Back

Deciphering the many maps of the Xingu, an assessment of deforestation from land cover classifications at multiple scales

Kalacska, M.; Arroyo-Mora, J. P.; Lucanus, O.; Sousa, L.; Pereira, T.; Vieira, T.

2019-12-27 ecology
10.1101/2019.12.23.887588 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Remote sensing is an invaluable tool to objectively illustrate the rapid decline in habitat extents worldwide. The many operational Earth Observation platforms provide options for the generation of land cover maps, each with unique characteristics, as well as considerable semantic differences in the definition of classes. As a result, differences in baseline estimates are inevitable. Here we compare forest cover and surface water estimates over four time periods spanning three decades (1989-2018) for [~]1.3 million km2 encompassing the Xingu river basin, Brazil, from published, freely accessible remotely sensed classifications. While all datasets showed a decrease in forest extent over time, we found a large range in the total area reported by each product for all time periods. The greatest differences ranged from 9% (year 2000) to 17% of the total area (2014-2018 period). We also show the high sensitivity of forest fragmentation metrics (entropy and foreground area density) to data quality and spatial resolution, with cloud cover and sensor artefacts resulting in errors. We further show the importance of choosing surface water datasets carefully because they differ greatly in location and amount of surface water mapped between sources. In several of the datasets illustrating the land cover following operationalization of the Belo Monte dam, the large reservoirs are notably absent. Freshwater ecosystem health is influenced by the land cover surrounding water bodies (e.g. Riparian zones). Understanding differences between the many remotely sensed baselines is fundamentally important to avoid information misuse, and to objectively choose the most appropriate dataset for conservation, taxonomy or policy-making. The differences in forest cover between the datasets examined here are not a failure of the technology, but due to different interpretations of forest and characteristics of the input data (e.g. spatial resolution). Our findings demonstrate the importance of transparency in the generation of remotely sensed datasets and the need for users to familiarize themselves with the characteristics and limitations of each chosen data set.

Matching journals

The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 7%
21.5%
2
Ecological Indicators
20 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
8.0%
3
Science of The Total Environment
179 papers in training set
Top 1.0%
8.0%
4
Environmental Research Letters
15 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
6.0%
5
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 26%
4.6%
6
Communications Earth & Environment
14 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
3.7%
50% of probability mass above
7
Conservation Letters
11 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
3.4%
8
Biological Conservation
43 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
3.4%
9
Ecography
50 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
3.4%
10
Journal of Environmental Management
11 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
3.4%
11
Ecological Informatics
29 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
3.4%
12
Landscape Ecology
12 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
2.6%
13
Conservation Science and Practice
13 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
2.0%
14
Global Ecology and Biogeography
41 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.8%
15
Biodiversity and Conservation
11 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.4%
16
Global Ecology and Conservation
25 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
1.4%
17
PeerJ
261 papers in training set
Top 9%
1.4%
18
Conservation Biology
14 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.3%
19
Global Change Biology
69 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.2%
20
Remote Sensing in Ecology and Conservation
10 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.2%
21
eLife
5422 papers in training set
Top 50%
1.2%
22
Scientific Data
174 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.8%
23
Diversity and Distributions
26 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.8%
24
Biotropica
15 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.8%
25
FACETS
11 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.7%
26
Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems
12 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.7%
27
Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution
60 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.7%
28
Biological Invasions
14 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
0.6%