Appropriate spatial scale for potential woody cover observation in Texas savanna
- 60 Downloads
Potential woody cover, the upper bound of woody plant cover in savanna ecosystems, represents the end-point of woody plant encroachment and is highly relevant to the dynamics of savanna ecosystems.
This study aims to identify the appropriate spatial scale for potential woody cover observation in the savanna of central Texas, USA.
The upper bound of woody plant cover was modeled over the east–west precipitation gradient of Texas savanna, at four different spatial scales respectively (30 m, 100 m, 250 m, and 500 m).
The estimated upper bound of woody plant cover demonstrates a three-segment pattern across the precipitation gradient at all the four observation scales. The pattern begins with a low stable level and ends at a high stable level, with a linear transitional level in between. The magnitude of the upper bound under given precipitation conditions decreases with spatial scale, but stabilizes by 250 m scale.
A spatial scale between 250 and 500 m is recommended for potential woody cover observation. Water availability plays a more important role in limiting woody plant cover at larger spatial scales in savanna ecosystems. In addition, the scale dependency of upper bound woody plant cover is more pronounced in the arid region.
KeywordsSavanna Potential woody cover Scale dependency Encroachment Precipitation gradient Quantile regression
Authors were supported by a grant to Kelley Crews from the National Science Foundation (BCS-0964596), a grant to Peter Kedron from the National Science Foundation EPSCoR program (OIA-1301789), and a grant to Amy Frazier and Peter Kedron from the NSF (BCS-1561021). Many thanks to the editor and reviewers, whose comments and suggestions greatly improved this manuscript.
- DiMiceli CM, Carroll ML, Sohlberg RA, Huang C, Hansen MC, Townshend JRG (2017) Annual global automated MODIS vegetation continuous fields (MOD44B) at 250 m spatial resolution for data years beginning day 65, 2000–2010, collection 5 percent tree cover. University of Maryland, College ParkGoogle Scholar
- Frost CC, Walker J, Peet RK (1986) Fire-dependent savannas and prairies of the Southeast: original extent, preservation status, and management problems. In: Kulhavy DL, Conner RN (eds) Wilderness and natural areas in the eastern United States: a management challenge. Stephen F Austin State University, School of Forestry, Center for Applied Studies, Nacogdoches, TX, pp 348–357Google Scholar
- González AV (2010) Dynamics of woody plant encroachment in Texas savannas: density dependence, environmental heterogeneity, and spatial patternsGoogle Scholar
- Goodman R, Kish L (1950) Controlled selection—a technique in probability sampling. J Am Stat Assoc 45:350–372Google Scholar
- Homer C, Dewitz J, Yang L, Jin S, Danielson P, Xian G, Coulston J, Herold N, Wickham J, Megown K (2015) Completion of the 2011 National Land Cover Database for the conterminous United States–representing a decade of land cover change information. Photogramm Eng Remote Sens 81(5):345–354Google Scholar
- Kothari CR (2004) Research methodology: methods and techniques. New Age International, New DelhiGoogle Scholar
- Lyons RK, Owens MK, Machen RV (2009) Juniper biology and management in Texas. Texas FARMER Collection, College StationGoogle Scholar
- McGarigal K, Cushman S, Regan C (2005) Quantifying terrestrial habitat loss and fragmentation: a protocol. University of Massachusetts, Department of Natural Resources Conservation, Amherst, MA. 113 pGoogle Scholar
- Mitchard ET, Saatchi SS, Lewis SL, Feldpausch TR, Woodhouse IH, Sonké B, Rowland C, Meir P (2011) Measuring biomass changes due to woody encroachment and deforestation/degradation in a forest–savanna boundary region of central Africa using multi-temporal L-band radar backscatter. Remote Sens Environ 115(11):2861–2873CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Nassiuma DK (2000) Survey sampling: theory and methods. University of Nairobi press, NairobiGoogle Scholar
- Pachauri RK, Allen MR, Barros VR, Broome J, Cramer W, Christ R, Church JA, Clarke L, Dahe Q, Dasgupta P, Dubash NK (2014) Climate change 2014: synthesis report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the fifth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. IPCCGoogle Scholar
- Schmid JA (1969) The wild landscape of the Edwards Plateau of south central Texas: a study of developing livelihood patterns and ecological change. PhD Thesis, University of ChicagoGoogle Scholar
- Sexton JO, Song X-P, Feng M, Noojipady P, Anand A, Huang C, Kim DH, Collins KM, Channan S, DiMiceli C, Townshend JR (2013) Global, 30-m resolution continuous fields of tree cover: landsat-based rescaling of MODIS vegetation continuous fields with lidar-based estimates of error. Int J Digital Earth 6(5):427–448CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Solbrig OT, Medina E, Silva JF (2013) Biodiversity and savanna ecosystem processes: a global perspective. Springer Science & Business Media, BerlinGoogle Scholar
- Turner MG, Gardner RH, O’neill RV (2001) Landscape ecology in theory and practice. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
- Van Wijk MT, Rodriguez-Iturbe I (2002) Tree-grass competition in space and time: insights from a simple cellular automata model based on ecohydrological dynamics. Water Resour Res 38:1179Google Scholar
- Walter H, Mueller-Dombois D (1971) Ecology of tropical and subtropical vegetation. Oliver & Boyd, EdinburghGoogle Scholar