options across the Fairbanks region of Alaska. The fieldtrips provided ST members an opportunity to interact with the research community – see Photo 4.
Trip to Alaska Satellite Facility (ASF) and Geophysical Institute
ASF is a data archive for many SAR datasets from a variety of sensors and has multiple ground station facilities. During the tour, participants visited the ASF operations room and ASF rooftop antenna. The Geophysical Institute tour also featured the Alaska Earthquake Center, Wilson Alaska Technical Center, and Alaska Center for Unmanned Aircraft Systems Integration.
Trip to Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory (CRREL) Permafrost Tunnel
The U.S. Army Core of Engineers CRREL Permafrost Tunnel is located in Fox, AK – about 15 km (9 mi) north of Fairbanks. Over 300 m (984 ft) of tunnel have been excavated, exposing Pleistocene ice and carbon-rich yedoma permafrost that ranges in age from 18,000 to 43,000 years old. The tunnel exposes mammoth and bison bones and a variety of permafrost soils. Ongoing projects in the tunnel cover a range of topics, including engineering and geophysical work, Mars analog studies, and biogeochemistry and microbiology of permafrost soils.
Wildfire Walk: Yankovich Road Fire Interpretive Trail
On July 11, 2021, a wildfire burned 3.5 acres (14,164 m2) of UAF land. In 2024, the UAF Alaska Fire Science Consortium, Bureau of Land Management Alaska Fire Service, and local artist Klara Maisch collaborated with others to develop the Wildfire Walk at the site. The interpretive trail is an outdoor learning experience with interpretive wayside markers that describe the fire incident, the relationship between wildfire and the boreal forest, fire science and environmental change, and wildfire prevention – see Figure 1.
UAF Arctic Research Open House
The UAF Arctic Research Open House was an opportunity for ST members and the public to explore the wide range of research happening at UAF and meet other scientists. ABoVE hosted an information table at the event.
Photo 4: Collage of images collected during a series of field trips, including [top] the Wildfire Walk along the Alaska Fire Science Consortium, [middle] the Permafrost Tunnel with Tom Douglas [Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory], [bottom left] UAF Arctic Open House ABoVE Table with Margaret “Maggie” Wooton [NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC)/Science System and Applications, Inc. (GSFC/SSAI)], Elizabeth Hoy [GSFC/Global Science & Technology Inc.], and Qiang Zhou [GSFC/SSAI], talking with Logan Berner [Northern Arizona University], [bottom right] the Alaska Satellite Facility ground receiving antenna. Photo credit: Elizabeth Hoy Research Connections
The success of ABoVE as a large-scale research study over the Arctic and boreal regions within and outside the United States depended on collaboration with multiple organizations. Many of the ABoVE collaborators were able to present at ASTM11.
Andrew Applejohn [Polar Knowledge Canada (POLAR)] provided details about the scope, mandate, and facilities available through POLAR, a Canadian government agency that has partnered with the ABoVE ST for the duration of the campaign.
Ryan Connon [Government of the Northwest Territories (GNWT)] discussed the decade-long collaboration between ABoVE and the GNWT, including knowledge sharing of wildlife collar data, field-data ground measurements, and remote sensing analyses.
Gabrielle Gascon [Canadian Forest Service (CFS), Natural Resources Canada] explained the scope of Canada’s National Forest Inventory and the current CFS focus on wildfire and the CFS’s other areas of research related to the northern regions. Another presentation featured information about various vegetation mapping initiatives where Matthew Macander discussed an Alaska-based effort called AKVEG Map, a vegetation plot database, and Logan Berner [NAU] detailed a pan-Arctic plant aboveground biomass synthesis dataset.
Brendan Rogers [WCRC] showcased research from Permafrost Pathways, designed to bring together permafrost-related science experts with local communities to inform Arctic policy and develop adaptation and mitigation strategies to address permafrost thaw. NGEE-Arctic is another U.S. government effort that partnered specifically with ABoVE for the duration of the two efforts, and Bob Bolton [Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL)] provided updates on the project.
Tomoko Tanabe [Japan’s National Institute of Polar Research (JNIPR)] gave a presentation about NIPR to better inform ABoVE scientists about other international Arctic efforts, including a new Japanese Arctic research initiative called the Arctic Challenge for Sustainability III (ArCS III), designed to address social issues related to environmental and social changes in the Arctic.
Additional Presentations
An additional presentation aimed to keep the ABoVE ST informed of future NASA Arctic research efforts. Kelsey Bisson [NASA HQ—Program Scientist for the Ocean Biology and Biogeochemistry Program] discussed NASA Arctic-COLORS and Maria Tzortziou [City University of New York/Columbia University, LDEO] discussed the FORTE EVS campaign. The proposed Arctic-COLORS field campaign would quantify the biogeochemical and ecological response of Arctic nearshore systems to rapid changes in terrestrial fluxes and ice conditions. The NASA FORTE EVS campaign will fill a critical gap in understanding Alaska’s northernmost ecosystems by investigating eroding coastlines, rivers, deltas, and estuaries that connect land and sea systems, using airborne platforms.
Scott Goetz continued with a presentation on U.S. efforts to plan the International Polar Year, scheduled for 2032–2033. Ryan Pavlick provided details on the NISAR mission, which launched after the meeting on July 30, 2025, and discussed other possible future NASA missions.
A Career Trajectory panel featured Jennifer Watts, Jonathan Wang, Brendan Rogers, and Xiaoran “Seamore” Zhu [Boston University]. The panelists discussed opportunities for researchers from different academic backgrounds and at different career stages, and they provided details about how ABoVE has impacted their careers. They also discussed how NASA campaigns offer opportunities for early career scientists to join a team of peers to grow their abilities throughout the duration of the decade-long research.
Klara Maisch, a local artist, discussed her work creating science-informed artwork through interdisciplinary collaborations with scientists and other creators – see Figure 5. Maisch described the benefits of partnering with artists to share science with a broad audience and showcased artwork she has created.
Figure 5. Lower Tanana Homelands – 2022 Yankovich Fire – Plot Painting [left], with original plot reference photograph [right]. Image Credit: Klara Maisch Overarching Presentations
A series of presentations on the overall structure and outcomes of ABoVE were held during ASTM11. Charles “Chip” Miller [NASA/JPL—Deputy ABoVE ST Lead, ABoVE Airborne Lead] provided details about SAR, hyperspectral, and lidar airborne measurements collected between 2017 and 2024 for the ABoVE Airborne Campaign.
ABoVE Logistics Office members Daniel Hodkinson [GSFC/SSAI], Sarah Dutton [GSFC/SSAI], and Leanne Kendig [GSFC/Global Science & Technology, Inc. (GST, Inc.)] discussed the many field teams and activities supported during ABoVE. Overall, more than 50 teams were trained in field safety topics, with more than 1,200 training certificates awarded. Elizabeth Hoy [NASA GSFC/GST, Inc.] and Debjani Singh [ORNL] discussed the more than 250 data products developed during the ABoVE program and how to access them through NASA Earthdata. Example visualizations of ABoVE data products can be found in Figure 6.
Figure 6. ABoVE logo created with different data products from the campaign used to compose each letter.A: Active Layer Thickness from Remote Sensing Permafrost Model, Alaska, 2001-2015;. Tree (inside A): Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI) Trends across Alaska and Canada from Landsat, 1984-2012;. B: Landsat-derived Annual Dominant Land Cover Across ABoVE Core Domain, 1984-2014;; O: Wildfire Carbon Emissions and Burned Plot Characteristics, NWT, CA, 2014-2016;; V: AVHRR-Derived Forest Fire Burned Area-Hot Spots, Alaska and Canada, 1989-2000;; E: Lake Bathymetry Maps derived from Landsat and Random Forest Modeling, North Slope, AK; and Underline (under O): Plot lines from the ABoVE Planning Tool visualizer. Figure credit: Caitlin LaNeve The Collaborations and Engagement WG held a plenary discussion to highlight the many activities that ABoVE researchers have been involved in over the past decade. The discussion highlighted the need for individual projects and campaign leadership to work together to ensure participation and understanding of planned research at local and regional levels.
A highlight of the meeting was the “Legacy of ABoVE” panel discussion moderated by Nancy French [MTU]. Panelists included Eric Kasischke [MTU], Scott Goetz, Chip Miller, Peter Griffith, Libby Larson [NASA GSFC/SSAI], and Elizabeth Hoy. Each panelist reflected on their journey to develop ABoVE, which included an initial scoping study developed more than 15 years ago. Members of the panel – all a part of the ABoVE leadership team – joined the campaign at different stages of their career. Each panelist arrived with different backgrounds, bringing their unique perspective to the group that helped to frame the overall campaign development. Following the panel, all ST members who have been a part of ABoVE since its start over a decade ago came to the front for a group photo – see Photo 5.
Following the panel, the ABoVE ST leads presented their overall thoughts on the meeting and facilitated a discussion with all participants at the meeting. Participants noted the important scientific discoveries made during ABoVE and enjoyed the collegial atmosphere during ASTM11.
Photo 5. A group photo of participants who have been with ABoVE since its inception: [left to right] Ryan Pavlick, Chip Miller, Elizabeth Hoy, Libby Larson, Peter Griffith, Fred Huemmrich, Nancy French, Scott Goetz, Laura Bourgeau-Chavez, Eric Kasischke, and Larry Hinzman. Photo credit: Peter Griffith Conclusion
Overall, ASTM11 brought together an interdisciplinary team for a final team meeting that showcased the many accomplishments made over the past decade. The group outlined current gaps and needs in Arctic and boreal research and discussed possibilities for future NASA terrestrial ecology campaigns. The synthesis science presentations at ASTM11 highlighted the advances ABoVE has made in understanding carbon and ecosystem dynamics in Arctic and boreal regions. It also highlighted the need for further study of cold season and subsurface processes. While this was the last meeting of this ST, research for some projects will continue into 2026, and more publications and data products are expected from ST members in the near term.
Elizabeth Hoy
NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center/Global Science & Technology Inc. (GSFC/GST,Inc.)
elizabeth.hoy@nasa.gov
Libby Larson
NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center/Science System and Applications, Inc. (GSFC/SSAI)
libby.larson@nasa.gov
Annabelle Sokolowski
NASA GSFC Office of STEM Engagement (OSTEM) Intern
Caitlin LaNeve
NASA GSFC Office of STEM Engagement (OSTEM) Intern
Share
Details
Last Updated Sep 10, 2025 Related Terms
Earth Science View the full article
-
By Space Force
U.S. Space Command hosted Joint Integrated Space Team leaders for the fifth annual JIST Summit here, August 26-27, 2025.
View the full article
-
By NASA
Explore This Section Earth Earth Observer Editor’s Corner Feature Articles Meeting Summaries News Science in the News Calendars In Memoriam Announcements More Archives Conference Schedules Style Guide 31 min read
Summary of the 2025 GEDI Science Team Meeting
Introduction
The 2025 Global Ecosystem Dynamics Investigation (GEDI) Science Team Meeting (STM) took place April 1–3, 2025 at the University of Maryland, College Park (UMD). Upwards of 60 participants attended in-person, while several others joined virtually by Zoom. The GEDI Mission and Competed Science Team members were in attendance along with the GEDI NASA program manager and various postdoctoral associates, graduate students, collaborators, and data users – see Photo. Participants shared updates on the GEDI instrument and data products post-hibernation with the GEDI community. They also shared progress reports on the second Competed Science Team cohort’s projects as well as applications of GEDI data.
This article provides a mission status update and summaries of the presentations given at the STM. Readers who would like to learn more about certain topics can submit specific questions through the GEDI website’s contact form.
Photo. Attendees, both in person and virtual, at the 2025 GEDI Science Team meeting. Photo credit: Talia Schwelling Mission Status Update: GEDI Up and Running After its Time in Hibernation
When the 2023 GEDI STM summary was published in June 2024 – see archived article, “Summary of the 2023 GEDI Science Team Meeting” [The Earth Observer, June 18, 2024] – GEDI had been placed in a temporary state of hibernation and moved from the International Space Station’s (ISS) Japanese Experiment Module–Exposed Facility (JEM–EF) Exposed Facility Unit (EFU)-6 to EFU-7 (storage).
Two years later, as the 2025 GEDI STM took place, the GEDI instrument was back in its original location on EFU-6 collecting high-resolution observations of Earth’s three-dimensional (3D) structure from space.
DAY ONE
GEDI Mission and Data Product Status I
Ralph Dubayah [UMD—GEDI Principal Investigator (PI)] opened the STM with updates on mission status (see previous section) and the development of current and pending GEDI data products.
Following its hibernation on the ISS from March 2023–April 2024, the GEDI mission entered its second extension period. Since re-installation, the instrument’s lasers have been operating nominally, steadily collecting data, increasing coverage, and filling gaps. As of November 27, 2024, GEDI had collected 33 billion Level-2A (L2A) land surface returns, with approximately 12.1 billion passing quality filters. Since the last STM, an additional 1422 new simulated GEDI footprints have been added to GEDI’s forest structure and biomass database (FSBD), which is a database of forest inventory and airborne laser scanning data (ALS) from around the globe that is used for cal/val of GEDI data. The FSBD now has 27,876 simulated footprints in total – see Figure 1. This data will support improved L4A biomass algorithm calibration.
Figure 1. Training samples, or simulated footprints, are derived from coincident forest inventory and ALS data. DBT = deciduous broadleaf, EBT = evergreen broadleaf, ENT = evergreen needleleaf, GSW = grass, shrub, woodland. Figure credit: David Minor Version 2.1 (V2.1) of GEDI L1B, L2A, L2B, and L4A data products are the latest product releases available for download. This version incorporates post-storage data through November 2024. In January 2025, the team also released the new L4C footprint-level Waveform Structural Complexity Index (WSCI) product using pre-storage data. The upcoming V3.0 release will incorporate pre- and post-storage data that will improve quality filtering, geolocation accuracy, and algorithm performance.
Although GEDI met its L1 mission science requirements before entering hibernation, orbital resonance on the ISS impacted GEDI’s coverage in the tropics. To help address these gaps, the team is exploring data fusion opportunities with other missions – e.g., NASA-Indian Space Research Organisation Synthetic Aperture Radar (NISAR), the Deutsches Zentrum für Luft- und Raumfahrt’s (DLR – German Aerospace Center) Terra Synthetic Aperture Radar–X (TerraSAR-X) and TerraSAR add-on for Digital Elevation Measurement (TanDEM-X) missions, and the European Space Agency’s upcoming forest mission – Biomass. [UPDATE: Biomass launched successfully on April 29, 2025 from Europe’s Spaceport in Korou, French Guiana, and NISAR launched July 30, 2025 from the Satish Dhawan Space Centre located on Sriharikota Island in India.] Additional ongoing mission team efforts include advancing waveform processing, developing gridded products tailored to end-user needs, understanding error and bias, and continuing expansion of the FSBD.
Dubayah concluded by highlighting the steady rise in GEDI-related publications and datasets appearing in high-impact journals, including PNAS, Nature, and Science families. Visit the GEDI website to gain access to a comprehensive list of GEDI-related publications.
After hearing general updates from the mission PI, attendees heard more in-depth reports on science data planning, mission operations, and instrument status.
Scott Luthcke [NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC)—GEDI Co-Investigator (Co-I)] reported on Science Operations Center activities, including geolocation performance and improvements. He shared that the Science Planning System, which is used to plan GEDI data acquisition locations, has been upgraded to improve targeting capabilities using high-resolution Reference Ground Tracks. The Science Data Processing System also underwent a technical refresh that increased computational and storage capability and has completed processing and delivery of all V2.1 data products, including post-storage data (April–November 2024), to the Land Processes and Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) Distributed Active Archive Centers (DAACs).
Luthcke explained that V2.1 improves on precision orbit determination, precision attitude determination, tracking point modeling, time tags, and oscillator calibration. Looking ahead, V3.0 will enhance range bias calibration, improved pointing bias calibration, and modifications to L1A, L1B, L2A, and L2B products. Luthcke also discussed updates to the L3 data product, which include corrected timing and range bias, improved positioning and elevation, and a wall-to-wall 1-km (0.62-mi) elevation map to be released alongside V3.0.
Tony Scaffardi [GSFC—GEDI Mission Director] provided an update on the Science and Mission Operations Center since its post-hibernation return to science operations on June 3, 2024. He addressed various on-orbit events that may have briefly disrupted data collection and reviewed upcoming ISS altitude plans. As of March 2025, each of the instrument’s three lasers logged over 22,000 hours in firing mode, collecting more than 20 billion shots each, with 72% of that time directly over land surfaces. As of April 2025, 95,346 hours of science data have been downlinked, averaging 51.21 GB of data per day.
Bryan Blair [GSFC—Deputy PI and Instrument Scientist] concluded this section of the meeting with a discussion of GEDI instrument status, reporting that all three lasers are operating nominally and that both the detectors and digitizers continue to perform well. He noted that the laser pulse shapes have remained stable since the mission began, indicating consistent system performance over time. Blair also addressed the inherent challenges of operating in space, such as radiation exposure, and emphasized the importance of designing systems for graceful degradation. A recent firmware update was successfully applied to all three digitizers, and no life-limiting concerns have been identified to date.
Competed Science Team Presentations – Session I
Jim Kellner [Brown University—GEDI Co-I] kicked off the Competed Science Team (CST) presentations with an overview of his work investigating the role of stratification and quality filtering to improve GEDI data products and the impact of stratification error on prediction. He explained how GEDI quality filtering and aboveground biomass density (AGBD) model selection and prediction rely heavily on stratification by plant functional type (PFT) and geographic world region. Thus, evaluation and improvement of stratification and quality filtering will help maximize the number of usable GEDI shots, some of which are potentially excluded unnecessarily. To support these improvements, Kellner is exploring replacement of the current 1-km (0.62-mi) stratification layer with a 30-m (98-ft) product derived from Landsat and similarly upgrading the 500-m (1640-ft) phenology stratification layer to a 30-m (98-ft) Landsat version. These changes aim to improve the L4A footprint-level AGBD estimates in particular, but flow through to the GEDI L4B data product.
Birgit Peterson [United States Geological Survey (USGS), Earth Resources Observation and Science (EROS) Center] presented her research on the decomposition of GEDI waveforms to derive vegetation structure information for 3D fuels and wildfire modeling, emphasizing the importance of consistent and comprehensive information on vegetation status for effective wildland fire management. Canopy structure data, like that provided by GEDI, can play a key role in developing physics-based fire behavior models, such as QUIC-Fire. With study sites in South Dakota, the Sierra Nevada, and dispersed around the southeastern United States, Peterson’s work aims to demonstrate how vegetation structure parameters needed to run the QUIC-Fire model can be derived from GEDI waveform data.
David Roy [Michigan State University] shared updates on his CST project leveraging GEDI data to improve understanding of species-specific tropical forest regrowth in central Africa. Focusing on the Mai Ndombe region of the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), the project aims to quantify forest regrowth by integrating GEDI-derived structural data with satellite and airborne laser scanner (ALS) based maps of forest height. Roy emphasized the potential of secondary and recovering forest conservation as a low-cost mechanism for carbon sequestration and climate change mitigation. GEDI data combined with satellite maps provides new opportunities to quantify forest regrowth and carbon sequestration in secondary forests at finer detail, although high species diversity and varying regrowth rates can be complex to assess with remote sensing. Roy also presented a 2025 paper validating the GEDI relative height product in the DRC and at two US temperate forest sites with a simple method to improve the GEDI canopy height using digital terrain heights measured by airborne laser scanning (ALS).
Perspectives I
After the morning CST presentation session, meeting attendees heard the first perspectives presentation from Amanda Whitehurst [NASA Headquarters (HQ] GEDI Program Scientist and NASA Terrestrial Ecology Program Manager]. Whitehurst is new to the GEDI Program Scientist role; she used this opportunity to officially introduce herself to the ST and expressed her enthusiasm for the work ahead She commended the GEDI team on the impressive accomplishments of the mission to date, and spoke about the exciting potential for continued data collection and scientific discovery through the program.
Matteo Pardini [DLR] shared his perspective on the potential of combining synthetic aperture radar (SAR) with lidar data to improve four-dimensional (4D) forest structure mapping. He highlighted DLR’s TerraSAR-X and TanDEM-X missions, which have been acquiring interferometric data since 2007 and 2010, respectively. Both missions are expected to continue acquiring data through 2028. The TanDEM-X Global Digital Elevation Model, covering 150 million km2 (58 million mi2) with approximately 1-m (3-ft) accuracy, can be used to derive forest height and biomass. The fusion of TanDEM-X and GEDI data can improve biomass estimates – see Figure 2 – and help researchers parameterize the relationship between coherence and forest structure. Pardini also previewed the upcoming BIOMASS mission, which will operate at a lower frequency and be able to penetrate vegetation, providing complementary information to the TerraSAR-X and TanDEM-X missions.
Figure 2. Biomass estimates over the Amazon basin at 25-m (82-ft) resolution derived using a fusion of data from NASA’s GEDI and DLR’s TanDEM-X missions. Figure credit: Wenlu Qi CST Presentations – Session II
Chris Hakkenberg [University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA)] opened the second CST presentation session with a discussion on his research using GEDI to characterize fuel structure, burn severity, and post-fire response across the regions of California affected by wildfire. He began by highlighting significant land cover changes resulting from wildfires in recent years that are visible as enormous [greater than 100 km2 (38 mi2)] conversions from forest to grass/scrub in the National Land Cover Dataset. Hakkenberg’s project aims to examine the role of fuel structure in driving fire severity patterns, improve burn severity maps using GEDI for change detection, and characterize post-fire response using data from Landsat 5, 7, and 8 and GEDI. He noted that while fire behavior is heavily dependent on weather, topography, and fuels – only fuels can be actively managed. GEDI provides valuable insights into forest fuel structure by measuring canopy volume (total fuel quantities) and vertical continuity (how fire may spread through those volumes). Hakkenberg and his team found that vertical fuel continuity metrics were stronger predictors of severity than fuel volume, especially in extreme weather conditions, and are most closely related to the high-burn severities that can delay long-term recovery. Finally, Hakkenberg presented research that combines GEDI and Landsat to improve burn severity assessments, which will be the focus on the next phase of this research project.
Sean Healey [U.S. Forest Service (USFS)—GEDI Co-I] presented an overview of the Online Biomass Inference using Waveforms and iNventory (OBI-WAN) project. OBI-WAN provides globally consistent estimates of biomass and carbon, as well as changes in these estimates over time, for user-defined areas and periods of interest rather than fixed 1-km (0.62-mi) squares. The project leverages GEDI L4A models to predict biomass at the footprint level and uses this dense collection of footprints to create local-level biomass models with Landsat (assuming consistent calibration of Landsat through time). To quantify uncertainty in change estimates, OBI-WAN employs a statistical method called bootstrapping, which can be embedded into customized accounting systems through a powerful programming interface accessed through Google Earth Engine.
Data Product Status I
Michelle Hofton [UMD—GEDI Co-I] and Sarah Story [GSFC] returned to the topic of GEDI data product status. They presented an update on the GEDI L2A product, which includes ground topography and canopy height measurements. Encouragingly, preliminary testing shows that GEDI’s post-storage performance has remained consistent with pre-storage. Hofton explained GEDI observations are compared with high-quality intersections with the Land, Vegetation, and Ice Sensor (LVIS) (an airborne lidar) data in order to assess GEDI data quality and accuracy. She highlighted the use of bingos – pairs of GEDI waveforms believed to be spatially coincident in vegetated areas – as a valuable tool for assessing geolocation and waveform errors as well as algorithm performance. As of December 2024, more than one million bingos had been collected. Hofton and Story concluded with a preview of anticipated updates to the L2A product for V3.0, including new quality flags for data cleaning and a refined algorithm selection approach.
John Armston [UMD—GEDI Co-I] presented on GEDI L2B data, which provides gridded footprint-level [25-m (82-ft) resolution] metrics such as canopy cover (see Figure 3), plant area index (PAI), plant area volume density (PAVD), and foliage height diversity (FHD). Waveform analysis will remain largely unchanged from V2.0. He shared that the upcoming V3.0 release will differ from V2.0 in that it will use GEDI-derived canopy-ground reflectance ratios — rather than values derived from NASA LVIS — to estimate canopy cover, thus allowing for spatial variability. Waveform analysis will remain largely unchanged from V2.0. Armston also presented 1-km (0.62-mi) leaf-on and leaf-off gridded L2B canopy cover fraction maps using both pre- and post-storage data (April 2019–November 2024), explaining how post-storage data were used to fill gaps. Additionally, the mission team has mapped GEDI canopy cover distributions using a H3-indexing API developed by Tiago de Conto [UMD], which are being used to improve GEDI L2A algorithms for ground detection. V3.0 will offer a more direct measure of canopy structure to complement L2A relative height metrics by improving quality flags and including relative canopy height metrics. Finally, the team presented progress on the independent validation of GEDI L2B V3.0 algorithms and products using the GEDI FSBD and NASA LVIS campaign data from Costa Rica, Gabon, French Guiana and the United States.
Figure 3. GEDI L2B leaf-on canopy cover fraction map derived from data obtained April 2019–October 2024. Figure credit: John Armston Jamis Bruening [UMD] shared the final data product update of the day. He discussed GEDI’s L4B gridded aboveground biomass density (AGBD) product, which is a 1-km (0.62-mi) raster dataset representing area-level estimates of mean AGBD and associated uncertainty across the mission’s range of observation. GEDI’s L4B estimates are derived from the footprint-level L4A AGBD predictions through one of two statistical modes of inference. Currently, hybrid estimation is used to generate L4B. This approach uses GEDI data as the sole input and requires at least two GEDI tracks in a 1-km (0.62-mi) grid cell to produce a mean estimate. The hybrid estimator also provides a standard error, accounting for both model variance in the L4A predictions and GEDI’s sampling uncertainty. To address gaps in GEDI’s coverage where hybrid estimates cannot be produced, the team has begun implementing an alternative inference mode, called generalized hierarchical model-based (GHMB) estimation. GHMB incorporates auxiliary imagery, such as Landsat, SAR, and GEDI’s L4A predictions, to infer mean biomass and its standard error. Although the addition of post-storage data has increased GEDI’s coverage, GHMB remains essential for producing a complete, gap-free 1-km (0.62-mi) AGBD map. Both hybrid and GHMB approaches will soon be used together to generate a global, gap-free L4B product. Users can expect the release of V3.0 L4B estimates – featuring hybrid and GHMB models of biomass inference using both pre- and post-storage data – later in 2025.
What’s Next?
Day one concluded with John Armston, who presented on the potential new satellite laser altimetry mission called Earth Dynamics Geodetic Explorer (EDGE), which was competitively selected for a Phase A Concept Study under NASA’s Earth Systems Explorer Announcement of Opportunity. If selected, EDGE would launch in 2030 and operate for a two-year mission, providing a critical link between current and future satellite laser altimetry missions.
Armston explained that EDGE addresses two of the targeted observables identified in the 2017 Earth Science Decadal Survey – terrestrial ecosystem structure and ice elevation. It provides a dramatic improvement in coverage and resolution over current active missions by operating in a Sun-synchronous orbit that will enable the direct measurement of change in the three-dimensional (3D) structure of vegetation and the surface topography of ice at the spatial and temporal scales needed to observe the driving processes. EDGE will provide fine-scale detail of ecosystem structure in some of the world’s most critical and challenging-to-quantify regions, including the boreal, transforming the field’s understanding of global terrestrial ecosystem structure and its response to natural and anthropogenic change over all of Earth’s wooded ecosystems.
DAY TWO
Data Product Status II/Extended and Demonstrative Products I
Jim Kellner began day two with an L4A footprint-level AGBD product update. His presentation focused on current product status and planned evaluation of and improvements to the L4A algorithm. Since the last STM, L4A V2.1 was updated to include data through MW 311 (through November 2024) and is now available to end users. V3.0, along with an updated Algorithm Theoretical Basis Document (ATBD), is expected later in 2025. The revised ATBD will outline enhancements to the waveform simulator, quality filtering, stratification, and model selection thanks in part to the availability of on-orbit data. V3.0 will also benefit from the ingestion of approximately 35% more simulated waveforms that passed quality assurance and quality control in the FSBD, significantly expanding training data coverage, particularly in Africa and North America. Kellner noted that users should be aware of key differences between L2 and L4 quality flags; L4 flags account for factors such as sensitivity, water presence, urban conditions, and phenology. Additionally, updates to the selected models may lead to changes in AGBD estimates, which will be more clearly communicated in the V 3.0 release. Comparing pre- and post-storage data, Kellner and his team found that AGBD estimates remain stable across both periods. He encouraged users to review the updated ATBD upon release to fully understand the changes and their implications.
Tiago de Conto [UMD] presented the new GEDI L4C WSCI product, which was released in May 2024 and available through the ORNL DAAC – see Figure 4. This footprint-level metric captures the amount and variability of canopy structure in 3D space, reflecting the richness of structural information underlying any given GEDI observation. It synthesizes multiple structural attributes into a single metric and incorporates elements of both vertical and horizontal variability. WSCI models are trained at the PFT level (i.e., deciduous broadleaf trees, evergreen broadleaf trees, evergreen needleleaf trees, and the combination of grasslands, shrubs, and woodlands) using crossovers of GEDI and airborne lidar point clouds. While WSCI tends to scale with canopy height, the relationship varies across biomes. Looking ahead, de Conto previewed forthcoming WSCI–SAR fusion work designed to produce wall-to-wall maps that are suitable for applications, such as change detection. Early fusion results using data from the European Union’s Copernicus Sentinel-1 (a synthetic aperture radar mission) and the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency’s (JAXA) Advanced Land Observing Satellite Phased Array L-band Synthetic Aperture Radar (ALOS-PALSAR) show stable prediction performance across different biomes and time periods as well as consistent performance against airborne lidar wall-to-wall reference data.
Figure 4. The global frequency distribution of GEDI L4C Waveform Structural Complexity Index. Figure credit: Tiago de Conto Paul May [South Dakota School of Mines and Technology] presented his work predicting interpolated waveforms, along with their associated uncertainties, over USDA Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) field plots across the contiguous United States (CONUS). This project aims to develop regression models that convert GEDI’s waveform data into measurements of key forest attributes and enhance monitoring capabilities for a variety of applications. The resulting data product – GEDI-FIA Fusion: Training Lidar Models to Estimate Forest Attributes – was released June 2025 and is publicly available through the ORNL DAAC.
Sean Healey presented ongoing work on the GEDI L4D Imputed Waveform product, led by postdoctoral researcher Eugene Seo [Oregon State University]. This product aims to generate a wall-to-wall 30-m (98-ft) resolution map of GEDI waveforms across the globe in 2023. To achieve this, Seo, Healey, and Zhiqiang Yang [USFS] are using a k-nearest neighbor (k-NN) imputation approach to address areas without GEDI observations. The model operates at a 10-km (6-mi) scale but draws neighbors from a surrounding 30×30 km (19×19 mi) window. The resulting 30-m (98-ft) resolution imputed waveform map is aligned with Landsat data from 2023. Users can expect the release of the L4D product later in 2025.
GEDI Applications and Perspectives II
Neha Hunka [European Space Agency] shared her work using GEDI to fill gaps in the Republic of Sudan’s National Forest Inventory (NFI) in support of their Forest Reference Level (FRL) report to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Using existing NFI data for calibration, Hunka and colleagues developed a geostatistical model-based approach that interpolates between NFI sample units, allowing predictions of AGBD to be made in areas of interest – see Figure 5. (Hunka was lead author on a 2025 paper in Remote Sensing of Environment that describes a similar approach to what she described in this presentation.) UNFCCC called for the modeling approach to be transparent and replicable. Hunka emphasized the importance of access to and preparation of covariate data and called for greater capacity-building and knowledge-transfer support to help other countries adopt GEDI in their reporting. Sudan’s submission marks the first time GEDI data has been used in an FRL report.
Figure 5. A geostatistical model-based approach uses data from the Republic of Sudan’s National Forest Inventory (NFI) for calibration and interpolates between NFI sample units, allowing predictions of aboveground biomass density where desired. Figure credit: Neha Hunka Forests cover about 30% of Earth’s land area, store over 80% of terrestrial biomass and carbon, and absorb around 30% of anthropogenic carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions. While storing carbon in forests can help mitigate carbon emissions, deforestation, disturbances, shifting global economy, and low confidence in forest carbon credits add risk and uncertainty to this strategy. By monitoring forest biomass, some of these risks can be alleviated. Stuart Davies [Smithsonian Institution] joined the STM to present his work on GEO-TREES, a global forest biomass reference system aiming to provide high-quality, publicly available ground data from a network of long-term forest inventory sites to improve biomass mapping on the global scale. Despite many Earth observing (EO) missions focused on forest biomass, a lack of standardized ground reference data has hindered accurate validation. GEO-TREES addresses this need, by fostering collaboration between carbon monitoring, biodiversity research, and EO communities. The project includes 100 core sites and 200 supplementary sites across tropical and temperate regions, selected to represent environmental and human-use gradients, with greater emphasis on sampling in the tropics. Each core site follows Committee on Earth Observation Satellites (CEOS) protocol and includes three types of measurements: forest plot inventory plot, terrestrial laser scanning, and ALS.
CST Presentations – Session III
Atticus Stovall [GSFC] shared first-year findings from his research on post-fire disturbance forest recovery in Mediterranean ecosystems – specifically Spain and Portugal – where the frequency and intensity of wildfires have significantly increased in the 21st century. Using Iberian Forest Inventory ALS data and GEDI footprint data, Stovall and his team showed that GEDI can be used to assess post-fire change as well as evaluate degradation patterns from increasing fire recurrence and intensity. Stovall shared examples demonstrating the use of GEDI to detect both immediate fire effects as well as recovery after disturbance, including stand-replacement and understory clearing. By overlaying disturbance maps with GEDI data, the team observed that recovery rates differ across height class. Looking forward, they plan to investigate how recovery rates vary across environmental gradients and incorporate field plot data to validate their findings.
KC Cushman [ORNL] presented on biomass calibration and validation (cal/val) activities for the NISAR mission, which launched in July 2025. She outlined the general approach to the NISAR biomass algorithm, which uses multiple observations from NISAR every year to produce annual biomass estimates at 1-ha (0.004 mi2) resolution. Cal/val efforts will use ALS to link sparse field data to larger landscapes with estimates at two or more sites in 15 different ecoregions. NISAR has supported cal/val field plot data collection in Spain, South Africa, and various National Ecological Observatory Network (NEON) sites in addition to ALS campaigns at Agua Salud, Panama, near the Los Amigos Biological Station, Peru, in the Chaco ecosystem, Argentina, and near Madrid, Spain.
Chi Chen [Rutgers University] presented his work exploring vertical acclimation of vegetation canopy structure and photosynthetic activities using GEDI data. Chen’s research aims to generate gap-free, high-temporal-frequency canopy profile data and to develop a novel framework that integrates GEDI observations into a multi-layer canopy process model. By training a random forest model with spatially discontinuous GEDI PAVD profiles and multiple features, e.g., multiband spectral reflectance, tree height, and forest type, Chen and his team successfully estimated spatially continuous PAI profiles across different canopy heights. The team cross-validated their predicted PAI with GEDI PAI, NEON PAI, and LAI measurements from the Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) instrument on NASA’s Terra and Aqua platforms. These data could be used to study seasonal variation in different canopy heights. Using a Global Multilayer Canopy OPTimization (GMC-OPT) model, they also found that GEDI-informed data has the potential to identify the vertical position of “net” seasonal leaf turnover – ultimately improving the accuracy of estimates of carbon and water fluxes.
CST Presentations – Session IV
Marcos Longo [Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL) in transition to Brazilian National Institute for Space Research (INPE)] and his team presented a proposed project that integrates GEDI data with process-based models to assess the impact of wildfires on forest structure, recovery, and ecosystem function. As western US forests face increasing wildfire risk due to drier climates, more human ignitions, and a legacy of fire suppression, changes in forest structure, composition, and function are likely to become more detectable over time. This project, under the leadership of Robinson Negron Juarez [University of California, Irvine and LBNL—PI] aims to quantify biomass changes in mixed conifer forests across California, Oregon, and Washington using both ALS and GEDI data. The team plans to use GEDI L2A and L2B data to assess immediate fire impacts on forest structure, investigate post-fire forest recovery, and establish relationships between forest structure and fire intensity/severity. This information will inform process-based models – e.g., the U.S. Department of Energy’s Functionally Assembled Terrestrial Ecosystem Simulator (FATES) – and support a better understanding of forest resilience under fire disturbance regime changes.
Ovidiu Csillik [Wake Forest University] presented work using GEDI and ALS to investigate biomass and structural changes in tropical forests. The work, conducted with Michael Keller [NASA/ Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL), USFS—PI], aims to use models to quantify changes in tropical forest biomass and evaluate understanding of topical forest productivity drivers. The project will use ALS data from over the Brazilian Amazon and other sites in Brazil, Gabon, French Guiana, Costa Rica, Mexico, and Borneo alongside GEDI data over pantropical regions around the globe. Csillik and Keller are currently conducting ALS–ALS and GEDI–GEDI comparisons, and are planning to estimate aboveground biomass change from ALS–ALS, ALS–GEDI, and GEDI–GEDI comparisons at both regional and pantropical scales from 2008–2026.
Zhenpeng Zuo [Boston University (BU)] presented his team’s research, led by Ranga Myneni [BU—PI], using mechanistic model-GEDI integration to map potential canopy top height (pCTH) and inform forest restoration planning. Predicting restoration potential is challenging, as empirical, deep-learning, and mechanistic methods vary in their accuracy, interpretability, and spatial detail. This project uses a mechanistic model based on water use and supply equilibrium, calibrated using GEDI canopy height metrics, to predict pCTH. The team found this approach produced robust pCTH predictions and shows that the Eastern US has vast restorable areas. Future work will expand to dynamic modeling to incorporate disturbance risks and effects under different climate scenarios.
DAAC Reports
Rupesh Shrestha [ORNL DAAC] presented the status of GEDI L3 and L4 datasets at the ORNL DAAC – see Figure 6. Since the 2023 STM, three new datasets have been released: L4B (country-level summaries of aboveground biomass), L4C (footprint level waveform structural complexity index), and a GEDI-FIA (fusion dataset for training lidar models to forest attributes). In total, almost 34,000 unique users have downloaded GEDI L3 and L4A-C data 13,770,648 times, with L4A being the most popular at 13.1 million downloads. As of April 30, 2025, all GEDI footprint-level datasets from L1–L4 are available with data through mission week 311 (November 2024), besides L4C. Users can look forward to a GEDI L4D Imputation Dataset later in 2025 along with the much-anticipated V3.0 GEDI data product release. All levels of GEDI data can now be accessed in one place through the NASA Earthdata Search and Data Catalog. In addition to the data products themselves, data tools and services, publications citing GEDI data and GEDI data tutorials and workshops can be found at the ORNL DAAC website. The ORNL DAAC provides data user support through the Earthdata Forum, or via their email uso@daac.ornl.gov.
Figure 6. GEDI L3 and L4B data projected on NASA WorldView/GIBS API. Explore the program here. Figure credit: Rupesh Shrestha Jared Beck [Land Processes Distributed Active Archive Center (LP DAAC)] presented on GEDI data products at the LP DAAC, a USGS–NASA partnership that archives and distributes lower-level GEDI products (GEDI L1B, L2A, and L2B). The LP DAAC has distributed over seven petabytes of GEDI data so far, and is now exclusively distributing GEDI data through NASA’s Earth Data Cloud. GEDI L2A is the most popular of the products in terms of terabytes of distribution. Like the ORNL DAAC, data user support also flows through the NASA Earthdata Forum. Tutorials can be found on GitHub. All levels of GEDI data can now be accessed in one place through the NASA Earthdata search and data catalog options.
GEDI Extended and Demonstrative Products II
Scott Goetz [NAU] discussed his team’s research leveraging GEDI data for biodiversity applications, emphasizing its potential to help improve species distribution models and the high value of understanding forest structure for conservation assessments. He highlighted a 2022 Nature Ecology & Evolution article showing that forests with higher structural integrity and cover reduced the extinction risk for over 16,000 threatened or declining species. Another 2023 study in Nature demonstrated how biodiversity indicators, such as habitat cover, canopy structure, and human pressures, can influence the effectiveness of protected areas. In order to have a wider variety of gridded products to work with for species distribution models, Pat Burns [NAU], Chris Hakkenberg, and Goetz developed the Gridded GEDI Vegetation Structure Metrics and Biomass Density at Multiple Resolutions product that has been released through the ORNL DAAC and Google Earth Engine along with a data descriptor paper published in a Nature Scientific Data paper – see Figure 7. Burns elaborated that, relative to fusion products, gridded GEDI products performed better when measuring structure, especially in the understory. The team is now comparing species distribution models in mainland Southeast Asia using fusion versus solely GEDI data.
Figure 7. GEDI mean foliage height diversity (FHD) map using shots from April 2019 to March 2023 at 6-km (4.7-mi) spatial resolution. Red boxes indicate the approximate location of airborne lidar used for intercomparison. Three insets show GEDI mean FHD at finer spatial resolution [1 km (0.62 mi)] as well as more detailed airborne lidar coverage (red polygons). From left to right the insets show: Sonoma County, California, Coconino National Forest, Arizona, and Sumatra/Borneo. Figure credit: From Patrick Burns et al (2024) Nature Scientific Data Perspectives III
STM attendees concluded day two with a perspective talk from Marc Simard [JPL], who showcased a range of studies demonstrating diverse applications of GEDI data, opportunities for its improvement, and potential for informing future scientific research. Drawing on his own work, Simard shared examples of using GEDI data for cal/val of global Digital Elevation Measurement (DEM) and Digital Terrain Model (DTM), mapping global mangrove heights, monitoring forest growth, and analyzing hydrological processes. In more detail, he explained how he led the development of a 12-m (39-ft) spatial resolution global mangrove height product using GEDI and TanDEM-X data. Additionally, he discussed a study evaluating tree growth rates in the Laurentides Wildlife Reserve in Quebec, Canada using both GEDI and ALS. The analysis revealed an average growth rate of approximately 32 ±23 cm (12 ±9 in) per year. Finally, he presented a paper under review examining water level detection and hydrological conditions in coastal regions using GEDI alongside Ice, Cloud, and land Elevation Satellite 2 (ICESat-2) data. In closing, Simard emphasized that GEDI datasets can help identify critical data and knowledge gaps, guiding the development of new missions – e.g., the Surface Topography and Vegetation (STV) mission concept called for in the 2017 Earth Science Decadal Survey report. As described in the STV Study Team Report, the mission would focus on elevation and vertical structure to study the solid Earth, cryosphere, vegetation structure, hydrology, and coastal geomorphology.
DAY THREE
CST Presentations – Session V
Jody Vogeler [Colorado State University] opened the final CST presentation session with an overview of her research using GEDI data fusions to characterize post-fire landscapes and understand habitat refugia for the threatened Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis). This project builds on her team’s phase-I work, which produced 30-m (98-ft) resolution gridded GEDI fusion maps across six Western U.S. states to support habitat and diversity applications related to cavity-nesting birds, small mammals, and carnivore–prey relationships. The team is now focusing on validating and improving their GEDI fusion products within post-disturbance landscapes, specifically post-fire. Using this data, Vogeler and her team aim to better understand how post-fire structural information from GEDI improves their ability to understand lynx behavior–habitat relationships across early post-fire landscapes. This information can help evaluate what structural attributes determine post-fire refugia patch use by lynx. Next steps for this work include integrating GEDI V3.0 data upon its release, identifying new GEDI metrics and derived products, and incorporating lynx radio-collar data into their analyses. Vogeler also presented her work as co-PI on a NASA Ecological Conservation Project in Greater Kruger National Park, South Africa, where she and her team are developing spatial monitoring tools to support management and conservation planning.
Jingfeng Xiao [University of New Hampshire] provided updates on his team’s research using GEDI data to understand how structural diversity influences productivity and carbon uptake of forests in the United States. The project aims to assess GEDI’s ability to quantify structural diversity, investigate how that diversity regulates forest productivity and carbon uptake, and understand its role in resilience of forest productivity to drought. When analyzing the relationships of gross primary production (GPP) and evapotranspiration (ET) with canopy structure metrics, the team found that increased canopy structure complexity positively affected GPP and ET and reduced their seasonal variability. They also found that greater canopy complexity improved ecosystem resistance to drought. As part of the project, the team also produced 1-km (0.62-mi) resolution gridded maps of GPP and ET.
Lei Ma [UMD] delivered the final talk of the STM, presenting his project that integrates GEDI observations with mechanistic ecosystem modeling to quantify forest regrowth in a changing climate. Ma used GEDI data and the Ecosystem Demography (ED) model in his research and found that height and aboveground biomass (AGB) regrowth rates can be derived by combining GEDI and land-use and land-cover change data. Ma found that regrowth rates derived from different inputs are generally consistent at large scales but variable at fine scales. Notably, regrowth rates showed temporal dependence, decreasing by roughly 50% every decade. Lastly, Ma and his team found that spatial variation in height and AGB regrowth rates can be partially explained by environmental conditions and disturbance frequency.
Conclusion
The 2025 GEDI STM was especially exciting, as it came on the cusp of post-storage data being processed and released as V2.1. Additionally, it marked the first time the new CST cohort presented on their research and joined breakout sessions with the wider GEDI team. The meeting highlighted the mission’s ongoing success and scientific value following hibernation on the ISS. Looking ahead, data users can anticipate the V3.0 product release later in 2025.
Talia Schwelling
University of Maryland College Park
tschwell@umd.edu
Share
Details
Last Updated Aug 18, 2025 Related Terms
Uncategorized Earth Science View the full article
-
-
Check out these Videos
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.