Priority list of biodiversity metrics to observe from space.

Benchmarking Biodiversity Ecosystem

Journal

Nature ecology & evolution

ISSN: 2397-334X

Titre abrégé: Nat Ecol Evol

Pays: England

ID NLM: 101698577

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
07 2021

Historique:

received: 22 06 2020

accepted: 22 03 2021

pubmed: 15 5 2021

medline: 3 8 2021

entrez: 14 5 2021

Statut: ppublish

Résumé

Monitoring global biodiversity from space through remotely sensing geospatial patterns has high potential to add to our knowledge acquired by field observation. Although a framework of essential biodiversity variables (EBVs) is emerging for monitoring biodiversity, its poor alignment with remote sensing products hinders interpolation between field observations. This study compiles a comprehensive, prioritized list of remote sensing biodiversity products that can further improve the monitoring of geospatial biodiversity patterns, enhancing the EBV framework and its applicability. The ecosystem structure and ecosystem function EBV classes, which capture the biological effects of disturbance as well as habitat structure, are shown by an expert review process to be the most relevant, feasible, accurate and mature for direct monitoring of biodiversity from satellites. Biodiversity products that require satellite remote sensing of a finer resolution that is still under development are given lower priority (for example, for the EBV class species traits). Some EBVs are not directly measurable by remote sensing from space, specifically the EBV class genetic composition. Linking remote sensing products to EBVs will accelerate product generation, improving reporting on the state of biodiversity from local to global scales.

Identifiants

DOI: 10.1038/s41559-021-01451-x PMID: 33986541

pubmed: 33986541

doi: 10.1038/s41559-021-01451-x

pii: 10.1038/s41559-021-01451-x

doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't Research Support, U.S. Gov't, Non-P.H.S. Review

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

Pagination

896-906

Commentaires et corrections

Type : ErratumIn

Type : CommentIn

Références

Díaz, S. et al. Summary for Policymakers of the Global Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES Secretariat, 2019).

Paganini, M., Leidner, A. K., Geller, G., Turner, W. & Wegmann, M. The role of space agencies in remotely sensed essential biodiversity variables. Remote Sens. Ecol. Conserv. 2, 132–140 (2016).

doi: 10.1002/rse2.29

What are EBVs? GEO BON https://geobon.org/ebvs/what-are-ebvs/ (2020).

Pereira, H. M. et al. Essential biodiversity variables. Science 339, 277–278 (2013).

pubmed: 23329036 doi: 10.1126/science.1229931

Jetz, W. et al. Monitoring plant functional diversity from space. Nat. Plants 2, 16024 (2016).

pubmed: 27249357 doi: 10.1038/nplants.2016.24

Navarro, L. M. et al. Monitoring biodiversity change through effective global coordination. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 29, 158–169 (2017).

doi: 10.1016/j.cosust.2018.02.005

Pettorelli, N. et al. Framing the concept of satellite remote sensing essential biodiversity variables: challenges and future directions. Remote Sens. Ecol. Conserv. 2, 122–131 (2016).

doi: 10.1002/rse2.15

Lausch, A. et al. Understanding forest health with remote sensing, part III: requirements for a scalable multi-source forest health monitoring network based on data science approaches. Remote Sens. 10, 1120 (2018).

doi: 10.3390/rs10071120

Barga, R., Gannon, D. & Reed, D. The client and the cloud democratizing research computing. IEEE Internet Comput. 15, 72–75 (2011).

doi: 10.1109/MIC.2011.20

Muller-Karger, F. E. et al. Satellite sensor requirements for monitoring essential biodiversity variables of coastal ecosystems. Ecol. Appl. 28, 749–760 (2018).

pubmed: 29509310 pmcid: 5947264 doi: 10.1002/eap.1682

O’Connor, B. et al. Earth observation as a tool for tracking progress towards the Aichi Biodiversity Targets. Remote Sens. Ecol. Conserv. 1, 19–28 (2015).

doi: 10.1002/rse2.4

Geijzendorffer, I. R. et al. Bridging the gap between biodiversity data and policy reporting needs: an essential biodiversity variables perspective. J. Appl. Ecol. 53, 1341–1350 (2016).

doi: 10.1111/1365-2664.12417

Rohde, S., Hostmann, M., Peter, A. & Ewald, K. C. Room for rivers: an integrative search strategy for floodplain restoration. Landsc. Urban Plan. 78, 50–70 (2006).

doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2005.05.006

Belward, A. The Global Observing System for Climate: Implementation Needs Report No. GCOS-200 (Global Climate Observing System, 2016).

Bojinski, S. et al. The concept of essential climate variables in support of climate research, applications, and policy. Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 95, 1431–1443 (2014).

doi: 10.1175/BAMS-D-13-00047.1

Wu, J. G. Effects of changing scale on landscape pattern analysis: scaling relations. Landsc. Ecol. 19, 125–138 (2004).

doi: 10.1023/B:LAND.0000021711.40074.ae

Lake, P. S. Disturbance, patchiness, and diversity in streams. J. N. Am. Benthol. Soc. 19, 573–592 (2000).

doi: 10.2307/1468118

Graves, S. J. et al. Tree species abundance predictions in a tropical agricultural landscape with a supervised classification model and imbalanced data. Remote Sens. 8, 161 (2016).

doi: 10.3390/rs8020161

Schlerf, M., Atzberger, C. & Hill, J. Remote sensing of forest biophysical variables using HyMap imaging spectrometer data. Remote Sens. Environ. 95, 177–194 (2005).

doi: 10.1016/j.rse.2004.12.016

Xue, Y. F., Wang, T. J. & Skidmore, A. K. Automatic counting of large mammals from very high resolution panchromatic satellite imagery. Remote Sens. 9, 878 (2017).

doi: 10.3390/rs9090878

Zhao, M. S., Heinsch, F. A., Nemani, R. R. & Running, S. W. Improvements of the MODIS terrestrial gross and net primary production global data set. Remote Sens. Environ. 95, 164–176 (2005).

doi: 10.1016/j.rse.2004.12.011

Myneni, R. B. et al. Global products of vegetation leaf area and fraction absorbed PAR from year one of MODIS data. Remote Sens. Environ. 83, 214–231 (2002).

doi: 10.1016/S0034-4257(02)00074-3

Curran, P. J., Dungan, J. L. & Peterson, D. L. Estimating the foliar biochemical concentration of leaves with reflectance spectrometry testing the Kokaly and Clark methodologies. Remote Sens. Environ. 76, 349–359 (2001).

doi: 10.1016/S0034-4257(01)00182-1

Homolova, L., Maenovsky, Z., Clevers, J., Garcia-Santos, G. & Schaeprnan, M. E. Review of optical-based remote sensing for plant trait mapping. Ecol. Complex. 15, 1–16 (2013).

doi: 10.1016/j.ecocom.2013.06.003

Khosravipour, A., Skidmore, A. K. & Isenburg, M. Generating spike-free digital surface models using LiDAR raw point clouds: a new approach for forestry applications. Int. J. Appl. Earth Obs. Geoinf. 52, 104–114 (2016).

Verger, A. & Descals, A. Fraction of Absorbed Photosynthetically Active Radiation (FAPAR)—300 m Version 1; Algorithm Theoretical Basis Document (ATBD), Issue 1.00 (Framework Service Contract No. 199494-JRC) (Copernicus Global Land Operations CGLOPS-1, 2020).

Copernicus Global Land Service: FAPAR Copernicus https://land.copernicus.eu/global/about (2020).

Schmidt, K. S. et al. Mapping coastal vegetation using an expert system and hyperspectral imagery. Photogramm. Eng. Remote Sens. 70, 703–715 (2004).

doi: 10.14358/PERS.70.6.703

Arvor, D., Durieux, L., Andres, S. & Laporte, M. A. Advances in geographic object-based image analysis with ontologies: a review of main contributions and limitations from a remote sensing perspective. ISPRS J. Photogramm. Remote Sens. 82, 125–137 (2013).

doi: 10.1016/j.isprsjprs.2013.05.003

Lucas, R., Rowlands, A., Brown, A., Keyworth, S. & Bunting, P. Rule-based classification of multi-temporal satellite imagery for habitat and agricultural land cover mapping. ISPRS J. Photogramm. Remote Sens. 62, 165–185 (2007).

doi: 10.1016/j.isprsjprs.2007.03.003

Skidmore, A. K. An expert system classifies eucalypt forest types using Landsat thematic mapper data and a digital terrain model. Photogramm. Eng. Remote Sens. 55, 1449–1464 (1989).

Tuanmu, M. N. & Jetz, W. A global 1-km consensus land-cover product for biodiversity and ecosystem modelling. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 23, 1031–1045 (2014).

doi: 10.1111/geb.12182

Lausch, A. et al. Understanding and quantifying landscape structure—a review on relevant process characteristics, data models and landscape metrics. Ecol. Model. 295, 31–41 (2015).

doi: 10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2014.08.018

Buchhorn, M. et al. Copernicus global land cover layers—Collection 2. Remote Sens. 12, 1044 (2020).

doi: 10.3390/rs12061044

Herkt, K. M. B., Skidmore, A. K. & Fahr, J. Macroecological conclusions based on IUCN expert maps: a call for caution. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 26, 930–941 (2017).

doi: 10.1111/geb.12601

Hansen, M. C. et al. High-resolution global maps of 21st-century forest cover change. Science 342, 850–853 (2013).

pubmed: 24233722 doi: 10.1126/science.1244693

Pekel, J., Cottam, A., Gorelick, N. & Belward, A. S. High-resolution mapping of global surface water and its long-term changes. Nature 540, 418–422 (2016).

pubmed: 27926733 doi: 10.1038/nature20584

Ye, H. et al. Improving remote sensing-based net primary production estimation in the grazed land with defoliation formulation model. J. Mt. Sci. 16, 323–336 (2019).

doi: 10.1007/s11629-018-5200-2

Curran, P. J. & Steele, C. M. MERIS: the re-branding of an ocean sensor. Int. J. Remote Sens. 26, 1781–1798 (2005).

doi: 10.1080/01431160412331330275

Garrigues, S., Allard, D., Baret, F. & Weiss, M. Influence of landscape spatial heterogeneity on the non-linear estimation of leaf area index from moderate spatial resolution remote sensing data. Remote Sens. Environ. 105, 286–298 (2006).

doi: 10.1016/j.rse.2006.07.013

Wu, S. B. et al. Monitoring tree-crown scale autumn leaf phenology in a temperate forest with an integration of PlanetScope and drone remote sensing observations. ISPRS J. Photogramm. Remote Sens. 171, 36–48 (2021).

doi: 10.1016/j.isprsjprs.2020.10.017

Salcedo-Sanz, S. et al. Machine learning information fusion in Earth observation: a comprehensive review of methods, applications and data sources. Inf. Fusion 63, 256–272 (2020).

doi: 10.1016/j.inffus.2020.07.004

Kissling, W. D. et al. Building essential biodiversity variables (EBVs) of species distribution and abundance at a global scale. Biol. Rev. 93, 600–625 (2018).

pubmed: 28766908 doi: 10.1111/brv.12359

Healy, C., Gotelli, N. J. & Potvin, C. Partitioning the effects of biodiversity and environmental heterogeneity for productivity and mortality in a tropical tree plantation. J. Ecol. 96, 903–913 (2008).

doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2745.2008.01419.x

Richards, J. A., Woodgate, P. W. & Skidmore, A. K. An explanation of enhanced radar backscattering from flooded forests. Int. J. Remote Sens. 8, 1093–1100 (1987).

doi: 10.1080/01431168708954756

Morsdorf, F. et al. in Remote Sensing of Plant Biodiversity (eds Cavender-Bares, J. et al.) 83–104 (Springer International, 2020).

Gratani, L. & Bombelli, A. Correlation between leaf age and other leaf traits in three Mediterranean maquis shrub species: Quercus ilex, Phillyrea latifolia and Cistus incanus. Environ. Exp. Bot. 43, 141–153 (2000).

doi: 10.1016/S0098-8472(99)00052-0

Kitayama, K. & Aiba, S. I. Ecosystem structure and productivity of tropical rain forests along altitudinal gradients with contrasting soil phosphorus pools on Mount Kinabalu, Borneo. J. Ecol. 90, 37–51 (2002).

doi: 10.1046/j.0022-0477.2001.00634.x

Nagler, P. L., Glenn, E. P. & Hinojosa-Huerta, O. Synthesis of ground and remote sensing data for monitoring ecosystem functions in the Colorado River Delta, Mexico. Remote Sens. Environ. 113, 1473–1485 (2009).

doi: 10.1016/j.rse.2008.06.018

Brassard, B. W., Chen, H. Y. H., Bergeron, Y. & Pare, D. Differences in fine root productivity between mixed- and single-species stands. Funct. Ecol. 25, 238–246 (2011).

doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2435.2010.01769.x

Reich, P. B., Walters, M. B. & Ellsworth, D. S. Leaf life-span in relation to leaf, plant, and stand characteristics among diverse ecosystems. Ecol. Monogr. 62, 365–392 (1992).

doi: 10.2307/2937116

Huston, M. A. & Wolverton, S. The global distribution of net primary production: resolving the paradox. Ecol. Monogr. 79, 343–377 (2009).

doi: 10.1890/08-0588.1

Jones, M. O., Jones, L. A., Kimball, J. S. & McDonald, K. C. Satellite passive microwave remote sensing for monitoring global land surface phenology. Remote Sens. Environ. 115, 1102–1114 (2011).

doi: 10.1016/j.rse.2010.12.015

Garonna, I., de Jong, R. & Schaepman, M. E. Variability and evolution of global land surface phenology over the past three decades (1982–2012). Glob. Change Biol. 22, 1456–1468 (2016).

doi: 10.1111/gcb.13168

Niklas, K. J. et al. ‘Diminishing returns’ in the scaling of functional leaf traits across and within species groups. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 104, 8891–8896 (2007).

pubmed: 17502616 pmcid: 1885598 doi: 10.1073/pnas.0701135104

Walker, B., Kinzig, A. & Langridge, J. Plant attribute diversity, resilience, and ecosystem function: the nature and significance of dominant and minor species. Ecosystems 2, 95–113 (1999).

doi: 10.1007/s100219900062

Bai, Y. F. et al. Grazing alters ecosystem functioning and C:N:P stoichiometry of grasslands along a regional precipitation gradient. J. Appl. Ecol. 49, 1204–1215 (2012).

doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2664.2012.02205.x

Schmeller, D. S. et al. An operational definition of essential biodiversity variables. Biodivers. Conserv. 26, 2967–2972 (2017).

doi: 10.1007/s10531-017-1386-9

Potter, C. et al. Recent history of large-scale ecosystem disturbances in North America derived from the AVHRR satellite record. Ecosystems 8, 808–824 (2005).

doi: 10.1007/s10021-005-0041-6

Roy, D. P., Boschetti, L., Justice, C. O. & Ju, J. The collection 5 MODIS burned area product—global evaluation by comparison with the MODIS active fire product. Remote Sens. Environ. 112, 3690–3707 (2008).

doi: 10.1016/j.rse.2008.05.013

Russell-Smith, J., Ryan, P. G. & Durieu, R. A LANDSAT MSS-derived fire history of Kakadu National Park, monsoonal northern Australia, 1980–94: seasonal extent, frequency and patchiness. J. Appl. Ecol. 34, 748–766 (1997).

doi: 10.2307/2404920

Van der Werf, G. R. et al. Global fire emissions and the contribution of deforestation, savanna, forest, agricultural, and peat fires (1997–2009). Atmos. Chem. Phys. 10, 11707–11735 (2010).

doi: 10.5194/acp-10-11707-2010

Nidumolu, U. B., De Bie, C., Van Keulen, H. & Skidmore, A. K. Enhancement of area-specific land-use objectives for land development. Land Degrad. Dev. 15, 513–525 (2004).

doi: 10.1002/ldr.636

Chen, F. et al. Fast automatic airport detection in remote sensing images using convolutional neural networks. Remote Sens. 10, 443 (2018).

doi: 10.3390/rs10030443

Weng, Q. H. Remote sensing of impervious surfaces in the urban areas: requirements, methods, and trends. Remote Sens. Environ. 117, 34–49 (2012).

doi: 10.1016/j.rse.2011.02.030

Scott, G. J., England, M. R., Starms, W. A., Marcum, R. A. & Davis, C. H. Training deep convolutional neural networks for land-cover classification of high-resolution imagery. IEEE Geosci. Remote Sens. Lett. 14, 549–553 (2017).

doi: 10.1109/LGRS.2017.2657778

Skidmore, A. K., Turner, B. J., Brinkhof, W. & Knowles, E. Performance of a neural network: mapping forests using GIS and remotely sensed data. Photogramm. Eng. Remote Sens. 63, 501–514 (1997).

Joshi, C. et al. Indirect remote sensing of a cryptic forest understorey invasive species. For. Ecol. Manag. 225, 245–256 (2006).

doi: 10.1016/j.foreco.2006.01.013

Defries, R. S. et al. Mapping the land surface for global atmosphere–biosphere models—toward continuous distributions of vegetation’s functional properties. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 100, 20867–20882 (1995).

doi: 10.1029/95JD01536

Cunliffe, A. M., Brazier, R. E. & Anderson, K. Ultra-fine grain landscape-scale quantification of dryland vegetation structure with drone-acquired structure-from-motion photogrammetry. Remote Sens. Environ. 183, 129–143 (2016).

doi: 10.1016/j.rse.2016.05.019

Asner, G. P., Wessman, C. A. & Schimel, D. S. Heterogeneity of savanna canopy structure and function from imaging spectrometry and inverse modeling. Ecol. Appl. 8, 1022–1036 (1998).

doi: 10.1890/1051-0761(1998)008[1022:HOSCSA]2.0.CO;2

Peterseil, J. et al. Evaluating the ecological sustainability of Austrian agricultural landscapes—the SINUS approach. Land Use Policy 21, 307–320 (2004).

doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2003.10.011

Saura, S., Bodin, O. & Fortin, M. J. Stepping stones are crucial for species’ long-distance dispersal and range expansion through habitat networks. J. Appl. Ecol. 51, 171–182 (2014).

doi: 10.1111/1365-2664.12179

De Jong, R., de Bruin, S., de Wit, A., Schaepman, M. E. & Dent, D. L. Analysis of monotonic greening and browning trends from global NDVI time-series. Remote Sens. Environ. 115, 692–702 (2011).

doi: 10.1016/j.rse.2010.10.011

Kissling, W. D. et al. Towards global data products of essential biodiversity variables on species traits. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 2, 1531–1540 (2018).

pubmed: 30224814 doi: 10.1038/s41559-018-0667-3

Baldeck, C. A. & Asner, G. P. Improving remote species identification through efficient training data collection. Remote Sens. 6, 2682–2698 (2014).

doi: 10.3390/rs6042682

Fassnacht, F. E. et al. Review of studies on tree species classification from remotely sensed data. Remote Sens. Environ. 186, 64–87 (2016).

doi: 10.1016/j.rse.2016.08.013

Lausch, A. et al. Linking earth observation and taxonomic, structural and functional biodiversity: local to ecosystem perspectives. Ecol. Indic. 70, 317–339 (2016).

doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2016.06.022

Shi, Y. F., Wang, T. J., Skidmore, A. K. & Heurich, M. Important LiDAR metrics for discriminating forest tree species in Central Europe. ISPRS J. Photogramm. Remote Sens. 137, 163–174 (2018).

doi: 10.1016/j.isprsjprs.2018.02.002

Wilkes, P. et al. Using discrete-return airborne laser scanning to quantify number of canopy strata across diverse forest types. Methods Ecol. Evol. 7, 700–712 (2016).

doi: 10.1111/2041-210X.12510

Hyyppa, J. et al. Review of methods of small-footprint airborne laser scanning for extracting forest inventory data in boreal forests. Int. J. Remote Sens. 29, 1339–1366 (2008).

doi: 10.1080/01431160701736489

Transon, J., d’Andrimont, R., Maugnard, A. & Defourny, P. Survey of hyperspectral earth observation applications from space in the Sentinel-2 context. Remote Sens. 10, 157 (2018).

doi: 10.3390/rs10020157

Guanter, L. et al. The EnMAP spaceborne imaging spectroscopy mission for Earth observation. Remote Sens. 7, 8830–8857 (2015).

doi: 10.3390/rs70708830

Qi, W. L. & Dubayah, R. O. Combining Tandem-X InSAR and simulated GEDI LiDAR observations for forest structure mapping. Remote Sens. Environ. 187, 253–266 (2016).

doi: 10.1016/j.rse.2016.10.018

Ramoelo, A., Cho, M., Mathieu, R. & Skidmore, A. K. Potential of Sentinel-2 spectral configuration to assess rangeland quality. J. Appl. Remote Sens. 9, 094096 (2015).

doi: 10.1117/1.JRS.9.094096

Madonsela, S. et al. Multi-phenology WorldView-2 imagery improves remote sensing of savannah tree species. Int. J. Appl. Earth Obs. Geoinf. 58, 65–73 (2017).

Bush, A. et al. Connecting Earth observation to high-throughput biodiversity data. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 1, 0176 (2017).

doi: 10.1038/s41559-017-0176

Kays, R., Crofoot, M. C., Jetz, W. & Wikelski, M. Terrestrial animal tracking as an eye on life and planet. Science 348, aaa2478 (2015).

pubmed: 26068858 doi: 10.1126/science.aaa2478

Meireles, J. E. et al. Leaf reflectance spectra capture the evolutionary history of seed plants. New Phytol. 228, 485–493 (2020).

pubmed: 32579721 pmcid: 7540507 doi: 10.1111/nph.16771

McManus, K. M. et al. Phylogenetic structure of foliar spectral traits in tropical forest canopies. Remote Sens. 8, 196 (2016).

doi: 10.3390/rs8030196

Urbano, F. et al. Wildlife tracking data management: a new vision. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 365, 2177–2185 (2010).

doi: 10.1098/rstb.2010.0081

Cubaynes, H. C., Fretwell, P. T., Bamford, C., Gerrish, L. & Jackson, J. A. Whales from space: four mysticete species described using new VHR satellite imagery. Mar. Mammal. Sci. 35, 466–491 (2019).

doi: 10.1111/mms.12544

Yang, Z. et al. Spotting East African mammals in open savannah from space. PLoS ONE 9, e115989 (2014).

pubmed: 25551561 pmcid: 4281221 doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0115989

Neumann, W. et al. Opportunities for the application of advanced remotely-sensed data in ecological studies of terrestrial animal movement. Mov. Ecol. 3, 8 (2015).

pubmed: 25941571 pmcid: 4418104 doi: 10.1186/s40462-015-0036-7

Weiss, J. R., Smythe, W. D. & Lu, W. W. Science Traceability. In Proc. IEEE Aerospace Conference 292–299 (IEEE, 2005).

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine Thriving on Our Changing Planet: A Decadal Strategy for Earth Observation from Space (National Academies Press, 2018).

Verstraete, M. M., Diner, D. J. & Bezy, J. L. Planning for a spaceborne Earth observation mission: from user expectations to measurement requirements. Environ. Sci. Policy 54, 419–427 (2015).

doi: 10.1016/j.envsci.2015.08.005

Skidmore, A. K. et al. Agree on biodiversity metrics to track from space. Nature 523, 403–405 (2015).

pubmed: 26201582 doi: 10.1038/523403a

Masek, J. G. et al. North American forest disturbance mapped from a decadal Landsat record. Remote Sens. Environ. 112, 2914–2926 (2008).

doi: 10.1016/j.rse.2008.02.010

O’Connor, B., Bojinski, S., Roosli, C. & Schaepman, M. E. Monitoring global changes in biodiversity and climate essential as ecological crisis intensifies. Ecol. Inform. 55, 101033 (2020).

Hansen, M. C., Stehman, S. V. & Potapov, P. V. Quantification of global gross forest cover loss. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 107, 8650–8655 (2010).

pubmed: 20421467 pmcid: 2889354 doi: 10.1073/pnas.0912668107

Vihervaara, P. et al. How essential biodiversity variables and remote sensing can help national biodiversity monitoring. Glob. Ecol. Conserv. 10, 43–59 (2017).

doi: 10.1016/j.gecco.2017.01.007

Walters, M. et al. Essential Biodiversity Variables UNEP/CBD/SBSTTA/17/INF/7 (Convention on Biological Diversity, 2013).

Asner, G. P. et al. Airborne laser-guided imaging spectroscopy to map forest trait diversity and guide conservation. Science 355, 385–389 (2017).

pubmed: 28126815 doi: 10.1126/science.aaj1987

Coll, M. et al. Ecological indicators to capture the effects of fishing on biodiversity and conservation status of marine ecosystems. Ecol. Indic. 60, 947–962 (2016).

doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2015.08.048

Díaz, S. et al. The global spectrum of plant form and function. Nature 529, 167–171 (2016).

pubmed: 26700811 doi: 10.1038/nature16489

Gibert, J. P., Dell, A. I., DeLong, J. P. & Pawar, S. Scaling-up trait variation from individuals to ecosystems. Adv. Ecol. Res. 52, 1–17 (2015).

doi: 10.1016/bs.aecr.2015.03.001

Hagen, M. et al. Biodiversity, species interactions and ecological networks in a fragmented world. Adv. Ecol. Res. 46, 89–210 (2012).

doi: 10.1016/B978-0-12-396992-7.00002-2

Lavorel, S. & Garnier, E. Predicting changes in community composition and ecosystem functioning from plant traits: revisiting the Holy Grail. Funct. Ecol. 16, 545–556 (2002).

doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2435.2002.00664.x

Thackeray, S. J. et al. Phenological sensitivity to climate across taxa and trophic levels. Nature 535, 241–245 (2016).

pubmed: 27362222 doi: 10.1038/nature18608

Díaz, S. et al. Functional traits, the phylogeny of function, and ecosystem service vulnerability. Ecol. Evol. 3, 2958–2975 (2013).

pubmed: 24101986 pmcid: 3790543 doi: 10.1002/ece3.601

Turner, W. Sensing biodiversity. Science 346, 301–302 (2014).

pubmed: 25324372 doi: 10.1126/science.1256014

Schmeller, D. et al. Building capacity in biodiversity monitoring at the global scale. Biodivers. Conserv. 26, 2765–2790 (2017).

doi: 10.1007/s10531-017-1388-7

Belward, A. S. & Skoien, J. O. Who launched what, when and why; trends in global land-cover observation capacity from civilian earth observation satellites. ISPRS J. Photogramm. Remote Sens. 103, 115–128 (2015).

doi: 10.1016/j.isprsjprs.2014.03.009

Vogel, D. Private global business regulation. Annu. Rev. Polit. Sci. 11, 261–282 (2008).

doi: 10.1146/annurev.polisci.11.053106.141706

Tranquilli, S. et al. Lack of conservation effort rapidly increases African great ape extinction risk. Conserv. Lett. 5, 48–55 (2012).

doi: 10.1111/j.1755-263X.2011.00211.x

Buchanan, G. M. et al. Free satellite data key to conservation. Science 361, 139–140 (2018).

pubmed: 30002246

Turner, W. et al. Free and open-access satellite data are key to biodiversity conservation. Biol. Conserv. 182, 173–176 (2015).

doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2014.11.048

Wulder, M. A. et al. Virtual constellations for global terrestrial monitoring. Remote Sens. Environ. 170, 62–76 (2015).

doi: 10.1016/j.rse.2015.09.001

Elith, J. et al. Novel methods improve prediction of species’ distributions from occurrence data. Ecography 29, 129–151 (2006).

doi: 10.1111/j.2006.0906-7590.04596.x

Czyz, E. A. et al. Intraspecific genetic variation of a Fagus sylvatica population in a temperate forest derived from airborne imaging spectroscopy time series. Ecol. Evol. 10, 7419–7430 (2020).

pubmed: 32760538 pmcid: 7391319 doi: 10.1002/ece3.6469

Schweiger, A. K. et al. Plant spectral diversity integrates functional and phylogenetic components of biodiversity and predicts ecosystem function. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 2, 976–982 (2018).

pubmed: 29760440 doi: 10.1038/s41559-018-0551-1

Cavender-Bares, J. et al. Associations of leaf spectra with genetic and phylogenetic variation in oaks: prospects for remote detection of biodiversity. Remote Sens. 8, 221 (2016).

doi: 10.3390/rs8030221

Surface Biology and Geology (SBG) NASA Science https://science.nasa.gov/earth-science/decadal-sbg (2020).