Antoine Champreux, Frédérik Saltré, Wolfgang Traylor, Thomas Hickler, Corey J. A. Bradshaw
{"title":"How to map biomes: Quantitative comparison and review of biome-mapping methods","authors":"Antoine Champreux, Frédérik Saltré, Wolfgang Traylor, Thomas Hickler, 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}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
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.
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.