Predicting tree diversity across the United States as a function of modeled gross primary production

Ecological Applications

Volumn 18, Issue 1, 2008, Pages 93-103

  Nightingale, Joanne M ^a   Fan, Weihong ^b   Coops, Nicholas C ^c   Waring, Richard H ^a  

^a OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b RICHARD STOCKTON COLLEGE OF NEW JERSEY   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA   (Canada)

Author keywords

3 PGS; Gross primary production; Moderate resolution imaging spectroradiometer; Remote sensing, process based models; Syst me Pour l'Observation de la Terre; Tree species richness; USDA, Forest Inventory and Analysis

Indexed keywords

BIODIVERSITY; ECOLOGICAL MODELING; ECOREGION; ECOSYSTEM FUNCTION; FOREST INVENTORY; MODIS; PRIMARY PRODUCTION; REMOTE SENSING; SPATIAL VARIATION; SPECIES DIVERSITY; SPOT;

ARTICLE; CLASSIFICATION; SPECIES DIFFERENCE; TREE; UNITED STATES;

SPECIES SPECIFICITY; TREES; UNITED STATES;

NORTH AMERICA; UNITED STATES;

EID: 42149167320     PISSN: 10510761     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1890/07-0693.1     Document Type: Article

References (40)

1. Axelrod, K. I., M. T. Kalin-Arroyo, and P. H. Raven. 1991. History of temperate rainforests of the Americas. Revista Chilena de Historia Natural 64:413-436.
2. CEC. 1997. Ecological regions of North America: toward a common perspective. Commission for Environmental Cooperation, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
3. Coops, N. C., R. H. Waring, and J. J. Landsberg. 1998. Assessing forest productivity in Australia and New Zealand using a physiologically-based model driven with averaged monthly weather data and satellite-derived estimates of canopy photosynthetic capacity. Forest Ecology and Management 104:113-127.
4. Currie, D. J., and V. Paquin. 1987. Large-scale biogeographical patterns of species richness of trees. Letters to Nature 329:326-327.
5. Gaston, K. J. 2000. Global patterns in biodiversity. Nature 405:220-226.
6. Goward, S. N., and D. G. Dye. 1987. Evaluating North-American net primary productivity with satellite observations. Advances in Space Research 7:165-174.
7. Hawkins, B. A., R. Field, H. V. Cornell, D. J. Currie, J. F. Guegan, D. M. Kaufman, J. T. Kerr, G. G. Mittelbach, T. Oberdorff, E. M. O'Brien, E. E. Porter, and J. R. G. Turner. 2003. Energy, water, and broad-scale geographical patterns of species richness. Ecology 84:3105-3117.
8. Huete, A., K. Didan, T. Miura, E. P. Rodriguez, X. Gao, and L. G. Ferreira. 2002. Overview of the radiometric and biophysical performance of the MODIS vegetation indices. Remote Sensing of Environment 83:195-213.
9. Huston, M. A. 1999. Local processes and regional patterns: appropriate scales for understanding variation in the diversity of plants and animals. Oikos 86:393-401.
10. Iverson, L. R., and A. M. Prasad. 2001. Potential changes in tree species richness and forest community types following climate change. Ecosystems 4:186-199.
11. Justice, C. O., and J. R. G. Townsend. 2002. Special issue on the moderate resolution imaging spectro-radiometer (MODIS): a new generation of land surface monitoring. Remote Sensing of Environment 83:1-2.
12. Justice, C. O., et al. 1997. The moderate resolution imaging spectro-radiometer (MODIS): land remote sensing for global change research. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing 36:1228-1249.
13. Kleidon, A., and H. A. Mooney. 2000. A global distribution of biodiversity inferred from climatic constraints: results from a process-based modelling study. Global Change Biology 6:507-523.
14. Landsberg, J. J. 2003. Modelling forest ecosystems: state-of-the-art, challenges and future directions. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 33:385-397.
15. Landsberg, J. J., and R. H. Waring. 1997. A generalized model of forest productivity using simplified concepts of radiation-use efficiency, carbon balance and partitioning. Forest Ecology and Management 95:209-228.
16. Latham, R. E., and R. Ricklefs. 1993. Global patterns of tree species richness in moist forests: Energy-diversity theory does not account for variation in tree species richness. Oikos 67:325-333.
17. McCree, K. 1972. Test of current definitions of photosynthetically active radiation against leaf photosynthesis data. Agricultural Meteorology 10:442-453.
18. McRoberts, R., G. Holden, M. Nelson, W. Moser, A. Lister, S. King, B. LaPoint, J. Coulston, W. Smith, and G. Reams. 2005. Estimating and circumventing the effects of perturbing and swapping inventory plot locations. Journal of Forestry 103:275-279.
19. Mildrexler, D. J., M. Zhao, F. A. Heinsch, and S. Running. 2007. A new satellite-based methodology for continental scale disturbance detection. Ecological Applications 17:235-250.
20. Monteith, J. L. 1972. Solar radiation and productivity in tropical ecosystems. Journal of Applied Ecology 9:747-766.
21. Monteith, J. L. 1977. Climate and efficiency of crop production in Britain. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B 281:277-294.
22. Nemani, R. R., C. D. Keeling, H. Hashimoto, W. M. Jolly, S. C. Piper, C. Tucker, R. B. Myneni, and S. Running. 2003. Climate-driven increases in global terrestrial net primary production from 1982 to 1999. Science 3000:1560-1563.
23. Nightingale, J. M., N. C. Coops, R. H. Waring, and W. W. Hargrove. 2007. Comparison of MODIS Gross Primary Production estimates for forests across the U.S.A. with those generated by a simple process model, 3-PGS. Remote Sensing of Environment 109:500-509.
24. Nightingale, J. M., S. R. Phinn, and A. A. Held. 2004. Ecosystem process models at multiple scales for mapping tropical forest productivity. Progress in Physical Geography 28:241-281.
25. O'Brian, E. M. 1998. Water-energy dynamics, climate, and prediction of woody plant species richness: an interim general model. Journal of Biogeography 25:379-398.
26. Qian, H., and R. E. Ricklefs. 2000. Large-scale processes and the Asian bias in species diversity of temperate plants. Nature 407:180-182.
27. Running, S., R. R. Nemani, F. A. Heinsch, M. Zhao, M. Reeves, and H. Hashimoto. 2004. A continuous satellite-derived measure of global terrestrial primary production. BioScience 54:547-560.
28. Sabbe, H., and F. Veroustraete. 2000. Demonstration of a standard net primary productivity product for the SPOT 4-VEGETATION instrument. VITO, Belgium.
29. Sarr, D. A., D. E. Hibbs, and M. A. Huston. 2005. A hierarchical perspective of plant diversity. Quarterly Review of Biology 80:187-211.
30. Schwartz, M. D., B. C. Reed, and M. A. White. 2002. Assessing satellite-derived start-of-season measures in the conterminous USA. International Journal of Climatology 22:1793-1805.
31. Skole, D., and C. Tucker. 1993. Tropical deforestation and habitat fragmentation in the Amazon: satellite data from 1978 to 1988. Science 260:1905-1909.
32. Swenson, J., and R. H. Waring. 2006. Modeled photosynthesis predicts woody plant richness at three geographic scales across the northwestern U.S.A. Global Ecology and Biogeography 15:470-485.
33. USDA. 2004. Forest inventory and analysis national core field guide. Volume 1: Field data collection procedures for Phase 2 Pplots. 〈http://ncrs2.fs.fed.us/4801/fiadb/〉
34. Venevsky, S., and I. Veneskaia. 2003. Large-scale energetic and landscape factors of vegetation diversity. Ecology Letters 6:1004-1016.
35. Veroustraete, F., H. Sabbe, and H. Erens. 2002. Estimation of carbon mass fluxes over Europe using the C-Fix model and Euroflux data. Remote Sensing of Environment 83:376-399.
36. Waring, R. H., N. C. Coops, W. Fan, and J. Nightingale. 2006. MODIS-enhanced vegetation index predicts tree species richness across forested ecoregions in the contiguous U.S.A. Remote Sensing of Environment 103:218-226.
37. Waring, R. H., N. C. Coops, J. L. Ohmann, and D. A. Sarr. 2002. Interpreting woody plant richness from seasonal ratios of photosynthesis. Ecology 83:2964-2970.
38. White, M. A., P. E. Thornton, and S. W. Running. 1997. A continental phenology model for monitoring vegetation responses to inter-annual climate variability. Global Biogeochemical Cycles 11:217-234.
39. Whittaker, R. J., and R. Field. 2000. Tree species richness modelling: an approach of global applicability? Oikos 89: 399-402.
40. 2 in midlatitude forests. Science 260:1314-1317