While high resolution satellite remote sensing has been hailed as a very useful source of data for biodiversity assessment and monitoring, applications have been more developed in temperate areas. The biodiverse tropics offer a challenge of an altogether different magnitude for hyperspatial and hyperspectral remote sensing. This paper examines issues related to hyperspatial and hyperspectral remotely sensed imagery, which constitutes one of the most potentially powerful yet underutilized sources of for tropical research on biodiversity. Hyperspatial data with their increased pixel resolution are possibly best suited at facilitating the accurate location of features such as tree canopies, but less suited to the identification of aspects such as species identity, particularly when spatial resolution becomes too fine and pixels are smaller than the size of the object (e.g., tree canopy) being identified. Hyperspectral data on the other hand, with their high spectral resolution, can be used to record information pertaining to a range of critical plant properties related to species identity, and can be very effective used for discriminating tree species in tropical forests, despite the greater complexity of such environments. There remains a glaring gap in the easy availability of hyperspectral and hyperspatial satellite data in the tropics due to reasons of cost, data coverage, and security restrictions. Stimulating discussion on the applications of this powerful, but underutilized tool by ecologists, is the first step in promoting a more extensive use of such data for ecological studies in tropical biodiversity rich areas.
Biodiversity Hyperspatial data Hyperspectral data Monitoring Remote sensing Satellite imagery Tropics
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access
We would like to thank the editors and three anonymous referees for their useful comments, and the Society in Science: Branco Weiss fellowship for financial assistance to HN.
Hernández-Stefanoni JL, Dupny JM (2007) Mapping species density of trees, shrubs and vines in a tropical forest, using field measurements, satellite multispectral imagery and spatial interpolation. Biodivers Conserv 16:3817–3833. doi:10.1007/s10531-007-9182-6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jakubauskas ME, Price KP (1997) Empirical relationships between structural and spectral factors of Yellowstone Lodgepole Pine forests. Photogramm Eng Remote Sens 63:1375–1381Google Scholar
Johansen K, Coops NC, Gergel SE, Stange Y (2007) Application of high spatial resolution satellite imagery for riparian and forest ecosystem classification. Remote Sens Environ 110:29–44. doi:10.1016/j.rse.2007.02.014CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kalacksa M, Sanchez-Azofeifa GA, Rivard B, Caelli T, White HP, Calvo-Alvarado JC (2007) Ecological fingerprinting of ecosystem sucession: estimating secondary tropical dry forest structure and spectroscopy. Remote Sens Environ 108:82–96. doi:10.1016/j.rse.2006.11.007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kark S, Levin N, Phinn S (2008) Global environmental priorities: making sense of remote sensing: reply to TREE Letter: satellites miss environmental priorities by Loarie et al. (2007). Trends Ecol Evol 23:181–182. doi:10.1016/j.tree.2008.01.001PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laba M, Downs R, Smith S, Welsh S, Neider C, White S et al (2008) Mapping invasive wetland plants in the Hudson River National Estuarine Research Reserve using quickbird satellite imagery. Remote Sens Environ 112:286–300. doi:10.1016/j.rse.2007.05.003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lassau SA, Cassis G, Flemons PKJ, Wilkie L, Hochuli DF (2005) Using high-resolution multi-spectral imagery to estimate habitat complexity in open-canopy forests: can we predict ant community patterns? Ecography 28:495–504. doi:10.1111/j.0906-7590.2005.04116.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levin N, Shmida A, Levanoni O, Tamari H, Kark S (2007) Predicting mountain plant richness and rarity from space using satellite-derived vegetation indices. Divers Distrib 13:692–703CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nagendra H, Gadgil M (1999) Satellite imagery as a tool for monitoring species diversity: an assessment. J Appl Ecol 36:388–397Google Scholar
Nagendra H, Pareeth S, Sharma B, Schweik CM, Adhikari KA (2008) Forest fragmentation and regrowth in an institutional mosaic of community, government and private ownership in Nepal. Landsc Ecol 23:41–54. doi:10.1007/s10980-007-9162-yCrossRefGoogle Scholar