Advertisement

Ecosystems

pp 1–20 | Cite as

Differing Sensitivities to Fire Disturbance Result in Large Differences Among Remotely Sensed Products of Vegetation Disturbance

  • Jenny Palomino
  • Maggi KellyEmail author
Article

Abstract

Recent advances in high-performance computing (HPC) have promoted the creation of standardized remotely sensed products that map annual vegetation disturbance through two primary methods: (1) conventional approaches that integrate remote sensing-derived vegetation indices with field data and other data on disturbance events reported by public agencies on a year-to-year basis, and (2) “big” data approaches using HPC to automate algorithms and workflows across an entire time series. Given the recent proliferation of these annual products and their potential utility for understanding vegetation dynamics, it is important for product end users (that is, practitioners and researchers in domains other than remote sensing) to understand the differences in their representations of disturbance and the conditions under which they report it. We use fire in California as a case study to compare reported disturbance across three widely used vegetation disturbance products—LANDFIRE (representing the conventional approach), Hansen Global Forest Change (GFC), and North America Forest Dynamics (NAFD), the latter two created from automated approaches. Using Google’s Earth Engine, we compared their total and annual amounts of fire and non-fire disturbance for 2001–2010 and examined the products’ reported disturbance across different environmental and burn conditions. We found that GFC and NAFD reported similar amounts of disturbance that were consistently much lower than LANDFIRE’s reported disturbance across all years, regions, and habitats. We also found that despite the differences in amounts of reported disturbance, the products identified disturbance in similar ranges of bioclimatic conditions and habitat types, and thus, differing environmental conditions in areas reported as disturbed were not the drivers of the difference. Rather, we found that lower sensitivity to fire disturbance for GFC and NAFD, as compared to LANDFIRE, was a key driver of the overall differences in the amounts and locations of reported disturbance; both GFC and NAFD reported much lower amounts of fire disturbance than LANDFIRE across all burn conditions. Furthermore, the difference in reported disturbance between LANDFIRE and GFC/NAFD was greater for fire disturbance than for non-fire disturbance; LANDFIRE reported more than double the total amounts of fire disturbance of GFC and NAFD in the study period. Based on our results, we encourage end users to choose the appropriate disturbance product based not only on spatial extent and habitat but also on the disturbance type of interest (that is, fire and non-fire). Overall, rather than focusing on accuracy, our study quantifies the extent to which the products exhibited differences in the amounts and locations of reported disturbance to provide insight into these products’ representations of disturbance and help end users evaluate and choose the most appropriate product for their needs.

Keywords

vegetation disturbance fire Hansen Global Forest Change LANDFIRE North American Forest Dynamics (NAFD) 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the Geospatial Innovation Facility (GIF), Matthew Potts and Iryna Dronova at the University of California, Berkeley.

Supplementary material

10021_2019_367_MOESM1_ESM.docx (25 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 25 kb)
10021_2019_367_MOESM2_ESM.xlsx (503 kb)
Supplementary material 2 (XLSX 502 kb)

References

  1. Anderegg WRL, Martinez-Vilalta J, Cailleret M, Camarero JJ, Ewers BE, Galbraith D, Gessler A, Grote R, Huang C-Y, Levick SR, Powell TL, Rowland L, Sánchez-Salguero R, Trotsiuk V. 2016. When a tree dies in the forest: scaling climate-driven tree mortality to ecosystem water and carbon fluxes. Ecosystems 19:1133–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arneth A, Sitch S, Pongratz J, Stocker BD, Ciais P, Poulter B, Bayer AD, Bondeau A, Calle L, Chini LP, Gasser T, Fader M, Friedlingstein P, Kato E, Li W, Lindeskog M, Nabel JEMS, Pugh TAM, Robertson E, Viovy N, Yue C, Zaehle S. 2017. Historical carbon dioxide emissions caused by land-use changes are possibly larger than assumed. Nat Geosci 10:79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Boisramé G, Thompson S, Collins B, Stephens S. 2017. Managed wildfire effects on forest resilience and water in the Sierra Nevada. Ecosystems 20:717–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cohen WB, Healey SP, Yang Z, Stehman SV, Brewer CK, Brooks EB, Gorelick N, Huang C, Hughes MJ, Kennedy RE, Loveland TR, Moisen GG, Schroeder TA, Vogelmann JE, Woodcock CE, Yang L, Zhu Z. 2017. How similar are forest disturbance maps derived from different Landsat time series algorithms? For Trees Livelihoods 8:98.Google Scholar
  5. Collins BM, Kelly M, van Wagtendonk JW, Stephens SL. 2007. Spatial patterns of large natural fires in Sierra Nevada wilderness areas. Landsc Ecol 22:545–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Collins BM, Miller JD, Thode AE, Kelly M, van Wagtendonk JW, Stephens SL. 2009. Interactions among wildland fires in a long-established Sierra Nevada Natural fire area. Ecosystems 12:114–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dolan KA, Hurtt GC, Flanagan SA, Fisk JP, Sahajpal R, Huang C, Le Page Y, Dubayah R, Masek JG. 2017. Disturbance distance: quantifying forests’ vulnerability to disturbance under current and future conditions. Environ Res Lett 12:114015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. FRAP. 2018. FRAP fire perimeters product metadata. http://frap.fire.ca.gov/data/frapgisdata-sw-fireperimeters_download. Last accessed 20 Nov 2018.
  9. Gonzalez P, Battles JJ, Collins BM, Robards T, Saah DS. 2015. Aboveground live carbon stock changes of California wildland ecosystems, 2001–2010. For Ecol Manag 348:68–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gorelick N, Hancher M, Dixon M, Ilyushchenko S, Thau D, Moore R. 2017. Google earth engine: planetary-scale geospatial analysis for everyone. Remote Sens Environ. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0034425717302900.
  11. Goward SN, Huang C, Zhao F, Schleeweis K, Rishmawi K, Lindsey M, Dungan JL, Michaelis A. 2016. NACP NAFD project: forest disturbance history from Landsat, 1986–2010. ORNL DAAC, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, USA. http://daac.ornl.gov/cgi-bin/dsviewer.pl?ds_id=1290. Last accessed 11 Feb 2017.
  12. Goward SN, Masek JG, Cohen W, Moisen G, Collatz GJ, Healey S, Houghton RA, Huang C, Kennedy R, Law B, Powell S. 2008. Forest disturbance and North American carbon flux. Eos Trans Am Geophys Union 89(11):105–6.Google Scholar
  13. Gudex-Cross D, Pontius J, Adams A. 2017. Enhanced forest cover mapping using spectral unmixing and object-based classification of multi-temporal Landsat imagery. Remote Sens Environ 196:193–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gu H, Williams CA, Ghimire B, Zhao F, Huang C. 2016. High-resolution mapping of time since disturbance and forest carbon flux from remote sensing and inventory data to assess harvest, fire, and beetle disturbance legacies in the Pacific Northwest. Biogeosciences 13:6321–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hamada Y, Stow DA, Roberts DA. 2011. Estimating life-form cover fractions in California sage scrub communities using multispectral remote sensing. Remote Sens Environ 115:3056.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hansen MC, Potapov PV, Moore R, Hancher M, Turubanova SA, Tyukavina A, Thau D, Stehman SV, Goetz SJ, Loveland TR, Kommareddy A, Egorov A, Chini L, Justice CO, Townshend JRG. 2013. High-resolution global maps of 21st-century forest cover change. Science 342:850–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Healey SP, Cohen WB, Yang Z, Kenneth Brewer C, Brooks EB, Gorelick N, Hernandez AJ, Huang C, Joseph Hughes M, Kennedy RE, Loveland TR, Moisen GG, Schroeder TA, Stehman SV, Vogelmann JE, Woodcock CE, Yang L, Zhu Z. 2017. Mapping forest change using stacked generalization: An ensemble approach. Remote Sens Environ. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0034425717304418.
  18. Hermosilla T, Wulder MA, White JC, Coops NC, Hobart GW, Campbell LB. 2016. Mass data processing of time series Landsat imagery: pixels to data products for forest monitoring. Int J Digit Earth 9:1035–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Huang C, Goward SN, Masek JG, Thomas N, Zhu Z, Vogelmann JE. 2010. An automated approach for reconstructing recent forest disturbance history using dense Landsat time series stacks. Remote Sens Environ 114:183–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hyde J, Strand EK, Hudak AT, Hamilton D. 2015. A case study comparison of landfire fuel loading and emissions generation on a mixed conifer forest in northern Idaho, USA. Fire Ecol 11. https://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs_journals/2015/rmrs_2015_hyde_j001.pdf.
  21. Jin S, Yang L, Danielson P, Homer C, Fry J, Xian G. 2013. A comprehensive change detection method for updating the National Land Cover Database to circa 2011. Remote Sens Environ 132:159–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kalluri S, Gundy J, Haman B, Paullin A, Van Rompay P, Vititoe D, Weiner A. 2015. A High performance remote sensing product generation system based on a service oriented architecture for the next generation of geostationary operational environmental satellites. Remote Sens 7:10385–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kang S, Lee K. 2016. Auto-scaling of geo-based image processing in an OpenStack cloud computing environment. Remote Sens 8:662.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Keane RE, Rollins M, Zhu Z-L. 2007. Using simulated historical time series to prioritize fuel treatments on landscapes across the United States: the LANDFIRE prototype project. Ecol Model 204:485–502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kennedy RE, Yang Z, Cohen WB. 2010. Detecting trends in forest disturbance and recovery using yearly Landsat time series: 1. LandTrendr—temporal segmentation algorithms. Remote Sens Environ. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0034425710002245.
  26. Kolden CA, Lutz JA, Key CH, Kane JT, van Wagtendonk JW. 2012. Mapped versus actual burned area within wildfire perimeters: characterizing the unburned. For Ecol Manag 286:38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kolden CA, Weisberg PJ. 2007. Assessing accuracy of manually-mapped wildfire perimeters in topographically dissected areas. Fire Ecol 3:22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Krasnow KD, Fry DL, Stephens SL. 2017. Spatial, temporal and latitudinal components of historical fire regimes in mixed conifer forests, California. J Biogeogr 44:1239–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Krasnow K, Schoennagel T, Veblen TT. 2009. Forest fuel mapping and evaluation of LANDFIRE fuel maps in Boulder County, Colorado, USA. For Ecol Manag 257:1603–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kumar U, Ganguly S, Nemani RR, Raja KS, Milesi C, Sinha R, Michaelis A, Votava P, Hashimoto H, Li S, Wang W, Kalia S, Gayaka S. 2017. Exploring subpixel learning algorithms for estimating global land cover fractions from satellite data using high performance computing. Remote Sens 9:1105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. LANDFIRE disturbance product metadata. https://landfire.cr.usgs.gov/distmeta/servlet/gov.usgs.edc.MetaBuilder?TYPE=HTML&DATASET=FA9. Last accessed 6 Jan 2017.
  32. LANDFIRE. 2018a. About web page. https://www.landfire.gov/about.php. Last accessed on 20 Nov 2018.
  33. LANDFIRE. 2018b. Guidelines for evaluating LANDFIRE fuel data. https://www.landfire.gov/documents/EvaluatingLANDFIREFuelsData.pdf. Last accessed on 20 Nov 2018.
  34. Lee CA, Gasster SD, Plaza A, Chang CI, Huang B. 2011. Recent developments in high performance computing for remote sensing: a review. IEEE J Sel Top Appl Earth Obs Remote Sens 4:508–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Liu J, Vogelmann JE, Zhu Z, Key CH, Sleeter BM, Price DT, Chen JM, Cochrane MA, Eidenshink JC, Howard SM, Bliss NB, Jiang H. 2011. Estimating California ecosystem carbon change using process model and land cover disturbance data: 1951–2000. Ecol Model 222:2333–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Masek JG, Goward SN, Kennedy RE, Cohen WB, Moisen GG, Schleeweis K, Huang C. 2013. United States forest disturbance trends observed using Landsat time series. Ecosystems 16:1087–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. McKerrow A, Dewitz J, Long DG, Nelson K, Connot JA. 2016. A comparison of NLCD 2011 and LANDFIRE EVT 2010: regional and national summaries. https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/70177839.
  38. Meddens AJ, Kolden CA, Lutz JA. 2016. Detecting unburned areas within wildfire perimeters using Landsat and ancillary data across the northwestern United States. Remote Sens Environ 186:275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Moritz MA, Stephens SL. 2008. Fire and sustainability: considerations for California’s altered future climate. Clim Change. http://www.springerlink.com/index/5411702235mx5432.pdf.
  40. Nemani R, Votava P, Michaelis A, Melton F, Milesi C. 2011. Collaborative supercomputing for global change science. Eos Trans AGU 92:109–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Palomino J, Muellerklein OC, Kelly M. 2017. A review of the emergent ecosystem of collaborative geospatial tools for addressing environmental challenges. Comput Environ Urban Syst 65:79–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Parks SA, Miller C, Nelson CR, Holden ZA. 2014. Previous fires moderate burn severity of subsequent wildland fires in two large western US wilderness areas. Ecosystems 17:29–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Pengra B, Gallant AL, Zhu Z, Dahal D. 2016. Evaluation of the initial thematic output from a continuous change-detection algorithm for use in automated operational land-change mapping by the US Geological Survey. Remote Sens 8:811.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Pettorelli N, Laurance WF, O’Brien TG, Wegmann M, Nagendra H, Turner W. 2014. Satellite remote sensing for applied ecologists: opportunities and challenges. J Appl Ecol 4:839.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Plaza AJ, Chang C-I. 2007. High performance computing in remote sensing. London: Chapman & Hall/CRC.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Reeves MC, Ryan KC, Rollins MG, Thompson TG. 2009. Spatial fuel data products of the LANDFIRE project. Int J Wildland Fire 18:250–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Rollins MG. 2009. LANDFIRE: a nationally consistent vegetation, wildland fire, and fuel assessment. Int J Wildland Fire 18:235–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Rose RA, Byler D, Eastman JR, Fleishman E, Geller G, Goetz S, Guild L, Hamilton H, Hansen M, Headley R, Hewson J. 2015. Ten ways remote sensing can contribute to conservation. Conserv Biol 2:350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Ryan KC, Opperman TS. 2013. LANDFIRE—a national vegetation/fuels data base for use in fuels treatment, restoration, and suppression planning. For Ecol Manag 294:208–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Schroeder TA, Schleeweis KG, Moisen GG, Toney C, Cohen WB, Freeman EA, Yang Z, Huang C. 2017. Testing a Landsat-based approach for mapping disturbance causality in U.S. forests. Remote Sens Environ 195:230–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Sleeter BM, Liu J, Daniel C, Rayfield B, Sherba J, Hawbaker TJ, Zhu Z, Selmants PC, Loveland TR. 2018. Effects of contemporary land-use and land-cover change on the carbon balance of terrestrial ecosystems in the United States. Environ Res Lett 13:045006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Soulard CE, Acevedo W, Cohen WB, Yang Z, Stehman SV, Taylor JL. 2017. Harmonization of forest disturbance datasets of the conterminous USA from 1986 to 2011. Environ Monit Assess 189:170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Soulard CE, Albano CM, Villarreal ML, Walker JJ. 2016. Continuous 1985–2012 Landsat monitoring to assess fire effects on meadows in Yosemite National Park, California. Remote Sens 8:371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Stephens SL, Martin RE, Clinton NE. 2007. Prehistoric fire area and emissions from California’s forests, woodlands, shrublands, and grasslands. For Ecol Manag 251:205–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Stevens JT, Collins BM, Miller JD, North MP, Stephens SL. 2017. Changing spatial patterns of stand-replacing fire in California conifer forests. For Ecol Manag 406:28–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Thomas NE, Huang C, Goward SN, Powell S, Rishmawi K, Schleeweis K, Hinds A. 2011. Validation of North American forest disturbance dynamics derived from Landsat time series stacks. Remote Sens Environ 115:19–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Tyukavina A, Baccini A, Hansen MC, Potapov PV, Stehman SV, Houghton RA, Krylov AM, Turubanova S, Goetz SJ. 2015. Aboveground carbon loss in natural and managed tropical forests from 2000 to 2012. Environ Res Lett 10:074002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. USGS. 2016. Earth Resources Observation and Science (EROS) User Services. Email correspondence on October 13, 2016.Google Scholar
  59. Wang S. 2016. CyberGIS and spatial data science. Berlin: Springer.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10708-016-9740-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Williams CA, Gu H, MacLean R, Masek JG, Collatz GJ. 2016. Disturbance and the carbon balance of US forests: a quantitative review of impacts from harvests, fires, insects, and droughts. Glob Planet Change 143:66–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Woodall CW, Walters BF, Russell MB, Coulston JW, Domke GM, D’Amato AW, Sowers PA. 2016. A tale of two forest carbon assessments in the eastern United States: forest use versus cover as a metric of change. Ecosystems 19:1401–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Yang C, Goodchild M, Huang Q, Nebert D, Raskin R, Xu Y, Bambacus M, Fay D. 2011. Spatial cloud computing: How can the geospatial sciences use and help shape cloud computing? Int J Digit Earth 4:305–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Yang C, Raskin R, Goodchild M, Gahegan M. 2010. Geospatial cyberinfrastructure: past, present and future. Comput Environ Urban Syst 34:264–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Zhao F, Huang C, Goward SN, Schleeweis K, Rishmawi K, Lindsey MA, Denning E, Keddell L, Cohen WB, Yang Z, Dungan JL, Michaelis A. 2018. Development of Landsat-based annual US forest disturbance history maps (1986–2010) in support of the North American Carbon Program (NACP). Remote Sens Environ 209:312–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Zhu Z, Woodcock CE. 2014. Continuous change detection and classification of land cover using all available Landsat data. Remote Sens Environ 144:152–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Zimmerman PL, Housman IW, Perry CH, Chastain RA, Webb JB, Finco MV. 2013. An accuracy assessment of forest disturbance mapping in the western Great Lakes. Remote Sens Environ 128:176–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Earth LabUniversity of Colorado, BoulderBoulderUSA
  2. 2.Department of Environmental Science, Policy, and ManagementUniversity of California, BerkeleyBerkeleyUSA
  3. 3.Geospatial Innovation FacilityUniversity of California, BerkeleyBerkeleyUSA
  4. 4.Division of Agriculture and Natural ResourcesUniversity of CaliforniaDavisUSA

Personalised recommendations