Summary and Outstanding Scientific Challenges for Land-Cover and Land-Use Research in the Arctic Region

Chapter

Abstract

This chapter summarizes the volume content focusing on NASA LCLUC Program contribution to the IPY program, which has been completed. The volume is compilation of results of the most recent US and European studies on land-cover and land-use changes and their interactions with biogeochemical and water cycles, atmospheric aerosol, and human and wildlife populations in the Northern Eurasian Arctic. Emphasis of global change research in this region has traditionally focused on the processes of the biophysical systems. The papers presented in this volume extend this research, primarily addressing land cover but also some of the human-environment interactions in this region. Outstanding scientific challenges are outlined as they were discussed in each chapter.

Keywords

Land Cover Siberian Stone Arctic Climate Impact Assessment Synthetic Aperture Radar Sensor Relevant Physical Process 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. ACIA (2004) Impacts of a warming arctic. Arctic climate impact assessment Overview Report. In: Hassol SJ (ed) Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 144pGoogle Scholar
  2. Alsdorf DE, Rodríguez E, Lettenmaier DP (2007) Measuring surface water from space. Rev Geophys 45(RG2002). doi:10.1029/2006RG000197Google Scholar
  3. Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme (AMAP) (2007) Arctic oil and gas 2007. Oslo, 40 pGoogle Scholar
  4. Courtland R (2008) Polar bear numbers set to fall. Nat News 453:432–433CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Graversen RG, Mauritsen T, Tjernström M, Källén E, Svensson G (2008) Vertical structure of recent Arctic warming. Nature 541:53–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Gutman G, Byrnes R, Masek J, Covington S, Justice C, Franks S, Headley R (2008) Towards monitoring land cover and land use changes at a global scale: the global land survey 2005. Photogramm Eng Rem Sens 74(1):6–10Google Scholar
  7. Kääb A (2008) Remote sensing of permafrost-related problems and hazards. Permafr Perigl Process 19(2):107–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Kharuk VI, Dvinskaya ML, Ranson KJ, Im ST (2005) Expansion of evergreen conifers to the Larch-Dominated zone and climatic trends. Russian J Ecol 36(3):164–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Kharuk VI, Ranson KJ, Im ST, Naurzbaev MM (2006) Forest-tundra Larch forest and climatic trends. Russian J Ecol 37(5):291–298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Kovacs K, Ranson KJ, Sun G, Kharuk VI (2004) The relationship of the Terra MODIS fire product and anthropogenic features in the central Siberian landscape. Earth Interact 8:1–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kurz WA, Apps MJ (1999) A 70-year retrospective analysis of carbon fluxes in the Canadian forest sector. Ecol Appl 9:526–547CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Maslanik JA, Fowler C, Stroeve J, Drobot S, Zwally J, Yi D, Emery W (2007) A younger, thinner Arctic ice cover: increased potential for rapid, extensive sea-ice loss. Geophys Res Lett 34(L24501). doi:10.1029/2007GL032043Google Scholar
  13. Nellemann C, Vistnes I, Jordhøy P, Strand O, Newton A (2003) Progressive impact of piecemeal infrastructure development on wild reindeer. Biol Conserv 113:307–317CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Quinn P, Andrews B, Dutton E, Shaw G, Ruoho-Airola T (2006) Arctic haze. In: Forsius M, Nyman M (eds) AMAP assessment 2006: acidifying pollutants, arctic haze, and acidification in the Arctic. Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme (AMAP), Oslo, pp 31–40Google Scholar
  15. Roy DP, Frost PGH, Justice CO, Landmann T, Le Roux JL, Gumbo K, Makungwa S, Dunham K, Du Toit R, Mhwandagara K, Zacarias A, Tacheba B, Dube O, Pereira JMC, Mushove P, Morisette JT, Santhana Vannan CK, Davies D (2005) The Southern Africa Fire Network (SAFNet) regional burned area product validation protocol. Int J Rem Sens 26:4265–4292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Rupp TS, Chapin FS III, Starfield AM (2001) modeling the influence of topographic barriers on treeline advance at the forest-tundra ecotone in Northwestern Alaska. Clim Change 48:399–416CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Stocks BJ, Fosberg MA, Wotten MB, Lynham TJ, Ryan KC (2000) Climate change and forest fire activity in North American Boreal Forests. In: Kasischke ES, Stocks BJ (eds) Fire, climate change, and carbon cycling in the boreal forest. Ecological Studies Series, Springer, New York, pp 368–376Google Scholar
  18. Stocks BJ, Mason JA, Todd JB, Bosch EM, Wotton BM, Amiro BD, Flannigan MD, Hirsch HG, Logan KA, Martell DL, Skinner WR (2003) Large forest fires in Canada 1959–1997. J Geophys Res 108(D1):8149. doi:10.1029/2001JD000484CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Stow DA, Hope A, McGuire D, Verbyla D, Gamon J, Huemmrich F, Houston S, Racine C, Sturm M, Tape K, Hinzman L, Yoshikawa K, Tweedie C, Noyle B, Silapaswan C, Douglas D, Griffith B, Jia G, Epstein H, Walker D, Daeschner S, Petersen A, Zhou L, Myneni R (2004) Remote sensing of vegetation and land-cover change in Arctic Tundra Ecosystems. Rem Sens Environ 89(3):281–308CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Teillet PM, El Saleous N, Hansen MC, Eidenshink JC, Justice CO, Townshend JRG (2000) An evaluation of the global 1-km AVHRR land data set. Int J Rem Sens 21:1987–2021CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Townshend JRG, Justice CO (2002) Towards operational monitoring of terrestrial systems by moderate-resolution remote sensing. Rem Sens Environ 83(1–2):351–359CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Werner RA, Raffa KF, Illman BL (2006) Insect and pathogen dynamics in the Alaskan boreal forest. In: Chapin FS III, Oswood MW, Van Cleve K, Viereck LA, Verbyla DL (eds) Alaska’s changing boreal forest. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 133–146Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.NASA HeadquartersWashingtonUSA
  2. 2.Department of GeographyUniversity of MarylandMarylandUSA

Personalised recommendations