Arthur Bayle, Simon Gascoin, Logan T. Berner, Philippe Choler
{"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}
引用次数: 0
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.
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.