TY - JOUR
T1 - Influences of Satellite Sensor and Scale on Derivation of Ecosystem Functional Types and Diversity
AU - Liu, Lingling
AU - Smith, Jeffrey R.
AU - Armstrong, Amanda H.
AU - Alcaraz-Segura, Domingo
AU - Epstein, Howard E.
AU - Echeverri, Alejandra
AU - Langhans, Kelley E.
AU - Schmitt, Rafael J.P.
AU - Chaplin-Kramer, Rebecca
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2023 by the authors.
PY - 2023/12
Y1 - 2023/12
N2 - Satellite-derived Ecosystem Functional Types (EFTs) are increasingly used in ecology and conservation to characterize ecosystem heterogeneity. The diversity of EFTs, also known as Ecosystem Functional Diversity (EFD), has been suggested both as a potential metric of ecosystem-level biodiversity and as a predictor for ecosystem functioning, ecosystem services, and resilience. However, the impact of key methodological choices on patterns of EFTs and EFD have not been formally assessed. Using Costa Rica as a study system, we compared EFTs and EFD, derived from MODIS and Landsat data using different methodological assumptions, at both national and local extents. Our results showed that the regional spatial patterns of EFTs and EFD derived from 250 m MODIS and 30 m Landsat are notably different. The selection of sensors for deriving EFTs and EFD is dependent on the study area, data quality, and the research objective. Given its finer spatial resolution, Landsat has greater capacity to differentiate more EFTs than MODIS, though MODIS could be a better choice in frequently cloudy areas due to its shorter revisiting time. We also found that the selection of spatial extent used to derive EFD is critical, as smaller extents (e.g., at a local rather than a national scale) can show much higher diversity. However, diversity levels derived at smaller extents appear to be nested within the diversity levels derived at larger extents. As EFTs and EFD continue to develop as a tool for ecosystem ecology, we highlight the important methodological choices to ensure that these metrics best fit research objectives.
AB - Satellite-derived Ecosystem Functional Types (EFTs) are increasingly used in ecology and conservation to characterize ecosystem heterogeneity. The diversity of EFTs, also known as Ecosystem Functional Diversity (EFD), has been suggested both as a potential metric of ecosystem-level biodiversity and as a predictor for ecosystem functioning, ecosystem services, and resilience. However, the impact of key methodological choices on patterns of EFTs and EFD have not been formally assessed. Using Costa Rica as a study system, we compared EFTs and EFD, derived from MODIS and Landsat data using different methodological assumptions, at both national and local extents. Our results showed that the regional spatial patterns of EFTs and EFD derived from 250 m MODIS and 30 m Landsat are notably different. The selection of sensors for deriving EFTs and EFD is dependent on the study area, data quality, and the research objective. Given its finer spatial resolution, Landsat has greater capacity to differentiate more EFTs than MODIS, though MODIS could be a better choice in frequently cloudy areas due to its shorter revisiting time. We also found that the selection of spatial extent used to derive EFD is critical, as smaller extents (e.g., at a local rather than a national scale) can show much higher diversity. However, diversity levels derived at smaller extents appear to be nested within the diversity levels derived at larger extents. As EFTs and EFD continue to develop as a tool for ecosystem ecology, we highlight the important methodological choices to ensure that these metrics best fit research objectives.
KW - Landsat
KW - MODIS
KW - ecosystem functional diversity
KW - ecosystem functional type
KW - ecosystem service
KW - extent
KW - spatial resolution
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85179139791&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85179139791&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.3390/rs15235593
DO - 10.3390/rs15235593
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:85179139791
SN - 2072-4292
VL - 15
JO - Remote Sensing
JF - Remote Sensing
IS - 23
M1 - 5593
ER -