Accuracy assessment of global historical cropland datasets based on regional reconstructed historical data—A case study in Northeast China
Historical cropland datasets are fundamental for quantifying the effects of human land use activities on climatic change and the carbon cycle. Two representative global land-use datasets, the Global Land Use Database (termed SAGE dataset) and the Historical Database of the Global Environment (termed HYDE dataset) have been established and used widely. Despite improvement of data quality and methodologies for extracting historical land use information, certain dataset limitations exist that need to be quantified and communicated to users so that they can make informed decisions on whether and how these land-use products should be used. The Cropland data of Northeast China (CNEC) is based on calibrated historical data and a multi-sourced data conversion model, and reconstructs cropland cover change in Northeast China over the last 300 years. Using the CNEC as a reference, we evaluated the accuracy of cropland cover for SAGE and HYDE in Northeast China at spatial scales ranging from the entire Northeast China to provinces and even individual raster grid cells. Neither SAGE nor HYDE reflects real historical land reclamation. Cropland areas in SAGE are overestimated by 20.98 times in 1700 to 1.6 times in 1990. Although HYDE is better, there are significant disagreements in cropland area and distribution between HYDE and CNEC, especially in the 18th and 19th centuries. The proportion of total grid cells whose relative error was greater than 100% was 63.55% in 1700 and 53.27% in 1780. Global cropland dataset errors over Northeast China originate mainly from both the reverse calculation method for historical cropland data based on modern spatial patterns, and modern land-use outputs from satellite data.
KeywordsLUCC dataset accuracy assessment Northeast China
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 3.Bolin B, Sukumar R. Global perspective. In: Watson R T, Noble I R, Bolin B, et al., eds. Land Use, Land-use Change, and Forestry. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000. 25–45Google Scholar
- 6.IPCC. Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press, 2007. 180–185, 512Google Scholar
- 11.LUCC Scientific Steering Committee. Key findings of LUCC on its research questions. Glob Change Newsl, 2004, 63: 12–14Google Scholar
- 12.Goldewijk K K, Ramankutty N. Land cover change over the last three centuries due to human activities: The availability of new global data sets. Geo J, 2004, 61: 335–344Google Scholar
- 14.Goldewijk K K, Drecht G V. HYDE 3: Current and historical population and land cover. In: Bouwman A F, Kram T, Goldewijk K K, eds. Integrated Modelling of Global Environmental Change: An Overview of IMAGE 2.4. Bilthoven: Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (MNP), 2006Google Scholar
- 15.Tian H, Melillo J M, Kicklighterc D W, et al. Regional carbon dynamics in monsoon Asia and its implications for the global carbon cycle. Glob Planet Change, 2003, 37: 201–217Google Scholar
- 20.Chen X, Lei M, Tang J P. Simulating the effect of changed vegetation on the climate change in Eurasia (in Chinese). Adv Earth Sci, 2006, 21: 1075–1082Google Scholar
- 21.Li Q P, Ding Y H, Dong W J. A numerical simulation study of impacts of historical land-use changes on the regional climate in China since 1700. Acta Meteorol Sin, 2007, 21: 9–23Google Scholar
- 25.Ye Y, Fang X Q, Dai Y J, et al. Calibration of cropland data and reconstruction of rate of reclamation in Northeast China during the period of Republic of China (in Chinese). Prog Nat Sci, 2006, 16: 1419–1427Google Scholar
- 27.Scepan J. Thematic validation of high-resolution global land-cover data sets. Photogramm Eng Rem Sens, 1999, 65: 1051–1060Google Scholar