Ecosystem classifications based on summer and winter conditions
Ecosystem classifications map an area into relatively homogenous units for environmental research, monitoring, and management. However, their effectiveness is rarely tested. Here, three classifications are (1) defined and characterized for Canada along summertime productivity (moderate-resolution imaging spectrometer fraction of absorbed photosynthetically active radiation) and wintertime snow conditions (special sensor microwave/imager snow water equivalent), independently and in combination, and (2) comparatively evaluated to determine the ability of each classification to represent the spatial and environmental patterns of alternative schemes, including the Canadian ecozone framework. All classifications depicted similar patterns across Canada, but detailed class distributions differed. Class spatial characteristics varied with environmental conditions within classifications, but were comparable between classifications. There was moderate correspondence between classifications. The strongest association was between productivity classes and ecozones. The classification along both productivity and snow balanced these two sets of variables, yielding intermediate levels of association in all pairwise comparisons. Despite relatively low spatial agreement between classifications, they successfully captured patterns of the environmental conditions underlying alternate schemes (e.g., snow classes explained variation in productivity and vice versa). The performance of ecosystem classifications and the relevance of their input variables depend on the environmental patterns and processes used for applications and evaluation. Productivity or snow regimes, as constructed here, may be desirable when summarizing patterns controlled by summer- or wintertime conditions, respectively, or of climate change responses. General purpose ecosystem classifications should include both sets of drivers. Classifications should be carefully, quantitatively, and comparatively evaluated relative to a particular application prior to their implementation as monitoring and assessment frameworks.
KeywordsClassification agreement Ecological regionalization Environmental domain classification Fraction of absorbed photosynthetically active radiation (fPAR) Map comparison Snow water equivalent (SWE)
Analysis of similarity
Dynamic habitat index
Fraction of absorbed photosynthetically active radiation
Moderate-resolution imaging spectrometer
Special sensor microwave/imager
Snow water equivalent
This research was facilitated through support of “BioSpace: Biodiversity monitoring with Earth observation data” through the Government Related Initiatives Program of the Canadian Space Agency.
- Bailey, R. G. (1995). Description of the ecoregions of the United States, 2nd edn. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Miscellaneous Publication 1391.Google Scholar
- Bailey, R. G., Pfister, R. D., & Henderson, J. A. (1978). Nature of land and resource classification—review. Journal of Forestry, 76, 650–655.Google Scholar
- Commission for Environmental Cooperation. (1997). Ecological regions of North America: toward a common perspective. Montreal: Commission for Environmental Cooperation.Google Scholar
- Convention on Biological Diversity. (2004). Decisions adopted by the conference of the parties to the convention on biological diversity at its seventh meeting. Montreal: Convention on Biological Diversity.Google Scholar
- Ecological Stratification Working Group. (1995). A national ecological framework for Canada. Ottawa: Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Research Branch, Centre for Land and Biological Resources Research and Environment Canada, State of the Environment Directorate, Ecozone Analysis Branch.Google Scholar
- ESRI. (2008). ArcMap, version 9.3. Redlands: ESRI.Google Scholar
- Goetz, S. J., Bunn, A. G., Fiske, G. J., & Houghton, R. A. (2005). Satellite-observed photosynthetic trends across boreal North America associated with climate and fire disturbance. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 102, 13521–13525.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Government of Canada. (1996). The state of Canada's environment. Ottawa: Government of Canada.Google Scholar
- Hawkins, C. P., Norris, R. H., Gerritsen, J., Hughes, R. M., Jackson, S. K., Johnson, R. K., et al. (2000). Evaluation of the use of landscape classifications for the prediction of freshwater biota: synthesis and recommendations. Journal of the North American Benthological Society, 19, 541–556.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- ITT Visual Information Solutions. (2009). ENVI, version 4.7. Boulder: ITT Visual Information Solutions.Google Scholar
- Kaptué-Tchuenté, A. T., Roujean, J. L., & De Jong, S. M. (2011). Comparison and relative quality assessment of the GLC2000, GLOBCOVER, MODIS and ECOCLIMAP land cover data sets at the African continental scale. International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation, 13, 207–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Litaor, M. I., Williams, M., & Seastedt, T. R. (2008). Topographic controls on snow distribution, soil moisture, and species diversity of herbaceous alpine vegetation, Niwot Ridge, Colorado. Journal of Geophysical Research-Biogeosciences, 113, G02008. doi: 10.1029/2007JG000419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- McGarigal, K., & Marks, B. J. (1995). FRAGSTATS: spatial pattern analysis program for quantifying landscape structure. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-351. Portland: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.Google Scholar
- Moody, E. G., King, M. D., Schaaf, C. B., Hall, D. K., & Platnick, S. (2007). Northern hemisphere five-year average (2000-2004) spectral albedos of surfaces in the presence of snow: statistics computed from Terra MODIS land products. Remote Sensing of Environment, 111, 337–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Oksanen, J., Kindt, R., Legendre, P., O'Hara, B., Simpson, G. L., Solymos, P., et al. (2008). The vegan package. http://vegan.r-forge.r-project.org/.
- Parks Canada. (1997). National parks system plan. Ottawa: Parks Canada.Google Scholar
- Patton, D. R. (1975). A diversity index for quantifying habitat "edge". Wildlife Society Bulletin, 3, 171–173.Google Scholar
- Petit, S., Firbank, R., Wyatt, B., & Howard, D. (2001). MIRABEL: models for integrated review and assessment of biodiversity in European landscapes. Ambio, 30, 81–88.Google Scholar
- R Core Development Team. (2008). R, version 2.8.1. R Core Development Team, http://www.r-project.org.
- SPSS Inc. (2008). SPSS, version 17.0. Chicago: SPSS Inc.Google Scholar
- StatSoft Inc. (2008). STATISTICA, version 8.0. Tulsa: StatSoft Inc.Google Scholar
- Thompson, R. S., Shafer, S. L., Anderson, K. H., Strickland, L. E., Pelltier, R. T., Bartlein, P. J., et al. (2004). Topographic, bioclimatic, and vegetation characteristics of three ecoregion classification systems in North America: comparisons along continent-wide transects. Environmental Management, 34, S125–S148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Wiken, E. B., Gauthier, D., Marshall, I., Lawton, K., & Hirvonen, H. (1996). A perspective on Canada's ecosystems: an overview of the terrestrial and marine ecozones. Occasional paper no. 14. Ottawa: Canadian Council on Ecological Areas.Google Scholar