基于陆地卫星的高山生态系统绿化趋势因夏季观测数据的数十年增长而膨胀

IF 5.4 1区 环境科学与生态学 Q1 BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION
Ecography Pub Date : 2024-08-27 DOI:10.1111/ecog.07394
Arthur Bayle, Simon Gascoin, Logan T. Berner, Philippe Choler
{"title":"基于陆地卫星的高山生态系统绿化趋势因夏季观测数据的数十年增长而膨胀","authors":"Arthur Bayle, Simon Gascoin, Logan T. Berner, Philippe Choler","doi":"10.1111/ecog.07394","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Remote sensing is an invaluable tool for tracking decadal‐scale changes in vegetation greenness in response to climate and land use changes. While the Landsat archive has been widely used to explore these trends and their spatial and temporal complexity, its inconsistent sampling frequency over time and space raises concerns about its ability to provide reliable estimates of annual vegetation indices such as the annual maximum normalised difference vegetation index (NDVI), commonly used as a proxy of plant productivity. Here we demonstrate for seasonally snow‐covered ecosystems, that greening trends derived from annual maximum NDVI can be significantly overestimated because the number of available Landsat observations increases over time, and mostly that the magnitude of the overestimation varies along environmental gradients. Typically, areas with a short growing season and few available observations experience the largest bias in greening trend estimation. We show these conditions are met in late snowmelting habitats in the European Alps, which are known to be particularly sensitive to temperature increases and present conservation challenges. In this critical context, almost 50% of the magnitude of estimated greening can be explained by this bias. Our study calls for greater caution when comparing greening trends magnitudes between habitats with different snow conditions and observations. At a minimum we recommend reporting information on the temporal sampling of the observations, including the number of observations per year, when long‐term studies with Landsat observations are undertaken.","PeriodicalId":51026,"journal":{"name":"Ecography","volume":"4 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Landsat‐based greening trends in alpine ecosystems are inflated by multidecadal increases in summer observations\",\"authors\":\"Arthur Bayle, Simon Gascoin, Logan T. Berner, Philippe Choler\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/ecog.07394\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Remote sensing is an invaluable tool for tracking decadal‐scale changes in vegetation greenness in response to climate and land use changes. While the Landsat archive has been widely used to explore these trends and their spatial and temporal complexity, its inconsistent sampling frequency over time and space raises concerns about its ability to provide reliable estimates of annual vegetation indices such as the annual maximum normalised difference vegetation index (NDVI), commonly used as a proxy of plant productivity. Here we demonstrate for seasonally snow‐covered ecosystems, that greening trends derived from annual maximum NDVI can be significantly overestimated because the number of available Landsat observations increases over time, and mostly that the magnitude of the overestimation varies along environmental gradients. Typically, areas with a short growing season and few available observations experience the largest bias in greening trend estimation. We show these conditions are met in late snowmelting habitats in the European Alps, which are known to be particularly sensitive to temperature increases and present conservation challenges. In this critical context, almost 50% of the magnitude of estimated greening can be explained by this bias. Our study calls for greater caution when comparing greening trends magnitudes between habitats with different snow conditions and observations. At a minimum we recommend reporting information on the temporal sampling of the observations, including the number of observations per year, when long‐term studies with Landsat observations are undertaken.\",\"PeriodicalId\":51026,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Ecography\",\"volume\":\"4 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":5.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Ecography\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"93\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/ecog.07394\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"环境科学与生态学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ecography","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/ecog.07394","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

遥感是跟踪植被绿度随气候和土地利用变化而发生的十年尺度变化的宝贵工具。虽然大地遥感卫星档案已被广泛用于探索这些趋势及其时空复杂性,但其在时间和空间上不一致的采样频率使人们担心其是否有能力提供可靠的年度植被指数估算值,如通常用作植物生产力替代指标的年度最大归一化差异植被指数(NDVI)。在此,我们针对季节性积雪覆盖的生态系统进行了论证,由于可用的陆地卫星观测数据数量随时间增加,根据年最大归一化差异植被指数得出的绿化趋势可能会被大大高估,而且高估的程度主要随环境梯度而变化。通常情况下,生长季节短、可用观测数据少的地区在绿化趋势估算中偏差最大。我们的研究表明,这些条件在欧洲阿尔卑斯山的晚融雪栖息地都得到了满足,众所周知,晚融雪栖息地对气温升高特别敏感,给保护工作带来了挑战。在这一关键背景下,绿化估计值的近 50%可以用这一偏差来解释。我们的研究呼吁,在比较不同积雪条件和观测结果的栖息地之间的绿化趋势幅度时应更加谨慎。我们建议在利用大地遥感卫星观测数据进行长期研究时,至少要报告观测数据的时间取样信息,包括每年的观测数据数量。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Landsat‐based greening trends in alpine ecosystems are inflated by multidecadal increases in summer observations
Remote sensing is an invaluable tool for tracking decadal‐scale changes in vegetation greenness in response to climate and land use changes. While the Landsat archive has been widely used to explore these trends and their spatial and temporal complexity, its inconsistent sampling frequency over time and space raises concerns about its ability to provide reliable estimates of annual vegetation indices such as the annual maximum normalised difference vegetation index (NDVI), commonly used as a proxy of plant productivity. Here we demonstrate for seasonally snow‐covered ecosystems, that greening trends derived from annual maximum NDVI can be significantly overestimated because the number of available Landsat observations increases over time, and mostly that the magnitude of the overestimation varies along environmental gradients. Typically, areas with a short growing season and few available observations experience the largest bias in greening trend estimation. We show these conditions are met in late snowmelting habitats in the European Alps, which are known to be particularly sensitive to temperature increases and present conservation challenges. In this critical context, almost 50% of the magnitude of estimated greening can be explained by this bias. Our study calls for greater caution when comparing greening trends magnitudes between habitats with different snow conditions and observations. At a minimum we recommend reporting information on the temporal sampling of the observations, including the number of observations per year, when long‐term studies with Landsat observations are undertaken.
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
Ecography
Ecography 环境科学-生态学
CiteScore
11.60
自引率
3.40%
发文量
122
审稿时长
8-16 weeks
期刊介绍: ECOGRAPHY publishes exciting, novel, and important articles that significantly advance understanding of ecological or biodiversity patterns in space or time. Papers focusing on conservation or restoration are welcomed, provided they are anchored in ecological theory and convey a general message that goes beyond a single case study. We encourage papers that seek advancing the field through the development and testing of theory or methodology, or by proposing new tools for analysis or interpretation of ecological phenomena. Manuscripts are expected to address general principles in ecology, though they may do so using a specific model system if they adequately frame the problem relative to a generalized ecological question or problem. Purely descriptive papers are considered only if breaking new ground and/or describing patterns seldom explored. Studies focused on a single species or single location are generally discouraged unless they make a significant contribution to advancing general theory or understanding of biodiversity patterns and processes. Manuscripts merely confirming or marginally extending results of previous work are unlikely to be considered in Ecography. Papers are judged by virtue of their originality, appeal to general interest, and their contribution to new developments in studies of spatial and temporal ecological patterns. There are no biases with regard to taxon, biome, or biogeographical area.
×
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