如何绘制生物群落图:定量比较和审查生物群落绘图方法

IF 7.1 1区 环境科学与生态学 Q1 ECOLOGY
Antoine Champreux, Frédérik Saltré, Wolfgang Traylor, Thomas Hickler, Corey J. A. Bradshaw
{"title":"如何绘制生物群落图:定量比较和审查生物群落绘图方法","authors":"Antoine Champreux,&nbsp;Frédérik Saltré,&nbsp;Wolfgang Traylor,&nbsp;Thomas Hickler,&nbsp;Corey J. A. Bradshaw","doi":"10.1002/ecm.1615","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Biomes are large-scale ecosystems occupying large spaces. The biome concept should theoretically facilitate scientific synthesis of global-scale studies of the past, present, and future biosphere. However, there is neither a consensus biome map nor universally accepted definition of terrestrial biomes, making joint interpretation and comparison of biome-related studies difficult. “Desert,” “rainforest,” “tundra,” “grassland,” or “savanna,” while widely used terms in common language, have multiple definitions and no universally accepted spatial distribution. Fit-for-purpose classification schemes are necessary, so multiple biome-mapping methods should for now co-exist. In this review, we compare biome-mapping methods, first conceptually, then quantitatively. To facilitate the description of the diversity of approaches, we group the extant diversity of past, present, and future global-scale biome-mapping methods into three main families that differ by the feature captured, the mapping technique, and the nature of observation used: (1) <i>compilation</i> biome maps from expert elicitation, (2) <i>functional</i> biome maps from vegetation physiognomy, and (3) <i>simulated</i> biome maps from vegetation modeling. We design a protocol to measure and quantify spatially the pairwise agreement between biome maps. We then illustrate the use of such a protocol with a real-world application by investigating the potential ecological drivers of disagreement between four broadly used, modern global biome maps. In this example, we quantify that the strongest disagreement among biome maps generally occurs in landscapes altered by human activities and moderately covered by vegetation. Such disagreements are sources of bias when combining several biome classifications. When aiming to produce realistic biome maps, biases could be minimized by promoting schemes using observations rather than predictions, while simultaneously considering the effect of humans and other ecosystem engineers in the definition. Throughout this review, we provide comparison and decision tools to navigate the diversity of approaches to encourage a more effective use of the biome concept.</p>","PeriodicalId":11505,"journal":{"name":"Ecological Monographs","volume":"94 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":7.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/ecm.1615","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"How to map biomes: Quantitative comparison and review of biome-mapping methods\",\"authors\":\"Antoine Champreux,&nbsp;Frédérik Saltré,&nbsp;Wolfgang Traylor,&nbsp;Thomas Hickler,&nbsp;Corey J. A. Bradshaw\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/ecm.1615\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Biomes are large-scale ecosystems occupying large spaces. The biome concept should theoretically facilitate scientific synthesis of global-scale studies of the past, present, and future biosphere. However, there is neither a consensus biome map nor universally accepted definition of terrestrial biomes, making joint interpretation and comparison of biome-related studies difficult. “Desert,” “rainforest,” “tundra,” “grassland,” or “savanna,” while widely used terms in common language, have multiple definitions and no universally accepted spatial distribution. Fit-for-purpose classification schemes are necessary, so multiple biome-mapping methods should for now co-exist. In this review, we compare biome-mapping methods, first conceptually, then quantitatively. To facilitate the description of the diversity of approaches, we group the extant diversity of past, present, and future global-scale biome-mapping methods into three main families that differ by the feature captured, the mapping technique, and the nature of observation used: (1) <i>compilation</i> biome maps from expert elicitation, (2) <i>functional</i> biome maps from vegetation physiognomy, and (3) <i>simulated</i> biome maps from vegetation modeling. We design a protocol to measure and quantify spatially the pairwise agreement between biome maps. We then illustrate the use of such a protocol with a real-world application by investigating the potential ecological drivers of disagreement between four broadly used, modern global biome maps. In this example, we quantify that the strongest disagreement among biome maps generally occurs in landscapes altered by human activities and moderately covered by vegetation. Such disagreements are sources of bias when combining several biome classifications. When aiming to produce realistic biome maps, biases could be minimized by promoting schemes using observations rather than predictions, while simultaneously considering the effect of humans and other ecosystem engineers in the definition. Throughout this review, we provide comparison and decision tools to navigate the diversity of approaches to encourage a more effective use of the biome concept.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":11505,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Ecological Monographs\",\"volume\":\"94 3\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":7.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/ecm.1615\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Ecological Monographs\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"93\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ecm.1615\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"环境科学与生态学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ECOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ecological Monographs","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ecm.1615","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

生物群落是占据大片空间的大规模生态系统。从理论上讲,生物群落概念应有助于对过去、现在和未来生物圈的全球尺度研究进行科学综合。然而,目前既没有达成共识的生物群落图,也没有普遍接受的陆地生物群落定义,因此很难对生物群落相关研究进行联合解释和比较。"沙漠"、"雨林"、"苔原"、"草原 "或 "热带稀树草原 "虽然在普通语言中被广泛使用,但却有多种定义,也没有公认的空间分布。适合目的的分类方案是必要的,因此目前多种生物测定方法应该并存。在这篇综述中,我们将首先从概念上,然后从数量上对生物测定方法进行比较。为了便于描述方法的多样性,我们将过去、现在和未来的全球尺度生物群落绘图方法分为三大类,它们因捕获的特征、绘图技术和使用的观测性质而有所不同:(1)根据专家意见绘制的汇编生物群落图;(2)根据植被特征绘制的功能生物群落图;(3)根据植被建模绘制的模拟生物群落图。我们设计了一个协议,用于测量和量化生物群落图之间的空间配对一致性。然后,我们通过研究四种广泛使用的现代全球生物群落图之间不一致的潜在生态驱动因素,以实际应用来说明这种协议的使用。在这个例子中,我们发现生物群落图之间最大的分歧通常发生在被人类活动改变、植被覆盖度中等的地貌中。在综合多个生物群落分类时,这种分歧会造成偏差。在绘制真实的生物群落图时,可以通过推广使用观测数据而非预测数据的方案来尽量减少偏差,同时在定义中考虑人类和其他生态系统工程师的影响。在这篇综述中,我们提供了比较和决策工具,以引导各种方法,鼓励更有效地使用生物群落概念。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

How to map biomes: Quantitative comparison and review of biome-mapping methods

How to map biomes: Quantitative comparison and review of biome-mapping methods

Biomes are large-scale ecosystems occupying large spaces. The biome concept should theoretically facilitate scientific synthesis of global-scale studies of the past, present, and future biosphere. However, there is neither a consensus biome map nor universally accepted definition of terrestrial biomes, making joint interpretation and comparison of biome-related studies difficult. “Desert,” “rainforest,” “tundra,” “grassland,” or “savanna,” while widely used terms in common language, have multiple definitions and no universally accepted spatial distribution. Fit-for-purpose classification schemes are necessary, so multiple biome-mapping methods should for now co-exist. In this review, we compare biome-mapping methods, first conceptually, then quantitatively. To facilitate the description of the diversity of approaches, we group the extant diversity of past, present, and future global-scale biome-mapping methods into three main families that differ by the feature captured, the mapping technique, and the nature of observation used: (1) compilation biome maps from expert elicitation, (2) functional biome maps from vegetation physiognomy, and (3) simulated biome maps from vegetation modeling. We design a protocol to measure and quantify spatially the pairwise agreement between biome maps. We then illustrate the use of such a protocol with a real-world application by investigating the potential ecological drivers of disagreement between four broadly used, modern global biome maps. In this example, we quantify that the strongest disagreement among biome maps generally occurs in landscapes altered by human activities and moderately covered by vegetation. Such disagreements are sources of bias when combining several biome classifications. When aiming to produce realistic biome maps, biases could be minimized by promoting schemes using observations rather than predictions, while simultaneously considering the effect of humans and other ecosystem engineers in the definition. Throughout this review, we provide comparison and decision tools to navigate the diversity of approaches to encourage a more effective use of the biome concept.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Ecological Monographs
Ecological Monographs 环境科学-生态学
CiteScore
12.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
61
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: The vision for Ecological Monographs is that it should be the place for publishing integrative, synthetic papers that elaborate new directions for the field of ecology. Original Research Papers published in Ecological Monographs will continue to document complex observational, experimental, or theoretical studies that by their very integrated nature defy dissolution into shorter publications focused on a single topic or message. Reviews will be comprehensive and synthetic papers that establish new benchmarks in the field, define directions for future research, contribute to fundamental understanding of ecological principles, and derive principles for ecological management in its broadest sense (including, but not limited to: conservation, mitigation, restoration, and pro-active protection of the environment). Reviews should reflect the full development of a topic and encompass relevant natural history, observational and experimental data, analyses, models, and theory. Reviews published in Ecological Monographs should further blur the boundaries between “basic” and “applied” ecology. Concepts and Synthesis papers will conceptually advance the field of ecology. These papers are expected to go well beyond works being reviewed and include discussion of new directions, new syntheses, and resolutions of old questions. In this world of rapid scientific advancement and never-ending environmental change, there needs to be room for the thoughtful integration of scientific ideas, data, and concepts that feeds the mind and guides the development of the maturing science of ecology. Ecological Monographs provides that room, with an expansive view to a sustainable future.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信