scholarly journals A habitat class to land cover translation model for mapping Area of Habitat of terrestrial vertebrates

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maria Lumbierres ◽  
Prabhat Raj Dahal ◽  
Moreno Di Marco ◽  
Stuart H.M. Butchart ◽  
Paul F. Donald ◽  
...  

Area of Habitat (AOH) is defined as the habitat available to a species, that is, habitat within its range and is produced by subtracting areas of unsuitable land cover and elevation from the range. Habitat associations are documented using the IUCN Habitats Classification Scheme, and unvalidated expert opinion has been used so far to match habitat to land-cover classes generating a source of uncertainty in AOH maps. We develop a data-driven method to translate IUCN habitat classes to land-cover based on point locality data for 6,986 species of terrestrial mammals, birds, amphibians and reptiles. We extracted the land-cover class at each point locality and matched it to the IUCN habitat class(es) assigned to each species occurring there. Then we modelled each land cover class as a function of IUCN habitat using logistic regression models. The resulting odds ratios were used to assess the strength of the association of each habitat land-cover class. We then compared the performance of our data-driven model with those from a published expert knowledge translation table. The results show that some habitats (e.g. forest and desert) could be more confidently assigned to land-cover classes than others (e.g. wetlands and artificial). We calculated the association between habitat classes and land-cover classes as a continuous variable, but to map AOH, which is in the form of a binary presence/absence , it is necessary to apply a threshold of association. This can be chosen by the user according to the required balance between omission and commission errors. We demonstrate that a data-driven translation model and expert knowledge perform equally well, but the model provides greater standardization, objectivity and repeatability. Furthermore, this approach allows greater flexibility in the use of the results and allows uncertainty to be quantified. Our model can be developed regionally or for different taxonomic groups.

2017 ◽  
Vol 9 (11) ◽  
pp. 1095 ◽  
Author(s):  
Emmihenna Jääskeläinen ◽  
Terhikki Manninen ◽  
Johanna Tamminen ◽  
Marko Laine

2018 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 120
Author(s):  
Akhmadi Puguh Raharjo

Zero Delta Q is a policy to ensure that any additional surface runoff due to development does not further burden the drainage or river system. In case of Zero Delta Q application planning at the community level, a software is needed that can help classify and quantify the existing land cover class in area where the community is located. The purpose of this study is to look at the time needed and reliability of the i-Tree Canopy web-based software online in classifying and quantifying land cover classes on one of the sub-catchments in the Pesanggrahan River Basin. The land cover class is divided into six: trees, grasses / undergrowth plants, open area, water bodies, pavement / road and roof of the building. For comparison, an RBI map is used from the same area to see the extent of each class of land cover. Observation of each point requires an average time of 5.2 ± 1.0 seconds. The difference between direct sub-basin measurements using i-Tree Canopy and detailed analysis results from the RBI map is within the range of 0.41% or 0.36 Ha for each individual class of land cover. For a relatively small study area (under 100 ha) and when supported with reliable internet access, this web-based online software is sufficiently reliable in assisting the application planning process to support Zero Delta Q policy.


Land ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 35
Author(s):  
Dingfan Xing ◽  
Stephen V. Stehman ◽  
Giles M. Foody ◽  
Bruce W. Pengra

Estimates of the area or percent area of the land cover classes within a study region are often based on the reference land cover class labels assigned by analysts interpreting satellite imagery and other ancillary spatial data. Different analysts interpreting the same spatial unit will not always agree on the land cover class label that should be assigned. Two approaches for accommodating interpreter variability when estimating the area are simple averaging (SA) and latent class modeling (LCM). This study compares agreement between area estimates obtained from SA and LCM using reference data obtained by seven trained, professional interpreters who independently interpreted an annual time series of land cover reference class labels for 300 sampled Landsat pixels. We also compare the variability of the LCM and SA area estimates over different numbers of interpreters and different subsets of interpreters within each interpreter group size, and examine area estimates of three land cover classes (forest, developed, and wetland) and three change types (forest gain, forest loss, and developed gain). Differences between the area estimates obtained from SA and LCM are most pronounced for the estimates of wetland and the three change types. The percent area estimates of these rare classes were usually greater for LCM compared to SA, with the differences between LCM and SA increasing as the number of interpreters providing the reference data increased. The LCM area estimates generally had larger standard deviations and greater ranges over different subsets of interpreters, indicating greater sensitivity to the selection of the individual interpreters who carried out the reference class labeling.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document