Professional Documents
Culture Documents
(Pettorelli Et Al, 2017) Satellite Remote Sensing of Ecosystem Functions, Opportunities, Challenges and Way Forward
(Pettorelli Et Al, 2017) Satellite Remote Sensing of Ecosystem Functions, Opportunities, Challenges and Way Forward
Keywords Abstract
Biodiversity loss, biodiversity monitoring,
ecosystem functions, ecosystem services, Societal, economic and scientific interests in knowing where biodiversity is,
satellite remote sensing how it is faring and what can be done to efficiently mitigate further biodi-
versity loss and the associated loss of ecosystem services are at an all-time
Correspondence high. So far, however, biodiversity monitoring has primarily focused on
Nathalie Pettorelli, Institute of Zoology, structural and compositional features of ecosystems despite growing evidence
Zoological Society of London, Regent’s Park,
that ecosystem functions are key to elucidating the mechanisms through
NW1 4RY London, UK. Tel: +44 (0)207 449
6334; E-mail: [email protected]
which biological diversity generates services to humanity. This monitoring
gap can be traced to the current lack of consensus on what exactly
ª 2017 The Authors. Remote Sensing in Ecology and Conservation published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Zoological Society of London. 1
This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial License, which permits use,
distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes.
Satellite Remote Sensing of Ecosystem Functions N. Pettorelli et al.
Editor: Marcus Rowcliffe ecosystem functions are and how to track them at scales beyond the site
Associate Editor: Mat Disney level. This contribution aims to advance the development of a global biodi-
versity monitoring strategy by proposing the adoption of a set of definitions
Received: 3 April 2017; Revised: 19 May
and a typology for ecosystem functions, and reviewing current opportunities
2017; Accepted: 23 June 2017
and potential limitations for satellite remote sensing technology to support
the monitoring of ecosystem functions worldwide. By clearly defining ecosys-
tem processes, functions and services and their interrelationships, we provide
doi: 10.1002/rse2.59 a framework to improve communication between ecologists, land and marine
managers, remote sensing specialists and policy makers, thereby addressing a
major barrier in the field.
2 ª 2017 The Authors. Remote Sensing in Ecology and Conservation published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Zoological Society of London.
N. Pettorelli et al. Satellite Remote Sensing of Ecosystem Functions
explicitly refer to the monitoring of ecosystem function- suggest adopting the following definitions of ecological
ing (Keith et al. 2015). However, assessments undertaken processes, ecosystem processes, ecosystem functions and
thus far have highlighted the relative lack of data on ecosystem services, which are applicable across all ecologi-
ecosystem functioning, with 50% of them not assessing cal realms and integrate these concepts into a common
functional criteria (L. Bland, pers. comm.). In parallel to framework consistent with Noss’ (1990) definition of bio-
this, the Group on Earth Observations – Biodiversity diversity (Fig. 1). Specifically, we considered three criteria
Observation Network (GEO BON) developed a frame- to select appropriate definitions of these terms, namely (i)
work for biodiversity monitoring based on the concept of the proposed definitions should clearly separate functional
essential biodiversity variables (EBVs) (Pereira et al. and structural/compositional properties of ecosystems; (ii)
2013), which includes a class for ecosystem functions. they should clearly distinguish between organism- and
However, so far no scientific consensus has been reached ecosystem-level properties; and (iii) they must allow inte-
on what exactly ecosystem functions are and how to track grating all concepts (i.e. ecological processes, ecosystem
them at scales beyond the site level; this lack of clarity processes, ecosystem functions and ecosystem services) in
has hampered progress in terms of identifying opportuni- a common framework.
ties for ecosystem function monitoring globally. An overview of existing definitions of ecological pro-
To address these gaps, we propose the adoption of a cesses, ecosystem processes, ecosystem functions and
set of definitions and typology for ecosystem functions ecosystem services are provided in Table 1, together with
relevant to both terrestrial and marine ecologists, build- the rationale behind retaining or rejecting a given defini-
ing on previous efforts to identify and monitor ecosystem tion. Based on this approach, we here define ecological
functions (Petter et al. 2012; Meyer et al. 2015). Because processes as activities that result from interactions among
satellite remote sensing is the only methodology currently organisms and between organisms and their environment,
able to provide global coverage and continuous measures following Martinez (1996). Examples of ecological pro-
across space at relatively high spatial and temporal reso- cesses thus include competition, herbivory, carnivory and
lutions (Skidmore et al. 2015; Pettorelli et al. 2016), we photosynthesis. Ecosystem processes are then understood as
subsequently provide an up-to-date perspective on the transfers of energy, material, or organisms among pools
current and future prospects of satellite remote sensing in an ecosystem, following the definition introduced by
for monitoring ecosystem functions in both the terrestrial Lovett et al. (2006). Examples of ecosystem processes
and marine realms, reviewing established products, high- include primary production, decomposition, hetero-
lighting new developments that have the greatest poten- trophic respiration and evapotranspiration. Similarly, we
tial to make a difference to practitioners and policy propose to adopt the definition of ecosystem functions put
makers, and discussing potential limitations. We con- forward by Lovett et al. (2006), which states that ecosys-
clude by stressing opportunities for the proposed moni- tem functions are attributes related to the performance of
toring framework to inform relevant global policy an ecosystem that are the consequence of one or multiple
initiatives. ecosystem processes. Specifically, we understand ecosys-
tem functions as the direct and indirect benefits of
ecosystem processes for a range of species, including
Agreeing on What Ecosystem
humans. Under this definition, examples of ecosystem
Functions Are
functions include nutrient regulation, food production
and water supply. Ecosystem services are finally defined as
Ecosystem processes, ecosystem functions
the benefits human populations derive, directly or indi-
and ecosystem services
rectly, from ecosystem functions, following the definition
Ecosystem functions mean different things to different introduced by Costanza et al. (1997). Examples of ecosys-
people. Multiple definitions of ecosystem functions can tem services include food (refers to any nutritious sub-
indeed be found in the literature and the term is often stance that people, and/or other species that people value,
used synonymously with ecosystem services (Srivastava eat to maintain life and growth, such as game, fish, crop)
and Vellend 2005; Lamarque et al. 2011), ecological pro- production, raw material production (referring here to
cesses (Lawton and Brown 1993) and ecosystem processes raw material that people use, such as skin, fuel wood,
(Dominati et al. 2010; Mace et al. 2012; see Table 1). Yet fodder), carbon sequestration, recreational experience and
without agreement on what ecosystem functions are cultural services. The key distinction between ecosystem
(Table 1), progress on our ability to monitor them is functions and services, as noted by Petter et al. (2012), is
likely to be slow and erratic. that functions can have both intrinsic and potential
To help identify an implementable framework for the anthropocentric values, while services are defined only in
monitoring of ecosystem functions globally, we here terms of their benefits to people.
ª 2017 The Authors. Remote Sensing in Ecology and Conservation published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Zoological Society of London. 3
Satellite Remote Sensing of Ecosystem Functions N. Pettorelli et al.
Table 1. Coexisting definitions pertinent to the concepts of ecological processes, ecosystem processes, ecosystem functions and ecosystem
services.
Ecological Activities that result from interactions among Martinez (1996) This definition separates organism level
processes organisms and between organisms and their processes from ecosystem level processes
environment
An interaction among organisms; ecological processes Mace et al. (2012) Incomplete: ecological processes should also
frequently regulate the dynamics of ecosystems and include interactions between organism and
the structure and dynamics of biological communities their abiotic environment, since these have an
important impact on organism-level attributes
(such as survival)
Ecosystem Transfer of energy, material, or organisms among Lovett et al. (2006) Clearly excludes organism-level processes;
processes pools in an ecosystem does not refer to stocks of materials
Complex physical and biological cycles and interactions Brown et al. (2007) Vague; fails to establish the distinction between
that underlie what we observe as the natural world ecological and ecosystem processes
Changes in the stocks and/or flows of materials in an Mace et al. (2012) Fails to establish the distinction between
ecosystem, resulting from interactions among ecological and ecosystem processes
organisms and with their physical–chemical
environment
Ecosystem Refer variously to the habitat, biological or system Costanza et al. (1997) Vague: fails to establish the distinction between
functions properties or processes of ecosystems ecosystem functions and ecosystem processes
Ecosystem processes and ecosystem stability Bengtsson (1998) Fails to establish the distinction between
ecosystem functions and ecosystem processes
Stocks of energy and materials (e.g. biomass), fluxes of Pacala and Kinzig Subsumes ecosystem structure (‘stock’) under
energy or material processing (e.g. productivity, (2002) the concept of ‘function’; fails to establish the
decomposition), and the stability of rates or stocks distinction between ecosystem functions and
over time ecosystem processes
The capacity of natural processes and components to De Groot et al. (2002) Fails to establish the distinction between
provide goods and services that satisfy human needs, ecosystem functions and ecosystem services
directly or indirectly
Attributes related to the performance of an Lovett et al. (2006) Explicitly relates the concept of ecosystem
ecosystem that is the consequence of one or of processes to ecosystem functions
multiple ecosystem processes
The subset of the interactions between biophysical Kumar (2010) Conflates structural and compositional
structures, biodiversity and ecosystem processes that attributes of biodiversity (‘stocks’) with
underpin the capacity of an ecosystem to provide functional aspects (‘fluxes’)
ecosystem services
The ecological processes that control the fluxes of Cardinale et al. (2012) Fails to establish the distinction between
energy, nutrients and organic matter through an ecosystem processes, ecological processes and
environment ecosystem functions
The energy, matter, and information fluxes linking Meyer et al. (2015) Fails to establish the distinction between
ecosystem compartments ecosystem processes and ecosystem functions
The biological underpinning of ecosystem services Oliver et al. (2015) Vague; does not clearly separate function from
structure
Ecosystem The conditions and processes through which natural Daily (1997) Vague; the relationship between ecosystem
services ecosystems, and the species that make them up, functions and services is unclear
sustain and fulfil human life
The benefits human populations derive, directly Costanza et al. (1997) Provides a clear link to ecosystem
or indirectly, from ecosystem functions functions
The benefits people derive from ecosystems Millennium Ecosystem Vague; the relationship between ecosystem
Assessment (2005) functions and services is unclear
Ecosystem services are the aspects of the ecosystems Fisher et al. 2009 Vague; the relationship between ecosystem
utilized (actively or passively) to produce human well- functions and services is unclear
being
Direct and indirect contributions of ecosystems to TEEB (2010) Vague; the relationship between ecosystem
human well-being functions and services is unclear
(Continued)
4 ª 2017 The Authors. Remote Sensing in Ecology and Conservation published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Zoological Society of London.
N. Pettorelli et al. Satellite Remote Sensing of Ecosystem Functions
Table 1. Continued.
Outputs of ecosystem processes that provide benefits Oliver et al. (2015) The relationship between ecosystem functions
to humans (e.g. crop and timber production) and services is unclear
Those functions and products of an ecosystem that Meyer et al. (2015) Definition not as well-known as that of
directly or indirectly benefit humans. Often ecosystem Costanza et al. 1997, but does not contradict
functions are considered a service when they can be it
attributed an economical value
Figure 1. Simplified representation of the links between ecological processes, ecosystem processes, ecosystem functions and ecosystem services.
Decomposers, consumers and primary producers represent the main pools of a given ecosystem. Ecological processes mostly occur within each
pool; examples of ecological processes are listed under each pool. Ecosystem processes capture the transfer of energy, material, or organisms
among pools; examples of ecosystem processes appear in circles. Ecosystem functions represent attributes related to the performance of an
ecosystem; they are the consequence of one or of multiple ecosystem processes. Finally, ecosystem services are those elements of ecosystem
functions that benefit people.
ª 2017 The Authors. Remote Sensing in Ecology and Conservation published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Zoological Society of London. 5
Satellite Remote Sensing of Ecosystem Functions N. Pettorelli et al.
6 ª 2017 The Authors. Remote Sensing in Ecology and Conservation published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Zoological Society of London.
Table 2. Typology of ecosystem functions, with examples of ecological and ecosystem processes underpinning the delivery of a given function.
Examples of underpinning
Regulating Gas regulation Role of ecosystems in bio-geochemical cycles (such as CO2/O2 balance, ozone layer) Cellular respiration Heterotrophic respiration
Coral reef calcification
Climate regulation Influence of ecosystems on climate Photosynthesis Evapotranspiration
Decomposition
Primary production
Disturbance Influence of ecosystem attributes on environmental disturbances Vegetation modulating surface Primary production
regulation resistance and infiltration Decomposition
Wind and wave energy absorption
by e.g. seagrasses and mangrove
vegetation
Water regulation Role of ecosystems in regulating runoff and river discharge Vegetation modulating surface Primary production
resistance and infiltration Evapotranspiration
Nutrient regulation Role of ecosystems in the transport, storage and recycling of nutrients Herbivory Decomposition
Predation Hypertrophication
Mineralization
Nitrogen fixation
Marine bioturbation
Soil turnover (fossorial fauna)
Biological control The interactions within biotic communities that restrain the impact of outbreaks/ Herbivory Secondary production
blooms of specific populations of species on the functioning of the ecosystem, e.g. Competition
by controlling population of potential pests and disease vectors Predation
Parasitism
Provisioning Provision of food Biomass that sustains living organisms. Material that can be converted to provide Detrivory Primary production
energy and nutrition. Mineralization Secondary production
Provision of Biomass that is used by organisms for any purpose other than food Tree death Primary production
raw materials Coral death
Water supply The role of ecosystems in providing water Vegetation facilitating infiltration Primary production
Evapotranspiration
Provision of Relates to vegetation/structures that ameliorates extremes in weather and climate at Tree death Primary production
shade/shelter a local landscape/seascape scale Coral reef calcification
Pharmacological Natural materials that are or can be used by organisms to maintain, restore or Herbivory Primary production
resources production improve health Predation
Competition
Supporting habitats Preservation of natural and semi-natural ecosystems as suitable living space for wild Herbivory Primary production
ª 2017 The Authors. Remote Sensing in Ecology and Conservation published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Zoological Society of London.
biotic communities and individual species. This function also includes the provision Predation Secondary production
of suitable breeding, reproduction, nursery, refugia and corridors (connectivity). Competition Decomposition
Tree death
Coral death
(Continued)
Satellite Remote Sensing of Ecosystem Functions
7
Satellite Remote Sensing of Ecosystem Functions N. Pettorelli et al.
Secondary production
ing for more targeted field data collection and faster
Ecosystem processes
Primary production
Primary production
Primary production
Primary production
Primary production
Hypertrophication
development and implementation of effective manage-
Decomposition
Decomposition
ment actions (Osuri et al. 2016; Peres et al. 2016).
As with most conceptual frameworks that inform our
understanding of the natural world (Stephens et al. 2015),
ecosystem functions ultimately relate to entities that can
be hard to measure directly and are the result of multiple
ecosystem processes (Table 2; Fig. 2). Hence, the moni-
toring a given ecosystem function will mostly depend on
Organic and inorganic product
Sediment trapping
monitoring of ecosystem functions: as one can see, a
assimilation
Filter feeding
Nectarivory
Herbivory
Herbivory
Predation
Predation
mitigates noise
and assimilation
vegetation/coral
Barrier effect of
Production of
8 ª 2017 The Authors. Remote Sensing in Ecology and Conservation published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Zoological Society of London.
N. Pettorelli et al. Satellite Remote Sensing of Ecosystem Functions
Figure 2. Example of ecological and ecosystem processes underpinning the food provision function. Different ‘types of food’ (e.g., vegetal,
animal) can be produced by ecosystems, and each type can be tracked using indicators related to the two major ecosystem processes
underpinning the production of these food (namely primary and secondary productivity). Each ecosystem process is itself shaped by multiple
ecological processes, such as photosynthesis, competition, herbivory, predation and mineralization.
resolution (e.g. Landsat) and imagery with low spatial, characteristics (spatial, temporal, spectral resolutions) to
high temporal resolution (e.g. MODIS) into time series influence mapping accuracy and monitoring opportunities
with high spatial, high temporal resolution (Gao et al. for certain ecosystem functions in certain environments.
2006; Schmidt et al. 2015), which could support a better Integrated use of multiple remote sensing sources and
characterization of vegetation phenology. increased remote sensing capacity can help overcome
many of these known challenges, as long as data and pro-
duct requirements are clearly identified: the prioritization
Limitations
of new satellite missions associated with freely accessible
Monitoring ecosystem functions, using satellite data or data for scientific use might indeed be facilitated by the
ground-based information, first necessitates agreement on formulation of clear, consensual demands from ecosystem
what ecosystem functions are, but also on what ecosys- researchers (Paganini et al. 2016).
tems are and where their boundaries lie (Likens 1992). Discussions around the monitoring of ecosystem func-
Such difficulties are not limited to ecosystems, with simi- tions will need to involve clarity on which processes are
lar discussions arising when considering populations or being monitored for each considered ecosystem function;
species (see e.g. Mallet 1995; Berryman 2002). The Red what the reliability and sensitivity of each considered
List of Ecosystems offers a comprehensive framework for proxy are; what aggregation method is being used (if any)
defining and monitoring ecosystems (Bland et al. 2016), to integrate the collated information relating to the
and as such could be used as a reference point for agree- ecosystem processes that shape a given ecosystem func-
ing on where boundaries should be set. Doing so would tion; and how the choices made affect decision-making
allow complementarity and effectiveness in efforts to robustness in a given context (Stephens et al. 2015).
monitor, and report on, the state of ecosystems globally. Remote sensing proxies will often need to be combined
As demonstrated in Table 3, monitoring ecosystem with field measurements to accurately represent the
function then involves making a number of choices in desired ecosystem function (e.g. Tong et al. 2004).
terms of which indicators and which proxies to consider; Indeed, joint analysis of satellite data with in situ mea-
these choices may all have implications for the reliability surements, or process measurements in the lab, may be
of the inferred trends. Satellite remote sensing is more- essential steps to the refinement and increased capacity
over associated with intrinsic limitations, which have been and utility, of satellite-based indicators for ecosystem
discussed at length (see e.g. Pettorelli 2013; Pettorelli function monitoring (Racault et al. 2014). This is likely
et al. 2014, 2016); one can thus expect data product to be a non-trivial task, particularly in highly dynamic
ª 2017 The Authors. Remote Sensing in Ecology and Conservation published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Zoological Society of London. 9
Table 3. Non-exhaustive list of freely available, global satellite remote sensing data products that open opportunities for the dynamic monitoring of ecosystem functions.
10
Function Indicator Proxy Satellite (sensor) SRS data product Examples
Gas regulation Gas concentrations Total ozone burden Terra/Aqua (MODIS) MODIS Atmospheric Profile product Spichtinger et al. (2001) used
Nimbus-7/Meteor-3/Earth Probe Total Ozone Mapping Spectrometer GOME-derived nitrogen oxide
(TOMS) (1978-2006) concentration to map emissions
Sentinel-5P (TROPOMI) O3 tropospheric profile from boreal forest fires.
Total methane burden Aqua (AIRS) Methane product Ribeiro et al. (2016) used the Aqua
Emissions of gases by Air-sea CO2 flux Multiple, including POES (AVHRR), NOAA AOML Surface CO2 Flux (AIRS) Methane product to link
ecosystems Terra/Aqua (MODIS), TRMM maps (1982–2009) methane concentrations over the
(CERES) Amazon to wetness and biomass
burning.
Climate Temperature regulation Land and sea surface Terra/Aqua (MODIS) MODIS Land Surface Temperature Jin and Dickinson (2010) used Terra
regulation temperature and Emissivity (MODIS) data to derive land skin
Terra/Aqua (MODIS) MODIS Sea Surface Temperature temperature and investigate its
POES (AVHRR) NOAA Coral Reef Watch Sea relationship with local surface
Surface Temperature albedo and vegetation, among
Satellite Remote Sensing of Ecosystem Functions
(Continued)
N. Pettorelli et al.
ª 2017 The Authors. Remote Sensing in Ecology and Conservation published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Zoological Society of London.
Table 3. Continued.
Coral bleaching Sea surface POES (AVHRR) NOAA Coral Reef Watch products
temperature
Hotspots of sea POES (AVHRR) NOAA Coral Reef Watch products
surface temperature
Degree Heating POES (AVHRR) NOAA Coral Reef Watch products
Weeks
Bleaching Alert Areas POES (AVHRR) NOAA Coral Reef Watch products
Eutrophication of water Ocean Colour ENVISAT (MERIS) Ocean colour (total suspended
bodies Terra/Aqua (MODIS) matter) data from MERIS, MODIS
Orb-View-2 (SeaWiFS) and SeaWiFS
Sentinel 3 (OLCI) Color dissolved organic matter/
yellow substance (CDOM)
Water Inland water dynamic Change in water Sentinel 3 (SRAL) Sentinel 3 altimetry (lakes level) Spera et al. (2016) used MODIS
regulation stage evaporation data to track the
Water body Terra/Aqua (MODIS) MODIS Water Mask effect of land cover change on
distribution Landsat (TM, ETM+) Global Surface Water (1984–2015) regional water dynamics in the
Cerrado biome.
Soil/Sediment Sediment plumes Turbidity ENVISAT (MERIS) Ocean colour (total suspended Valente and da Silva (2009) used an
retention Terra/Aqua (MODIS) matter) data from MERIS, MODIS MODIS Ocean Colour product to
Orb-View-2 (SeaWiFS) and SeaWiFS monitor a turbid plume in an
Suspended sediment Sentinel 3 (OLCI) Suspended sediment concentration estuary.
Nutrient Nutrient availability Algal bloom Many, including ENVISAT (MERIS), Ocean colour data from GlobCover, Huang et al. (2014) used Landsat
regulation Terra/Aqua (MODIS), Orb-View-2 ESA-CCI and MODIS data to characterize
(SeaWiFS), VIIRS eutrophication in response to land
Chlorophyll-a Many, including MODIS, MERIS, Chlorophyll- a product from NASA use change in a lake’s catchment.
concentration VIIRS, GOCI, SeaWiFS, CZCS Ocean Color project
Pollination Vegetation phenology Temporal dynamics of Terra/Aqua (MODIS) MODIS NDVI Schulp and Alkemade (2011)
seasonal changes in Metop (AVHRR) AVHRR NDVI3 g (1981–2011) mapped pollination efficiency using
vegetation indices Terra/Aqua (MODIS) MODIS EVI the GLOBCOVER land cover
Primary productivity SRS-based primary Terra/Aqua (MODIS) MODIS Gross Primary Production or product.
productivity Net Primary Production
estimates
Biological Defoliator control Changes in maximum Terra/Aqua (MODIS) MODIS NDVI Spruce et al. (2011) used MODIS
control NDVI NDVI time series to map
ª 2017 The Authors. Remote Sensing in Ecology and Conservation published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Zoological Society of London.
defoliation by European gypsy
moth Lymantria dispar in North
America.
(Continued)
Satellite Remote Sensing of Ecosystem Functions
11
Table 3. Continued.
12
Function Indicator Proxy Satellite (sensor) SRS data product Examples
Barrier effect of Vegetation barriers Forest cover Landsat (TM, ETM+, OLI) Landsat Global Forest Cover Change Carniello et al. (2014) used Landsat-
vegetation (2000–2012) derived maps of benthic vegetation
Terra/Aqua (MODIS) MODIS Land Cover Type to account for their barrier effect
Tree cover Terra/Aqua (MODIS) MODIS Vegetation Continuous Fields in a model of coastal sediment
(2000–2013) dynamics.
Landsat (TM, ETM+, OLI) Landsat Tree Cover Continuous
Fields (2000 & 2005)
Air quality Aerosol particles Terra (MODIS) Aerosol Optical Thickness
CALIPSO (CALIOP/IIR/WFC) CALIPSO All-Sky Aerosol Extinction
product
CALIPSO (CALIOP/IIR/WFC) CALIPOSO Aerosol Profiles and Layer
products
Nitrogen dioxide Metop (GOME) GOME or SCIAMACY Nitrogen
Satellite Remote Sensing of Ecosystem Functions
(Continued)
N. Pettorelli et al.
ª 2017 The Authors. Remote Sensing in Ecology and Conservation published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Zoological Society of London.
Table 3. Continued.
ª 2017 The Authors. Remote Sensing in Ecology and Conservation published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Zoological Society of London.
8, MODIS and GOES to monitor
daily evapotranspiration in
vineyards
(Continued)
Satellite Remote Sensing of Ecosystem Functions
13
14
Table 3. Continued.
Most are currently routinely produced; discontinued products (based on existing sensors) were included too, when they could conceivably contribute to elaborating a monitoring scheme for a
given function (since routine production could be resumed). In such cases, the time period for which they are available was stated.
AIRS, Atmospheric Infrared Sounder; AOML, Atlantic Oceanographic and Meteorological Laboratory, ASTER SWIR and TIR, Advanced Spaceborne Thermal Emission and Reflection Radiometer
Short Wave Infrared and Thermal Infrared; AVHRR, Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer; AVISO, Archiving, Validation and Interpretation of Satellite Oceanographic data; CALIOP, Cloud-
Aerosol Lidar with Orthogonal Polarization; CALIPSO, Cloud-Aerosol Lidar and Infrared Pathfinder Satellite Observation; CCI,Climate Change Initiative; CERES, Clouds and the Earth’s Radiant
Energy System; CHIRPS, Climate Hazards Group InfraRed Precipitation with Station data; CZCS, Coastal Zone Color Scanner; DMSP, Defense Meteorological Satellite Platform; ENVISAT, Environ-
mental Satellite; ERS, European Remote Sensing Satellites; ESA, European Space Agency; ETM+, Enhanced Thematic Mapper Plus; EVI,Enhanced vegetation index; FAPAR, Fraction of absorbed
Photosynthetic Active Radiation; FIRMS, Fire Information for Resource Management System; GIMMS, Global Inventory Modeling and Mapping Studies; GLIMS, Global Land Ice Measurements from
Space; GOCI, Geostationary Ocean Color Imager; GOME, Global Ozone Monitoring Experiment; GPCP, Global Precipitation Climatology Project; GRACE, Gravity Recovery And Climate Experiment;
GSFC, Goddard Space Flight Center; HRG, High Resolution Geometric; HRV, High Resolution Visible; HRVIR, High Resolution Visible and Infrared; IIR, Infrared Imaging Radiometer; KBR, K-Band
Ranging System; LAI, Leaf Area Index; MERIS, Medium Resolution Imaging Spectrometer; MIRAS, Microwave Imaging Radiometer with Aperture Synthesis; MODIS, Moderate Resolution Imaging
Spectroradiometer; NASA, National Aeronautics and Space Administration; NDVI, Normalized Difference Vegetation Index; NFTP, Non-Timber Forest Product; NOAA, National Oceanic and Atmo-
spheric Administration; NRT, Near Real Time; OLCI, Ocean and Land Colour Instrument; OLI, Operational Land Imager; POES, Polar Operational Environmental Satellites; PR, Precipitation Radar;
SAC-D, Satelite de Aplicaciones Cientificas; SCIAMACY, Scanning Imaging Absorption Spectrometer for Atmospheric Cartography; SeaWiFS, Sea-viewing Wide Field-of-view Sensor; SIRAL, Syn-
thetic Aperture Interferometric Radar Altimeter; SMAP, Soil Moisture Active Passive; SMMR, Scanning Multichannel Microwave Radiometer; SMOS, Soil Moisture and Ocean Salinity; SPOT, Satel-
lite Pour l’Observation de la Terre; SSM/I, Special Sensor Microwave Imager; SSMIS, Special Sensor Microwave Imager Sounder; TIRS, Thermal Infrared Sensor; TM, Thematic Mapper; TMI,TRMM
Microwave Imager; TROPOMI, Tropospheric Monitoring Instrument; OMI, Ozone Monitoring Instrument; TRMM, Tropical Rainfall Measuring Mission; VGT, Vegetation; VIIRS, Visible Infrared Imag-
ing Radiometer Suite; VIRS, Visible and Infrared Scanner; VUA, VU University Amsterdam; WFC, Wide Field Camera.
N. Pettorelli et al.
ª 2017 The Authors. Remote Sensing in Ecology and Conservation published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Zoological Society of London.
Table 4. Non-exhaustive list of potential future satellite remote sensing data products that could expand ecosystem function monitoring capacity.
Gas regulation Emissions of gases by ecosystems Emissions from fire HyspIRI (VSWIR/TIR) HyspIRI fire emissions
HyspIRI (VSWIR/TIR) HyspIRI volcano eruptions and emissions
N. Pettorelli et al.
ª 2017 The Authors. Remote Sensing in Ecology and Conservation published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Zoological Society of London.
Production of biomass SRS-based estimates of primary FLEX (FLORIS) FLEX primary productivity
productivity Proba V (Vegetation) Proba V vegetation productivity index
Proba V (Vegetation) SPOT VGT or Proba V Dry Matter Productivity
SPOT (HRV, HRVIR, HRG) product
(Continued)
Satellite Remote Sensing of Ecosystem Functions
15
Table 4. Continued.
16
Function Indicator Proxy Satellite (sensor) SRS data product
Biological control Defoliator control Changes in maximum NDVI Proba V (Vegetation) Proba V NDVI
Landsat (TM, ETM+, OLI) NDVI derived from Landsat surface reflectance
Terra/Aqua (MODIS) product alone or derived from MODIS-Landsat
fused time series (Hilker et al. 2009; Walker
et al. 2012)
Sentinel 2 (MSI) NDVI derived from Sentinel 2
Defoliator presence EnMAP (VNIR/SWIR) EnMAP or HyspIRI Infestation Identification
HyspIRI (VSWIR/TIR)
Harmful algal bloom control Harmful algal bloom extent ENVISAT (MERIS) Harmful algal blooms derived from ocean
Terra/Aqua (MODIS) colour (total suspended matter) data from
Orb-View-2 (SeaWiFS) MERIS, MODIS and SeaWiFS (Kurekin et al.
2014)
Barrier effect Vegetation barriers Tree cover Proba V (Vegetation) Proba V Fraction of green vegetation Cover
Satellite Remote Sensing of Ecosystem Functions
of vegetation Air quality Aerosol particles HyspIRI (VSWIR/TIR) HyspIRI carbon and dust on snow/ice
Supporting habitats Habitat extent Land cover Sentinel 1 (SAR), Sentinel Sentinel Land cover
2 (MSI), Sentinel 3 (OLCI & SLSTR)
Tree Cover Proba V (Vegetation) Proba V Fraction of green vegetation Cover
Vertical vegetation structure ICESat-2 (ATLAS) or GEDI (HOMER) LiDAR vertical structure
Water body distribution Proba V (Vegetation) Proba V Water Bodies product
Sea ice ENVISAT (ASAR) ENVISAT ice thickness
ICESat-2 (ATLAS) IceSat-2 ice thickness
Glaciers Sentinel 2 (MSI) Sentinel-2 Glacier area, LSSIA and snowline
Sentinel 1 (SAR) Sentinel-1 glacier surface topography
Snow cover Sentinel 3 (SLSTR, OLCI) Snow Cover Area Global
Habitat quality Albedo Sentinel 3 (SLSTR, OLCI) Surface albedo
Sentinel 2 (MSI) Surface albedo
Proba V (Vegetation) Surface albedo
Primary productivity EnMAP (VNIR/SWIR) EnMAP terrestrial and aquatic phenology
Vegetation condition Proba V (Vegetation) Proba V vegetation condition index
Food Production of Vegetation indices Proba V (Vegetation) Proba V FPAR
vegetal biomass Sentinel 2 (MSI), Sentinel Sentinel 2 and 3 fPAR
3 (OLCI, SLSTR)
Proba V (Vegetation) Proba V LAI
Sentinel 2 (MSI), Sentinel Sentinel 2 and 3 Chlorophyll and Leaf Area
3 (OLCI, SLSTR) Index (LAI)
Biomass Sentinel 1 (SAR) Sentinel 1 biomass
Raw materials Wood and NTFP Tree cover Proba V (Vegetation) Proba V Fraction of green vegetation cover
Mineral resources Mineral resources HyspIRI (VSWIR/TIR) HyspIRI surface mineral resources
Water supply Water provision Evapotranspiration HyspIRI (VSWIR/TIR) HyspIRI evapotranspiration
Water body distribution Proba V (Vegetation) Proba V Water Bodies product
(Continued)
N. Pettorelli et al.
ª 2017 The Authors. Remote Sensing in Ecology and Conservation published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Zoological Society of London.
N. Pettorelli et al. Satellite Remote Sensing of Ecosystem Functions
ASAR, Advanced Synthetic Aperture Radar; ATLAS, Advanced Topographic Laser Altimeter System; CCI, Climate Change Initiative; CERES, Clouds and the Earth’s Radiant Energy System; EnMAP,
FLuORescence Imaging Spectrometer; GEDI, Global Ecosystem Dynamics Investigation; HOMER, High Output Maximum Efficiency Resonator; HRG, High Resolution Geometric; HRV, High Resolu-
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; OLCI, Ocean and Land Colour Instrument; OLI, Operational Land Imager; PR, Precipitation Radar; SAR, Synthetic Aperture Radar; SeaWiFS, Sea-
Environmental Mapping and Analysis Program; ENVISAT, Environmental Satellite; ESA, European Space Agency; ETM+, Enhanced Thematic Mapper Plus; FLEX, Fluorescence Explorer; FLORIS,
tion Visible; HRVIR, High Resolution Visible and Infrared; HyspIRI, Hyperspectral Infrared Imager; MODIS, Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer; MSI, Multispectral Instrument; NOAA,
Radiometer; TM, Thematic Mapper; TMI, TRMM Microwave Imager; TRMM, Tropical Rainfall Measuring Mission; VGT, Vegetation; VIRS, Visible and Infrared Scanner; VNIR, Visible and Near Infra-
viewing Wide Field-of-view Sensor; SLSTR, Sea and Land Surface Temperature Radiometer; SPOT, Satellite Pour l’Observation de la Terre; SWIR, Short Wave Infrared; TIR, Thermal Infrared
areas such as coastal waters and the seabed (Tilstone et al.
2017). Remote sensing products are moreover unlikely to
Sentinel 2 (MSI)
ª 2017 The Authors. Remote Sensing in Ecology and Conservation published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Zoological Society of London. 17
Satellite Remote Sensing of Ecosystem Functions N. Pettorelli et al.
receive this type of training (Cabello et al. 2012; Pettorelli ecological and ecosystem processes should help identify
et al. 2014). Conceptual models of ecosystem functions the processes to be monitored and greatly ease the design
are a possible nexus of ecosystem process and remote of the more complex models required to assess the soci-
sensing expertise (see Fig. 2), similar to and/or informed etal benefits underpinned by biodiversity. There is a
by the conceptual ecosystem models developed as part of growing push towards use of ecosystem accounting in
Red List of Ecosystems assessments (Bland et al. 2016). policy development and economic analysis from the Uni-
Potential differences in the conceptual understanding of ted Nations Statistical Commission. Similarly, the Euro-
causality in the drivers of ecosystem processes across dis- pean Union’s first priority objective of the 7th
ciplines may in this way become apparent, and clarity of Environment Action Programme to 2020 is to protect,
understanding promoted across different foci of expertise. conserve and enhance the Union’s natural capital, further
By making the variables underpinning ecosystem func- highlighting the need to integrate economic indicators
tions and the relationships between them explicit, such with environmental and social indicators, including by
models can help identify a minimum set of agreed vari- means of natural capital accounting (European Commis-
ables needed to monitor a given ecosystem function. sion 2017). This accounting approach would measure
Opportunities for monitoring these variables via remote changes in the stock of natural capital at a variety of
sensing could then be systematically identified, focussing scales and integrate the value of ecosystem services into
on user needs, and gaps in monitoring capacity priori- accounting and reporting systems at the European Union
tized. Ultimately, without common references and defini- and national levels. It should be seen as a tool supporting
tions, and centralized, jointly developed platforms such as the mainstreaming of biodiversity in economic decision-
these, rapid advances are unlikely. making.
An integrated system for natural capital and ecosystem
services accounting is currently in development by the
Policy Implications
European Union (DG ENV 2015) to explicitly account
In 2011, parties of the CBD adopted a strategic plan for the for the range of ecosystem services and demonstrate in
period until 2020 based on 20 targets of which two address monetary terms the benefits of investing in nature and
the conservation (Target 11) and restoration (Target 15) of the sustainable management of resources, allowing assess-
ecosystems services, whose monitoring partially relies on ment of benefits beyond growth of domestic product.
ecosystem function monitoring (Fig. 1). Currently, very lit- Such an integrated accounting system is designed as a
tle information on the state of ecosystem functions and ser- shared platform of linked data sets and tools for covering
vices is available from the Biodiversity Indicators georeferenced information on ecosystems and their ser-
Partnership, a global initiative to promote and coordinate vices. It will allow assessment of ecosystems’ economic
the development and delivery of biodiversity indicators for importance and value, which can be linked to standard
use by the CBD and other biodiversity-related conventions, national accounts. It includes layers of data based on (i)
the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodi- earth observation (e.g. land cover), (ii) statistical collec-
versity and Ecosystem Services, the Sustainable Develop- tions including physical data about human activities (e.g.
ment Goals and national and regional agencies. While land use, industrial use), biomass production, water use
satellite remote sensing could help track progress towards and availability, (iii) environmental monitoring data
the CBD targets on ecosystems services (Secades et al. including data reported under relevant legislation and (iv)
2014), considerations have so far been limited to carbon models that quantify ecosystem services such as water, air
and water-based ecosystem services. Satellite applications and soil regulation, pollination, carbon release and
to the monitoring of ecosystem function and services are sequestration. Here again, providing a clear way for satel-
also exceptionally well placed to support the achievement lite remote sensing to help characterize ecosystem func-
of Target 14. A of the United Nations Sustainable Develop- tions would not only allow identification and design of
ment Goal 14, aimed at the development of research capac- the products that would fit such a system, but the
ity and transfer of marine technology in support of ocean approach itself would greatly ease the identification of the
health and the development of nations reliant on living different variables required by the platform when provid-
marine resources. But achievement of the aims of the Sus- ing quantitative assessments with documented uncertain-
tainability Agenda under the United Nations system are ties.
currently heavily focused on regional cooperation for data
acquisition in support of development policies, and
Conclusions
improving access to technology by developing nations.
Focusing on the use of satellite remote sensing to mon- With a policy agenda increasingly focused on ecosystem
itor ecosystem functions and deconstructing these into service provision (Perrings et al. 2010), understanding the
18 ª 2017 The Authors. Remote Sensing in Ecology and Conservation published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Zoological Society of London.
N. Pettorelli et al. Satellite Remote Sensing of Ecosystem Functions
ecology of ecosystem functioning and its implications for Callicott, J. B., L. B. Crowder, and K. Mumford. 1999. Current
the delivery of ecosystem services has never been more normative concepts in conservation. Conserv. Biol. 13, 22–35.
important. This contribution both provides a theoretical Camargo-Sanabria, A. A., E. Mendoza, R. Guevara, M.
framework that articulates clear monitoring aims and Martınez-Ramos, and R. Dirzo. 2015. Experimental
delivers a list of globally available, standardized remote defaunation of terrestrial mammalian herbivores alters
sensing data sets that relates to ecosystem function moni- tropical rainforest understorey diversity. Proc. R. Soc. Lond.
toring. The structured approach we propose here is par- B Biol. Sci. 282, 20142580.
ticularly important given the ongoing evolution of remote Cardinale, B. J., J. E. Duffy, A. Gonzalez, D. U. Hooper, C.
sensing technologies and data availability, and can help Perrings, P. Venail, et al. 2012. Biodiversity loss and its
progress multiple initiatives (such as the EBV process or impact on humanity. Nature 486, 59–67.
the integrated system for natural capital and ecosystem Carniello, L., S. Silvestri, M. Marani, A. D’Alpaos, V. Volpe,
services accounting) aimed at improving global biodiver- and A. Defina. 2014. Sediment dynamics in shallow tidal
sity monitoring and supporting global conservation tar- basins: in situ observations, satellite retrievals, and numerical
gets. This contribution is also intended to catalyse a modeling in the Venice Lagoon. J. Geophys. Res., series F
much needed discussion on how best to capitalize on cur- 119, 802–815.
rent and future opportunities associated with satellite Ceballos, G., P. R. Ehrlich, A. D. Barnosky, A. Garcıa, R. M.
Pringle, and T. M. Palmer. 2015. Accelerated modern
remote sensing for monitoring ecosystem functions.
human–induced species losses: entering the sixth mass
extinction. Sci. Adv. 1, e1400253.
References
Chambers, J. Q., G. P. Asner, D. C. Morton, L. O. Anderson,
Alroy, J. 2015. Current extinction rates of reptiles and S. S. Saatchi, F. D. Espırito-Santo, et al. 2007. Regional
amphibians. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. 112, 13003–13008. ecosystem structure and function: ecological insights from
Bengtsson, J. 1998. Which species? What kind of diversity? remote sensing of tropical forests. Trends Ecol. Evol. 22,
Which ecosystem function? Some problems in studies of 414–423.
relations between biodiversity and ecosystem function. Appl. Costanza, R., R. d’Arge, R. de Groot, S. Farber, M. Grasso, B.
Soil Ecol. 10, 191–199. Hannon, et al. 1997. The value of the world’s ecosystem
Berryman, A. A. 2002. Population: a central concept for services and natural capital. Nature 387, 253–260.
ecology? Oikos 97, 439–442. Cudahy, T., M. Caccetta, M. Thomas, R. Hewson, M. Abrams,
Bland, L. M., D. A. Keith, R. M. Miller, N. J. Murray, and J. M. Kato, et al. 2016. Satellite-derived mineral mapping and
P. Rodrıguez, eds. 2016. Guidelines for the application of monitoring of weathering, deposition and erosion. Sci. Rep.
IUCN Red List of Ecosystems Categories and Criteria, Version 6, 23702.
1.0. Pp. ix + 94. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland. Culman, S. W., A. Young-Mathews, A. D. Hollander, H.
Boero, F., and E. Bonsdorff. 2007. A conceptual framework for Ferris, S. Sanchez-Moreno, A. T. O’Geen, et al. 2010.
marine biodiversity and ecosystem functioning. Mar. Ecol. Biodiversity is associated with indicators of soil ecosystem
28, 134–145. functions over a landscape gradient of agricultural
Braunisch, V., G. Segelbacher, and A. H. Hirzel. 2010. intensification. Landscape Ecol. 25, 1333–1348.
Modelling functional land-scape connectivity from genetic Daily, G. C. 1997. Nature’s services: societal dependence on
population structure: a new spatially explicit approach. Mol. natural ecosystems. Island, Washington, DC.
Ecol. 19, 3664–3678. Daily, G. C., S. Polasky, J. Goldstein, P. M. Kareiva, H. A.
Brown, T. C., J. C. Bergstrom, and J. B. Loomis. 2007. Mooney, L. Pejchar, et al. 2009. Ecosystem services in
Defining, valuing and providing ecosystem goods and decision making: time to deliver. Front. Ecol. Environ. 7,
services. Nat. Res. J. 47, 329–376. 21–28.
Brown, M. E., S. D. Arias, T. Neumann, M. F. Jasinski, P. De Groot, R. S., M. A. Wilson, and R. M. J. Boumans. 2002. A
Posey, G. Babonis, et al. 2016. Applications for ICESat-2 typology for the classification, description and valuation of
data: from NASA’s early adopter program. IEEE Geosci. ecosystem functions, goods and services. Ecol. Econ. 41,
Remote Sens. Mag. 4, 24–37. 393–408.
Buchhorn, M., D. A. Walker, B. Heim, M. K. Raynolds, H. E. DG ENV. 2015. http://ted.europa.eu/udl?uri=TED:NOTICE:
Epstein, and M. Schwieder. 2013. Ground-based 64198-2015:TEXT:EN:HTML accessed 27/3/2017.
hyperspectral characterization of Alaska tundra vegetation Dominati, E., M. Patterson, and A. Mackay. 2010. A
along environmental gradients. Remote Sens. 5, 3971–4005. framework for classifying and quantifying the natural capital
Cabello, J., N. Fernandez, D. Alcaraz-Segura, C. Oyonarte, G. and ecosystem services of soils. Ecol. Econ. 69, 1858–1868.
Pineiro, A. Altesor, et al. 2012. The ecosystem functioning Drever, M., K. Aitken, A. Norris, and K. Martin. 2008.
dimension in conservation: insights from remote sensing. Woodpeckers as reliable indicators of bird richness, forest
Biodivers. Conserv. 21, 3287–3305. health and harvest. Biol. Cons. 141, 624–634.
ª 2017 The Authors. Remote Sensing in Ecology and Conservation published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Zoological Society of London. 19
Satellite Remote Sensing of Ecosystem Functions N. Pettorelli et al.
Duncan, C., J. R. Thompson, and N. Pettorelli. 2015. The Harrison, R. D., S. Tan, J. B. Plotkin, F. Slik, M. Detto, T.
quest for a mechanistic understanding of biodiversity- Brenes, et al. 2013. Consequences of defaunation for a
ecosystem services relationships. Proc. R. Soc. B 282, tropical tree community. Ecol. Lett. 16, 687–694.
20151348. Harrison, P. A., P. M. Berry, G. Simpson, J. R. Haslett, M.
Enßle, F., J. Heinzel, and B. Koch. 2014. Accuracy of Blicharska, M. Bucur, et al. 2014. Linkages between
vegetation height and terrain elevation derived from ICESat/ biodiversity attributes and ecosystem services: a systematic
GLAS in forested areas. Int. J. Appl. Earth Obs. Geoinf. 31, review. Ecosyst. Serv. 9, 191–203.
37–44. Harvey, E. T., S. Kratzer, and P. Philipson. 2015. Satellite-
European Commission. 2017. http://ec.europa.eu/environme based water quality monitoring for improved spatial and
nt/nature/capital_accounting/index_en.htm. Accessed 28/3/ temporal retrieval of chlorophyll-a in coastal waters. Remote
2017. Sens. Environ. 158, 417–430.
Fassnacht, F. E., H. Latifi, A. Ghosh, P. K. Joshi, and B. Koch. Harwood, T. D., R. J. Donohue, K. J. Williams, S. Ferrier, T.
2014. Assessing the potential of hyperspectral imagery to R. McVicar, G. Newell, et al. 2016. Habitat Condition
map bark beetle-induced tree mortality. Remote Sens. Assessment System: a new way to assess the condition of
Environ. 140, 533–548. natural habitats for terrestrial biodiversity across whole
Fisher, B., R. K. Turner, and P. Morling. 2009. Defining and regions using remote sensing data. Methods Ecol. Evol. 7,
classifying ecosystem services for decision making. Ecol. 1050–1059.
Econ. 68, 643–653. Hilker, T., M. A. Wulder, N. C. Coops, N. Seitz, J. C. White,
Fuentes, D. A., J. A. Gamon, Y. Cheng, H. C. Claudio, H. L. F. Gao, et al. 2009. Generation of dense time series synthetic
Qiu, Z. Mao, et al. 2006. Mapping carbon and water vapor Landsat data through data blending with MODIS using a
fluxes in a chaparral ecosystem using vegetation indices spatial and temporal adaptive reflectance fusion model.
derived from AVIRIS. Remote Sens. Environ. 103(3), 312– Remote Sens. Environ. 113, 1988–1999.
323. Huang, C., X. Wang, H. Yang, Y. Li, Y. Wang, X. Chen, et al.
Fuhlendorf, S. D., W. C. Harrell, D. M. Engle, R. G. Hamilton, 2014. Satellite data regarding the eutrophication response to
C. A. Davis, and D. M. Leslie. 2006. Should heterogeneity be human activities in the plateau lake Dianchi in China from
the basis for conservation? Grassland bird response to fire 1974 to 2009. Sci. Total Environ. 485, 1–11.
and grazing. Ecol. Appl. 16, 1706–1716. Huang, X., J. Deng, X. Ma, Y. Wang, Q. Feng, X. Hao, et al.
Gao, F., J. Masek, M. Schwaller, and F. Hall. 2006. On the 2016. Spatiotemporal dynamics of snow cover based on
blending of the Landsat and MODIS surface reflectance: multi-source remote sensing data in China. Cryosphere 10,
predicting daily Landsat surface reflectance. IEEE Trans. 2453.
Geosci. Remote Sens. 44, 2207–2218. Hyde, P., R. Nelson, D. Kimes, and E. Levine. 2007. Exploring
Geijzendorffer, I. R., and P. K. Roche. 2013. Can biodiversity LiDAR–RaDAR synergy—predicting aboveground biomass
monitoring schemes provide indicators for ecosystem in a southwestern ponderosa pine forest using LiDAR, SAR
services? Ecol. Ind. 33, 148–157. and InSAR. Remote Sens. Environ. 106, 28–38.
Guanter, L., H. Kaufmann, K. Segl, S. Chabrillat, S. F€ orster, C. Jansen, P. A., H. C. Muller-Landau, and S. J. Wright. 2010.
Rogass, et al. 2015. The EnMAP spaceborne imaging Bushmeat hunting and climate: an indirect link. Science 327,
spectroscopy mission for Earth Observation. Remote Sens. 7, 30.
8830–8857. Jin, M., and R. E. Dickinson. 2010. Land surface skin
Guzy, M., K. Richardson, and J. G. Lambrinos. 2015. A tool temperature climatology: benefitting from the strengths of
for assisting municipalities in developing riparian shade satellite observations. Environ. Res. Lett. 5, 044004.
inventories. Urban For. Urban Green. 14, 345–353. Kehinde, T., and M. J. Samways. 2012. Endemic pollinator
Haines-Young, R., M. Potschin, and F. Kienast. 2012. Indicators response to organic vs. conventional farming and landscape
of ecosystem service potential at European scales: mapping context in the Cape Floristic Region biodiversity hotspot.
marginal changes and trade-offs. Ecol. Ind. 21, 39–53. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 146, 162–167.
Halpern, B. S., S. Walbridge, K. A. Selkoe, C. V. Kappel, Keith, D. A., J. P. Rodrıguez, T. M. Brooks, M. A. Burgman,
F. Micheli, C. D’Agrosa, et al. 2008. A global map of human E. G. Barrow, L. Bland, et al. 2015. The IUCN Red List of
impact on marine ecosystems. Science 319, 948–952. Ecosystems: motivations, challenges and applications.
Hansen, M. C., P. V. Potapov, R. Moore, M. Hancher, S. A. Conserv. Lett. 8, 214–226.
Turubanova, A. Tyukavina, et al. 2013. High-resolution Kollmann, J., S. T. Meyer, R. Bateman, T. Conradi1, M. M.
global maps of 21st-century forest cover change. Science Gossner, M. Jr de Souza Mendoncßa, et al. 2016. Integrating
342:850–853. ecosystem functions into restoration ecology—recent
Hantson, S., S. Pueyo, and E. Chuvieco. 2015. Global fire size advances and future directions. Restor. Ecol. 24:722–730.
distribution is driven by human impact and climate. Glob. Koschke, L., C. Fuerst, S. Frank, and F. Makeschin. 2012. A
Ecol. Biogeogr. 24, 77–86. multi-criteria approach for an integrated land-cover-based
20 ª 2017 The Authors. Remote Sensing in Ecology and Conservation published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Zoological Society of London.
N. Pettorelli et al. Satellite Remote Sensing of Ecosystem Functions
assessment of ecosystem services provision to support McNaughton, S. J., M. Oesterheld, D. A. Frank, and K. J.
landscape planning. Ecol. Ind. 21, 54–66. Williams. 1989. Ecosystem-level patterns of primary
Kumar, P. 2010. The economics of ecosystems and biodiversity: productivity and herbivory in terrestrial habitats. Nature
ecological and economic foundations. Earthscan, London and 341, 142–144.
Washington DC. Meyer, S. T., C. Koch, and W. W. Weisser. 2015. Towards a
Kurekin, A. A., P. I. Miller, and H. J. Van der Woerd. 2014. standardized Rapid Ecosystem Function Assessment (REFA).
Satellite discrimination of Karenia mikimotoi and Trends Ecol. Evol. 30, 390–397.
Phaeocystis harmful algal blooms in European coastal Milchunas, D. T., and W. K. Lauenroth. 1995. Inertia in plant
waters: merged classification of ocean colour data. Harmful community structure: state changes after cessation of
Algae 31, 163–176. nutrient-enrichment stress. Ecol. Appl. 5, 452–458.
Lamarque, P., F. Quetier, and S. Lavorel. 2011. The diversity Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. 2005. Ecosystems and
of the ecosystem services concept and its implications for human well-being: biodiversity synthesis. World Resources
their assessment and management. C.R. Biol. 334, 441–449. Institute, Washington, DC.
Lawton, J. H., and V. K. Brown. 1993. Redundancy in Moretti, M., and C. Legg. 2009. Combining plant and animal
ecosystems. Pp. 255–270 in E. D. Schulze and H. A. traits to assess community functional responses to
Mooney, eds. Biodiversity and ecosystem function. Springer, disturbance. Ecography 32, 299–309.
New York. Nagendra, H., R. Lucas, J. P. Honrado, R. H. Jongman, C.
Lefsky, M. A. 2010. A global forest canopy height map from Tarantino, M. Adamo, et al. 2013. Remote sensing for
the Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer and conservation monitoring: assessing protected areas, habitat
the Geoscience Laser Altimeter System. Geophys. Res. Lett. extent, habitat condition, species diversity and threats. Ecol.
37, L15401. Ind. 33, 45–59.
Likens, G. E. 1992. The ecosystem approach: its use and abuse. Nelson, R. F., P. Hyde, P. Johnson, B. Emessiene, M. L.
Ecology Institute, Oldendorf, Luhe. Imhoff, R. Campbell, et al. 2007. Investigating RaDAR–
Lindenmayer, D., J. Pierson, P. Barton, M. Beger, C. LiDAR synergy in a North Carolina pine forest. Remote
Branquinho, A. Calhoun, et al. 2015. A new framework for Sens. Environ. 110, 98–108.
selecting environmental surrogates. Sci. Total Environ. 538, Noss, R. F. 1990. Indicators for monitoring biodiversity: a
1029–1038. hierarchical approach. Conserv. Biol. 4, 355–364.
Liu, G., A. E. Strong, and W. Skirving. 2003. Remote sensing Odum, E. P. 1969. The strategy of ecosystem development:
of sea surface temperatures during 2002 Barrier Reef coral an understanding of ecological succession provides a basis
bleaching. Eos. 84, 137–141. for resolving man’s conflict with nature. Science 164,
Lovett, G. M., C. G. Jones, M. G. Turner, and K. C. Weathers. 262–270.
2006. Ecosystem function in heterogeneous landscapes. Pp. Oliver, T. H., M. S. Heard, N. J. B. Isaac, D. B. Roy, D.
1–4 in G. M. Lovett, C. G. Jones, M. G. Turner and K. C. Procter, F. Eigenbrod, et al. 2015. Biodiversity and resilience
Weathers, eds. Ecosystem function in heterogeneous of ecosystem functions. Trends Ecol. Evol. 30, 673–684.
landscapes. Springer, New York. Osuri, A. M., J. Ratnam, V. Varma, P. Alvarez-Loayza, J. H.
Mace, G. M., K. Norris, and A. H. Fitter. 2012. Biodiversity Astaiza, M. Bradford, et al. 2016. Contrasting effects of
and ecosystem services: a multi-layered relationship. Trends defaunation on aboveground carbon storage across the
Ecol. Evol. 27, 19–26. global tropics. Nat. Commun. 7, 11351.
Magurran, A. 2004. Measuring biological diversity. Blackwell, Pacala, S., and A. P. Kinzig. 2002. Introduction to theory and
Oxford. the common ecosystem model. Pp. 169–174 in A. P. Kinzig,
Mallet, J. 1995. A species definition for the modern synthesis. S. W. Pacala and D. Tilman, eds. Functional consequences of
Trends Ecol. Evol. 10, 294–299. biodiversity: empirical progress and theoretical extensions.
Malmstrom, C. M., H. S. Butterfield, C. Barber, B. Dieter, Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, NJ.
R. Harrison, J. Qi, et al. 2009. Using remote sensing to Paganini, M., A. K. Leidner, G. Geller, W. Turner, and M.
evaluate the influence of grassland restoration activities on Wegmann. 2016. The role of space agencies in remotely
ecosystem forage provisioning services. Restor. Ecol. 17, sensed essential biodiversity variables. Remote Sens. Ecol.
526–538. Conserv. 2, 132–140.
Martinez, N. D. 1996. Defining and measuring functional Paterson, D. M., E. C. Defew, and J. Jabour. 2012. Ecosystem
aspects of biodiversity. Pp. 114–148 in K. J. Gaston, ed. function and co-evolution of terminology in marine science
Biodiversity: a biology of numbers and difference. Blackwell and management. Pp. 24–33 in M. Solan, R. J. Aspden and
Science, Oxford. D. M. Paterson, eds. Marine biodiversity and ecosystem
McCauley, D. J., M. L. Pinsky, S. R. Palumbi, J. A. Estes, F. H. functioning, 1st ed.. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Joyce, and R. R. Warner. 2015. Marine defaunation: animal Patterson, P. L., and S. Healey. 2015. Global ecosystem
loss in the global ocean. Science 347, 1255641–1255641. dynamics investigation (GEDI) LiDAR sampling strategy. P.
ª 2017 The Authors. Remote Sensing in Ecology and Conservation published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Zoological Society of London. 21
Satellite Remote Sensing of Ecosystem Functions N. Pettorelli et al.
245 in S. M. Stanton, G. A. Christensen, eds. Pushing variability of methane over the Amazon from satellite
boundaries: new directions in inventory techniques and observations. Adv. Atmos. Sci. 33, 852–864.
applications: Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) symposium Roe, D., J. Elliott, C. Sandbrook, and M. Walpole. 2013.
2015. 2015 December 8–10; Portland, Oregon. Gen. Tech. Linking biodiversity conservation and poverty alleviation:
Rep. PNW-GTR-931. U.S. Department of Agriculture, what, why and where? Pp. 3–18 in D. Roe, J. Elliot, C.
Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, Sandbrook and M. Walpole, eds. Biodiversity conservation
OR. and poverty alleviation: exploring the evidence for a link. John
Peng, Y., R. B. Kheir, K. Adhikari, R. Malinowski, M. B. Wiley & Sons, Chichester.
Greve, M. Knadel, et al. 2016. Digital mapping of toxic Schlerf, M., C. Atzberger, J. Hill, H. Buddenbaum, W. Werner,
metals in Qatari soils using remote sensing and ancillary and G. Sch€ uler. 2010. Retrieval of chlorophyll and nitrogen
data. Remote Sens. 8, 1003. in Norway spruce (Picea abies L. Karst.) using imaging
Pereira, H. M., S. Ferrier, M. Walters, G. N. Geller, R. H. G. spectroscopy. Int. J. Appl. Earth Obs. Geoinf. 12, 17–26.
Jongman, R. J. Scholes, et al. 2013. Essential biodiversity Schmidt, M., R. Lucas, P. Bunting, J. Verbesselt, and J.
variables. Science 339, 277–278. Armston. 2015. Multi-resolution time series imagery for
Peres, C. A., T. Emilio, J. Schietti, S. J. Desmouliere, and T. forest disturbance and regrowth monitoring in Queensland,
Levi. 2016. Dispersal limitation induces long-term biomass Australia. Remote Sens. Environ. 158, 156–168.
collapse in overhunted Amazonian forests. Proc. Natl Acad. Schr€oter, M., C. Albert, A. Marques, W. Tobon, S. Lavorel,
Sci. 113, 892–897. J. Maes, et al. 2016. National ecosystem assessments in
Perrings, C., S. Naeem, F. Ahrestani, D. E. Bunker, P. Burkill, Europe: a review. Bioscience 66, 813–828.
G. Canziani, et al. 2010. Ecosystem services for 2020. Science Schulp, C. J., and R. Alkemade. 2011. Consequences of
330, 323–324. uncertainty in global-scale land cover maps for mapping
Petter, M., S. Mooney, S. M. Maynard, A. Davidson, M. Cox, ecosystem functions: an analysis of pollination efficiency.
and I. Horosak. 2012. A methodology to map ecosystem Remote Sens. 3, 2057–2075.
functions to support ecosystem services assessments. Ecol. Secades, C., B. O’Connor, C. Brown, and M. Walpole. 2014.
Soc. 18:31. http://dx. doi.org/https://doi.org/10.5751/ES- Earth Observation for Biodiversity Monitoring: A review of
05260-180131. current approaches and future opportunities for tracking
Pettorelli, N. 2013. The normalized difference vegetation index. progress towards the Aichi Biodiversity Targets. Secretariat
Oxford University Press, Oxford. of the Convention on Biological Diversity, Montreal,
Pettorelli, N., W. F. Laurance, T. G. O’Brien, M. Wegmann, Canada. Technical Series No. 72.
H. Nagendra, and W. Turner. 2014. Satellite remote sensing Semmens, K. A., M. C. Anderson, W. P. Kustas, et al. 2016.
for applied ecologists: opportunities and challenges. J. Appl. Monitoring daily evapotranspiration over two California
Ecol. 51, 839–848. vineyards using Landsat 8 in a multi-sensor data fusion
Pettorelli, N., M. Wegmann, A. Skidmore, S. M€ ucher, T. P. approach. Remote Sens. Environ. 185, 155.
Dawson, M. Fernandez, et al. 2016. Framing the concept of Senay, G. B., N. M. Velpuri, H. Alemu, S. M. Pervez, K. O.
Satellite Remote Sensing Essential Biodiversity variables: Asante, G. Kariuki, et al. 2013. Establishing an operational
challenges and future directions. Remote Sens. Ecol. Conserv. waterhole monitoring system using satellite data and
2, 122–131. hydrologic modelling: application in the pastoral regions of
Puri, S., H. Stephen, and S. Ahmad. 2011. Relating TRMM East Africa. Pastoralism, 3:20.
precipitation radar backscatter to water stage in wetlands. Skidmore, A. K., N. Pettorelli, N. C. Coops, G. N. Geller,
J. Hydrol. 401, 240–249. M. Hansen, R. Lucas, et al. 2015. Agree on biodiversity
Queiros, A. M., S. N. Birchenough, J. Bremner, J. A. Godbold, metrics to track from space. Nature 523, 403–405.
R. E. Parker, A. Romero-Ramirez, et al. 2013. A Solan, M., B. J. Cardinale, A. L. Downing, K. A. M.
bioturbation classification of European marine infaunal Engelhardt, J. L. Ruesink, and D. S. Srivastava. 2004.
invertebrates. Ecol. Evol. 3, 3958–3985. Extinction and ecosystem function in the marine benthos.
Queiros, A. M., J. Bruggeman, N. Stephens, Y. Artioli, M. Science 306, 1177–1180.
Butensch€ on, J. C. Blackford, et al. 2015. Placing biodiversity Spera, S. A., G. L. Galford, M. T. Coe, M. N. Macedo, and
in ecosystem models without getting lost in translation. J. F. Mustard. 2016. Land use change affects water recycling
J. Sea Res. 98, 83–90. in Brazil’s last agricultural frontier. Glob. Change Biol. 22,
Racault, M.-F., T. Platt, S. Sathyendranath, E. Agirbasß, V. 3405–3413.
Martinez Vicente, and R. Brewin. 2014. Plankton indicators Spichtinger, N., M. Wenig, P. James, T. Wagner, U. Platt, and
and ocean observing systems: support to the marine A. Stohl. 2001. Satellite detection of a continental scale
ecosystem state assessment. J. Plankton Res. 36, 621–629. plume of nitrogen oxides from boreal forest fires. Geophys.
Ribeiro, I. O., R. A. F. de Souza, R. V. Andreoli, M. T. Res. Lett. 28, 4579–4582.
Kayano, and P. dos Santos Costa. 2016. Spatiotemporal
22 ª 2017 The Authors. Remote Sensing in Ecology and Conservation published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Zoological Society of London.
N. Pettorelli et al. Satellite Remote Sensing of Ecosystem Functions
Spruce, J. P., S. Sader, R. E. Ryan, J. Smoot, P. Kuper, Valente, A. S., and J. C. da Silva. 2009. On the observability of
K. Ross, et al. 2011. Assessment of MODIS NDVI time the fortnightly cycle of the Tagus estuary turbid plume
series data products for detecting forest defoliation by gypsy using MODIS ocean colour images. J. Mar. Syst. 75,
moth outbreaks. Remote Sens. Environ. 115, 427–437. 131–137.
Srivastava, D. S., and M. Vellend. 2005. Biodiversity-ecosystem Valiela, I., J. L. Bowen, and J. K. York. 2001. Mangrove
function research: is it relevant to conservation? Annu. Rev. Forests: one of the World’s Threatened Major Tropical
Ecol. Evol. Syst. 36, 267–294. Environments. Bioscience 51, 807–815.
Steenweg, R., M. Hebblewhite, R. Kays, J. Ahumada, J. T. Veraverbeke, S., F. Sedano, S. J. Hook, J. T. Randerson, Y. Jin,
Fisher, C. Burton, et al. 2017. Scaling-up camera traps: and B. M. Rogers. 2014. Mapping the daily progression of
monitoring the planet’s biodiversity with networks of large wildland fires using MODIS active fire data. Int. J.
remote sensors. Front. Ecol. Environ. 15, 26–34. Wildl. Fire 23, 655–667.
Stephens, P., N. Pettorelli, J. Barlow, M. Whittingham, and Vierling, K. T., L. A. Vierling, W. A. Gould, S. Martinuzzi, and
M. Cadotte. 2015. Management by proxy? The use of R. M. Clawges. 2008. Lidar: shedding new light on habitat
indices in applied ecology. J. Appl. Ecol. 52, 1–6. characterization and modeling. Front. Ecol. Environ. 6,
TEEB. 2010. The economics of ecosystems and biodiversity: 90–98.
ecological and economic foundations. Earthscan, London and Villar, R. E., J. M. Martinez, M. Le Texier, J. L. Guyot, P.
Washington. Fraizy, P. R. Meneses, et al. 2013. A study of sediment
Thompson, D. R., I. Leifer, H. Bovensmann, M. Eastwood, transport in the Madeira River, Brazil, using MODIS
M. Fladeland, C. Frankenberg, et al. 2015. Real-time remote remote-sensing images. J. S. Am. Earth Sci. 44, 45–54.
detection and measurement for airborne imaging Walker, J. J., K. M. De Beurs, R. H. Wynne, and F. Gao. 2012.
spectroscopy: a case study with methane. Atmos. Meas. Tech. Evaluation of Landsat and MODIS data fusion products for
8, 4383–4397. analysis of dryland forest phenology. Remote Sens. Environ.
Tilstone, G., S. Mallor-Hoya, F. Gohin, A. Belo Couto, C. Sa, 117, 381–393.
P. Goela, et al. 2017. Which ocean colour algorithm for Wallace, K. J. 2007. Classification of ecosystem services:
MERIS in North West European waters? Remote Sens. problems and solutions. Biol. Cons. 139, 235–246.
Environ. 188, 132–151. Webb, T. J., and B. L. Mindel. 2015. Global patterns of
Tong, C., J. Wu, S. Yong, J. Yang, and W. Yong. 2004. A extinction risk in marine and non-marine systems. Curr.
landscape-scale assessment of steppe degradation in the Biol. 25, 506–511.
Xilin River Basin, Inner Mongolia, China. J. Arid Environ. Werling, B. P., T. L. Dickson, R. Isaacs, H. Gaines, C. Gratton,
59, 133–149. K. L. Gross, et al. 2014. Perennial grasslands enhance
Tulloch, A. I. T., P. Sutcliffe, I. Naujokaitis-Lewis, R. Tingley, biodiversity and multiple ecosystem services in bioenergy
L. Brotons, K. M. P. M. B. Ferraz, et al. 2016. Conservation landscapes. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. 111, 1652–1657.
planners tend to ignore improved accuracy of modelled WWF Living Planet Report. 2016. Risk and resilience in a new
species distributions to focus on multiple threats and era. WWF International, Gland, Switzerland.
ecological processes. Biol. Cons. 199, 157–171.
ª 2017 The Authors. Remote Sensing in Ecology and Conservation published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Zoological Society of London. 23