Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-5wvtr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-19T07:20:32.340Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

13 - Perspectives on the use of land-cover data for ecological investigations

from PART III - Landscape patterns

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 November 2009

By
Thomas R. Loveland ,
Alisa L. Gallant  and
James E. Vogelmann
Edited by
John A. Wiens  and
Michael R. Moss
Thomas R. Loveland
Affiliation:
US Geological Survey USA
Alisa L. Gallant
Affiliation:
Raytheon ITSS USA
James E. Vogelmann
Affiliation:
Raytheon ITSS USA
John A. Wiens
Affiliation:
The Nature Conservancy, Washington DC
Michael R. Moss
Affiliation:
University of Guelph, Ontario
Get access

Summary

An important ingredient of many research applications in landscape ecology is land-cover data. Land-cover databases reflect the patterns of vegetation, the extent of anthropogenic activity, and the potential for future uses and disturbances of the landscape. These databases are essential for studies of landscape spatial configuration and investigations of ecological status, trends, stresses, and relationships. The evolution of land-cover databases and landscape applications is an iterative process, driven by new developments at both ends. There is a strong demand at all scales for land-cover data, and those developing such data sets must constantly work toward improvements in data content, quality, and documentation to meet the diverse needs of scientific users.

The development of land-cover databases is a major focus of the US Geological Survey (USGS) National Land-cover Characterization Program. Projects span local, to regional, to global venues (e.g., Loveland et al., 1991, 2000; Vogelmann et al., 2001) and the results contribute to a wide range of applications (e.g., Jones et al., 1997, 2001; DeFries and Los, 1999; Hurtt et al., 2001; Maselli and Rembold, 2001). While some of the applications are quite innovative, we find others worrisome, considering the limitations of the source materials, mapping technologies, and expertise inherent in data development. These limitations are important to landscape ecologists because the resultant imperfections in the data sets affect the accuracy, consistency, and credibility of the analyses applied to them.

Type
Chapter
Information
Issues and Perspectives in Landscape Ecology , pp. 120 - 128
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2005

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ahern, F., Belward, A., Churchill, P., et al. (1998). A Strategy for Global Observation of Forest Cover. Ottawa: Committee on Earth Observation Satellites.Google Scholar
Anderson, J. R., Hardy, E. E., Roach, J. T., and Witmer, R. E. (1976). A Land Use and Land-cover Classification System for Use with Remote Sensor Data. US Geological Survey Professional Paper 964. Reston, VA: US Geological Survey.Google Scholar
DeFries, R. S. and Los, S. O. (1999). Implications of land-cover misclassification for parameter estimates in global land surface models: an example from the Simple Biosphere Model (SiB2). Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing, 65, 1083–1088.Google Scholar
Estes, J. E. and Mooneyhan, D. W. (1994). Of maps and myths. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing, 60, 517–524.Google Scholar
Federal Geographic Data Committee (1997). Vegetation Classification Standard. FGDC-STD-005. Reston, VA: US Geological Survey.
Foody, G. M. (2002). Status of land-cover classification accuracy assessment. Remote Sensing of Environment, 80, 185–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Homer, C. G., Ramsey, R. D., Edwards, T. C. Jr., and Falconer, A. (1997). Landscape cover-type modeling using a multi-scene Thematic Mapper mosaic. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing, 63, 59–67.Google Scholar
Hurtt, G. C., Rosentrater, L., Frolking, S., and Moore, B. (2001). Linking remote-sensing estimates of land-cover and census statistics on land use to produce maps of land use of the conterminous United States. Global Biogeochemical Cycles, 15, 673–685.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, K. B., Riitters, K. H., Wickham, J. D., et al. (1997). An Ecological Assessment of the United States Mid-Atlantic Region: a Landscape Atlas. EPA/600/R-97/130. Washington, DC: US Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development.Google Scholar
Jones, K. B., Neale, A. C., Nash, M. S., et al. (2001). Predicting nutrient and sediment loadings to streams from landscape metrics: a multiple watershed study from the United States mid-Atlantic region. Landscape Ecology, 16, 301–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kroh, G. C., Pinder, J. E. III, and White, J. D. (1995). Forest mapping in Lassen Volcanic National Park, California using Landsat TM data and a geographic information system. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing, 61, 299–305.Google Scholar
Loveland, T. R., Merchant, J. W., Ohlen, D. O., and Brown, J. F. (1991). Development of a land-cover characteristics database for the conterminous U.S. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing, 57, 1453–1463.Google Scholar
Loveland, T. R., Reed, B. C., Brown, J. F., et al. (2000). Development of a global land-cover characteristics database and IGBP DISCover from 1-km AVHRR data. International Journal of Remote Sensing, 21, 1303–1330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maselli, F. and Rembold, F. (2001). Analysis of GAC NDVI data for cropland identification and yield forecasting in Mediterranean African countries. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing, 67, 593–602.Google Scholar
McGwire, K. C. (1992). Analyst variability in labeling of unsupervised classifications. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing, 58, 1673–1677.Google Scholar
Quattrochi, D. A., and Pelletier, R. E. (1990). Remote sensing for analysis of landscapes: an introduction. In Quantitative Methods in Landscape Ecology, ed. Turner, M. G. and Gardner, R. H.. New York, NY: Springer, pp. 51–76.Google Scholar
Scott, J. M., Davis, F., Csuti, B., et al. (1993). Gap analysis: a geographic approach to protection of biological diversity. Wildlife Monographs, 123.Google Scholar
Stehman, S. V. (2001). Statistical rigor and practical utility in thematic map accuracy assessment. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing, 67, 727–734.Google Scholar
Vogelmann, J. E., Sohl, T., and Howard, S. M. (1998). Regional characterization of land-cover using multiple sources of data. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing, 64, 45–57.Google Scholar
Vogelmann, J. E., Howard, S. M., Yang, L., Larson, C. R., Wylie, B. K., and Driel, N. (2001). Completion of the 1990s National Land-cover Data Set for the conterminous United States from Landsat Thematic Mapper data and ancillary data sources. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing, 67, 650–662.Google Scholar
Wickham, J. D., O', Neill, R. V., Riitters, K. H., Wade, T. G., and Jones, K. B. (1997). Sensitivity of selected landscape metrics to land-cover misclassification and differences in land-cover composition. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing, 63, 397–414.Google Scholar
Yang, L., Stehman, S. V., Smith, J. H., and Wickham, J. D. (2001). Thematic accuracy of MRLC land-cover for the eastern United States. Remote Sensing of Environment, 76, 418–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhu, Z., Yang, L., Stehman, S. V., and Czaplewski, R. L. (2000). Accuracy assessment for the U.S. Geological Survey regional land-cover mapping program: New York and New Jersey region. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing, 66, 1425–1435.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×