Remote assessment of locally important ecological features across landscapes: how representative of reality?
The local ecological footprinting tool (LEFT) uses globally available databases, modeling, and algorithms to, remotely assess locally important ecological features across landscapes based on five criteria: biodiversity (beta-diversity), vulnerability (threatened species), fragmentation, connectivity...
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Journal article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Wiley
2015
|
| _version_ | 1826271660596002816 |
|---|---|
| author | Willis, K Seddon, A Long, P Jeffers, E Caithness, N Thurston, M Smit, MG Hagemann, R Macias-Fauria, M |
| author_facet | Willis, K Seddon, A Long, P Jeffers, E Caithness, N Thurston, M Smit, MG Hagemann, R Macias-Fauria, M |
| author_sort | Willis, K |
| collection | OXFORD |
| description | The local ecological footprinting tool (LEFT) uses globally available databases, modeling, and algorithms to, remotely assess locally important ecological features across landscapes based on five criteria: biodiversity (beta-diversity), vulnerability (threatened species), fragmentation, connectivity, and resilience. This approach can be applied to terrestrial landscapes at a 300-m resolution within a given target area. Input is minimal (latitude and longitude) and output is a computer-generated report and series of maps that both individually and synthetically depict the relative value of each ecological criteria. A key question for any such tool, however, is how representative is the remotely obtained output compared to what is on the ground. Here, we present the results from comparing remotely- vs. field-generated outputs from the LEFT tool on two distinct study areas for beta-diversity and distribution of threatened species (vulnerability), the two fields computed by LEFT for which such an approach is feasible. The comparison method consists of a multivariate measure of similarity between two fields based on discrete wavelet transforms, and reveals consistent agreement across a wide range of spatial scales. These results suggest that remote assessment tools such as LEFT hold great potential for determining key ecological features across landscapes and for being utilized in preplanning biodiversity assessment tools. |
| first_indexed | 2024-03-06T22:00:10Z |
| format | Journal article |
| id | oxford-uuid:4e4dc88a-4a80-45ce-a34a-9635fd638d96 |
| institution | University of Oxford |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-03-06T22:00:10Z |
| publishDate | 2015 |
| publisher | Wiley |
| record_format | dspace |
| spelling | oxford-uuid:4e4dc88a-4a80-45ce-a34a-9635fd638d962022-03-26T16:00:26ZRemote assessment of locally important ecological features across landscapes: how representative of reality?Journal articlehttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_dcae04bcuuid:4e4dc88a-4a80-45ce-a34a-9635fd638d96EnglishSymplectic Elements at OxfordWiley2015Willis, KSeddon, ALong, PJeffers, ECaithness, NThurston, MSmit, MGHagemann, RMacias-Fauria, MThe local ecological footprinting tool (LEFT) uses globally available databases, modeling, and algorithms to, remotely assess locally important ecological features across landscapes based on five criteria: biodiversity (beta-diversity), vulnerability (threatened species), fragmentation, connectivity, and resilience. This approach can be applied to terrestrial landscapes at a 300-m resolution within a given target area. Input is minimal (latitude and longitude) and output is a computer-generated report and series of maps that both individually and synthetically depict the relative value of each ecological criteria. A key question for any such tool, however, is how representative is the remotely obtained output compared to what is on the ground. Here, we present the results from comparing remotely- vs. field-generated outputs from the LEFT tool on two distinct study areas for beta-diversity and distribution of threatened species (vulnerability), the two fields computed by LEFT for which such an approach is feasible. The comparison method consists of a multivariate measure of similarity between two fields based on discrete wavelet transforms, and reveals consistent agreement across a wide range of spatial scales. These results suggest that remote assessment tools such as LEFT hold great potential for determining key ecological features across landscapes and for being utilized in preplanning biodiversity assessment tools. |
| spellingShingle | Willis, K Seddon, A Long, P Jeffers, E Caithness, N Thurston, M Smit, MG Hagemann, R Macias-Fauria, M Remote assessment of locally important ecological features across landscapes: how representative of reality? |
| title | Remote assessment of locally important ecological features across landscapes: how representative of reality? |
| title_full | Remote assessment of locally important ecological features across landscapes: how representative of reality? |
| title_fullStr | Remote assessment of locally important ecological features across landscapes: how representative of reality? |
| title_full_unstemmed | Remote assessment of locally important ecological features across landscapes: how representative of reality? |
| title_short | Remote assessment of locally important ecological features across landscapes: how representative of reality? |
| title_sort | remote assessment of locally important ecological features across landscapes how representative of reality |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT willisk remoteassessmentoflocallyimportantecologicalfeaturesacrosslandscapeshowrepresentativeofreality AT seddona remoteassessmentoflocallyimportantecologicalfeaturesacrosslandscapeshowrepresentativeofreality AT longp remoteassessmentoflocallyimportantecologicalfeaturesacrosslandscapeshowrepresentativeofreality AT jefferse remoteassessmentoflocallyimportantecologicalfeaturesacrosslandscapeshowrepresentativeofreality AT caithnessn remoteassessmentoflocallyimportantecologicalfeaturesacrosslandscapeshowrepresentativeofreality AT thurstonm remoteassessmentoflocallyimportantecologicalfeaturesacrosslandscapeshowrepresentativeofreality AT smitmg remoteassessmentoflocallyimportantecologicalfeaturesacrosslandscapeshowrepresentativeofreality AT hagemannr remoteassessmentoflocallyimportantecologicalfeaturesacrosslandscapeshowrepresentativeofreality AT maciasfauriam remoteassessmentoflocallyimportantecologicalfeaturesacrosslandscapeshowrepresentativeofreality |