Spectral rarefaction: linking ecological variability and plant species diversity
Species rarefaction curves have long been used for estimating the expected number of species as a function of sampling effort and they represent a powerful tool for quantifying the diversity of an area from local (α-diversity) to regional scale (β- and γ-diversity). Nonetheless, sampling species based on standard plant inventories represents a cost expensive approach. In this view, remotely sensed information may be straightforwardly used for predicting species rich sites. In this paper, we present spectral rarefaction, i.e., the rarefaction of reflectance values derived from satellite imagery, as an effective manner for predicting bio-diverse sites. We tested this approach in ten biogeographical subregions in Switzerland. Plant species data were derived from the Swiss ‘Biodiversity Monitoring’ programme (BDM), which represents species richness of Switzerland at the landscape scale by a systematic sample of 520 quadrats of 1 km X 1 km. Seven Landsat ETM+ images covering the whole study area were acquired. Species and spectral rarefaction were built and results were compared by Pearson correlation coefficient considering several sampling efforts (as measured by the number of sampled quadrats). Local a-diversity showed a similar pattern considering the ten biogeographical subregions while β- and γ-diversity showed higher values for regions in the Alpine arc and lower values for plateau regions and Jura mountains on the strength of the higher ecological (and spectral) variability of the former areas. Meanwhile, positive correlations between species and spectral richness values were significant only after a certain amount of area was accumulated, thus indicating a scale dependence of the fit of satellite and species data. With this paper, we introduce spectral rarefaction as an effective tool in quantifying diversity at a range of spatial scales. Obviously, the achieved results should be viewed as an aid to plan field survey rather than to replace it. We propose to use worldwide available remotely sensed information as a driver for field sampling design strategies.
KeywordsBiodiversity Landsat ETM+ Satellite imagery Species rarefaction Species richness Species turnover Spectral rarefaction Spectral Variation Hypothesis
Enhanced Thematic Mapper.
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- BFS (1992/1997) Arealstatistik. Bundesamt für Statistik, Servicestelle GEOSTAT, Neuchâtel, Switzerland.Google Scholar
- Chavez, P.S. Jr. 1996. Image based calibration revisited and improved. Photogrammetric Engineering & Remote Sensing 62: 1025–1036.Google Scholar
- D’Alessandro, L. and L. Fattorini. 2002. Resampling estimators of species richness from presence-absence data: why they don’t work. Metron 61: 5–19.Google Scholar
- Fox, J.,M. Ash, T. Boye, S.Calza,A. Chang, P. Grosjean, R. Heiberger, G.J. Kerns, R. Lancelot, M. Lesnoff, S. Messad, M. Maechler, D. Putler, M. Ristic, and P. Wolf. 2007. Rcmdr: R Commander. R package version 1.2-9. http://www.r-pro-ject.org, http://socserv.socsci.mcmaster.ca/jfox/Misc/Rcmdr/.Google Scholar
- Gillespie, T.W., G.M. Foody, D. Rocchini, A.P. Giorgi and S. Saatchi. 2008. Measuring and modeling biodiversity from space. Progress in Physical Geography , in press.Google Scholar
- Gillison, A.N. and K.R.W. Brewer. 1985. The use of gradient directed transects or gradsects in natural resource surveys. J. Environmental Manage. 20: 103–127.Google Scholar
- Gonseth, Y., T. Wohlgemuth, B. Sansonnens and A. Buttler. 2001. Die Biogeographischen Regionen der Schweiz. Erläuterungen und Einteilungsstandard / Les régions biogéographiques de la Suisse. Explications et division standard. Umwelt Materialien / Cahiers de l’environment 137: 47 S.Google Scholar
- Gotelli, N.J. and R.K. Colwell. 2001. Quantifying biodiversity: procedures and pitfalls in the measurement and comparison of species richness. Ecol. Lett. 4: 379–391.Google Scholar
- Hintermann, U., D. Weber and A. Zangger. 2000. Biodiversity monitoring in Switzerland. Schriftenreihe für Landschaftspflege und Naturschutz 62: 47–58.Google Scholar
- Magurran, E.M. 1983. Ecological Diversity and its Measurement. Chapman and Hall, London.Google Scholar
- Oksanen, J., R. Kindt, P. Legendre and R.B. O’Hara. 2007. Vegan: Community Ecology Package version 1.8–6. http://cran.r-pro-ject.org/.Google Scholar
- Palmer, M.W. 1995. How should one count species? Natural Areas Journal 15: 124–135.Google Scholar
- Rocchini, D. and B. Cade. in press. Quantile regression applied to spectral distance decay. IEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Letters. doi: 10.1109/LGRS.2008.2001767.Google Scholar
- Rodrigues, A.S.L., S.J. Andelman, M.I. Bakarr, L. Boitani, T.M. Brooks, R.M. Cowling, L.D.C. Fishpool, G.A.B. da Fonseca, K.J. Gaston, M. Hoffmann, J.S. Long, P.A. Marquet, J.D. Pilgrim, R.L. Pressey, J. Schipper, W. Sechrest, S.N. Stuart, L.G. Underhill, R.W. Waller, M.E.J. Watts and X. Yan. 2004. Effectiveness of the global protected area network in representing species diversity. Nature 428: 640–643.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- Stohlgren, T.J. 2007. Measuring Plant Diversity: Lessons from the Field. Oxford University Press, New York, USA.Google Scholar
- Wohlgemuth, T. 1993. The distribution atlas of pteridophytes and phanerograms of Switzerland (Welten and Sutter 1982) in a relational database - species number per mapping unit and its dependence on various factors. Bot. Helv. 103: 55–71.Google Scholar
- Wu, J., D.E. Jelinski, M. Luck and P.T. Tueller. 2000. Multiscale analysis of landscape heterogeneity: scale variance and pattern metrics. Geographic Information Sciences 6: 6–19.Google Scholar
This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.