Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 331

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 45 of the 45 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A global, remote sensing‐based characterization of terrestrial habitat heterogeneity for biodiversity and ecosystem modelling

Tuanmu, Mao‐Ning, Jetz, Walter·2015·Global Ecology and Biogeography
DOI 10.1111/geb.12365
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Aim: Habitat heterogeneity has long been recognized as a key landscape characteristic determining biodiversity patterns. However, a lack of standardized, large‐scale, high‐resolution and temporally updatable heterogeneity information based on direct observations has limited our understanding of this connection and its effective use for biodiversity conservation. To address this, we develop here remote sensing‐based metrics to characterize global habitat heterogeneity at 1‐km resolution and assess their value for biodiversity modelling. Location: Global. Methods: We develop 14 heterogeneity metrics (available at http://www.earthenv.org) based on the textural features of the enhanced vegetation index (EVI) imagery from the Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS), and closely examine a complementary core set of six of these metrics. We evaluate their ability to provide fine‐grain habitat heterogeneity by comparing the heterogeneity information captured by them with that measured by 30‐m Landsat‐based land‐cover data. Using spatial autoregressive models, we then compare their utility with that of more conventional metrics (derived from topography or categorical land‐cover data) for modelling the species richness of bird communities across the conterminous U nited S tates based on B reeding B ird S urvey data. Results: The newly derived metrics capture different aspects of habitat heterogeneity and provide fine‐grain information for locations deemed homogeneous by traditional land‐cover classifications at both continental and global extents. Most of them strongly exceed conventional heterogeneity variables in capturing the spatial variation in bird species richness, with H omogeneity emerging as the strongest predictor. Main conclusions: This study develops and validates the performance of readily usable metrics of textural measures capturing fine‐grain habitat heterogeneity. The presented metrics outperform conventional measures in capturing detailed spatial variation in habitats and in predicting key biodiversity patterns. They provide a rigorous and comparable basis for understanding heterogeneity–diversity relationships, and offer a powerful tool for monitoring and understanding the responses of biodiversity and ecosystems to the changing environment.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/geb.12365

Cites

45 of 45 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Bird Studies Canada and NABCI, 2014, Bird conservation regions
  2. Solano R., 2010, MODIS vegetation index user's guide (MOD13 Series), version 2.00

Cited by

See all 331

Metadata

Authors
Tuanmu, M., & Jetz, W.
Affiliations
Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology Yale University New Haven CT 06520 USA
Venue
Global Ecology and Biogeography
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2015-08-10
Volume
24
Issue
11
Pages
1329-1339
ISSN
  • 1466-822X
  • 1466-8238
DOI
10.1111/geb.12365
Cited by
331
References
45
Language
en
Licence
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor (vor)
Funders
  • NCEAS Project (12504)
  • NASA (NNX11AP72G)
  • NSF (DBI 0960550, DBI-1262600, DEB 1026764)

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.