Biases and limitations of Global Forest Change and author-generated land cover maps in detecting deforestation in the Amazon.
Journal
PloS one
ISSN: 1932-6203
Titre abrégé: PLoS One
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101285081
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2022
2022
Historique:
received:
02
11
2021
accepted:
11
05
2022
entrez:
6
7
2022
pubmed:
7
7
2022
medline:
9
7
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Studying land use change in protected areas (PAs) located in tropical forests is a major conservation priority due to high conservation value (e.g., species richness and carbon storage) here, coupled with generally high deforestation rates. Land use change researchers use a variety of land cover products to track deforestation trends, including maps they produce themselves and readily available products, such as the Global Forest Change (GFC) dataset. However, all land cover maps should be critically assessed for limitations and biases to accurately communicate and interpret results. In this study, we assess deforestation in PA complexes located in agricultural frontiers in the Amazon Basin. We studied three specific sites: Amboró and Carrasco National Parks in Bolivia, Jamanxim National Forest in Brazil, and Tambopata National Reserve and Bahuaja-Sonene National Park in Peru. Within and in 20km buffer areas around each complex, we generated land cover maps using composites of Landsat imagery and supervised classification, and compared deforestation trends to data from the GFC dataset. We then performed a dissimilarity analysis to explore the discrepancies between the two remote sensing products. Both the GFC and our supervised classification showed that deforestation rates were higher in the 20km buffer than inside the PAs and that Jamanxim National Forest had the highest deforestation rate of the PAs we studied. However, GFC maps showed consistently higher rates of deforestation than our maps. Through a dissimilarity analysis, we found that many of the inconsistencies between these datasets arise from different treatment of mixed pixels or different parameters in map creation (for example, GFC does not detect reforestation after 2012). We found that our maps underestimated deforestation while GFC overestimated deforestation, and that true deforestation rates likely fall between our two estimates. We encourage users to consider limitations and biases when using or interpreting our maps, which we make publicly available, and GFC's maps.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35793333
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0268970
pii: PONE-D-21-34872
pmc: PMC9258877
doi:
Banques de données
figshare
['10.6084/m9.figshare.c.6004777.v1']
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, U.S. Gov't, Non-P.H.S.
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e0268970Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Références
Nat Ecol Evol. 2021 Feb;5(2):144-145
pubmed: 33349655
Environ Manage. 2016 Aug;58(2):297-311
pubmed: 27179802
Environ Res. 2016 May;147:580-9
pubmed: 26632993
Sci Adv. 2020 Mar 11;6(11):eaax8574
pubmed: 32195340
PLoS One. 2017 Feb 16;12(2):e0169748
pubmed: 28207752
Sci Adv. 2016 Apr 01;2(4):e1501675
pubmed: 27051881
Science. 2013 Nov 15;342(6160):850-3
pubmed: 24233722
Science. 2018 Sep 14;361(6407):1108-1111
pubmed: 30213911
Nat Commun. 2021 Mar 19;12(1):1785
pubmed: 33741981
Sci Adv. 2017 Apr 12;3(4):e1601047
pubmed: 28439536
PLoS One. 2015 Dec 03;10(12):e0143886
pubmed: 26632842
Science. 2014 May 30;344(6187):981
pubmed: 24876488
Trends Ecol Evol. 2008 Mar;23(3):113-6
pubmed: 18280005
Proc Biol Sci. 2011 Jun 7;278(1712):1633-8
pubmed: 21084351
Ambio. 2007 Nov;36(7):600-6
pubmed: 18074899
Science. 2014 May 30;344(6187):981
pubmed: 24876487
Sci Data. 2020 Aug 14;7(1):269
pubmed: 32796858
Ambio. 2006 Mar;35(2):81-5
pubmed: 16722253
Trends Ecol Evol. 2000 Aug;15(8):332-337
pubmed: 10884705
Glob Chang Biol. 2020 May;26(5):2956-2969
pubmed: 32022338
Environ Manage. 2017 Sep;60(3):367-382
pubmed: 28510059
Conserv Biol. 2013 Feb;27(1):166-76
pubmed: 23088594
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2013 Nov 12;110(46):18454-9
pubmed: 24167281