Search USGS⌕ Search

USGS · 70186253

Seasonal land-cover regions of the United States

Abstract

Global-change investigations have been hindered by deficiencies in the availability and quality of land-cover data. The U.S. Geological Survey and the University of Nebraska-Lincoln have collaborated on the development of a new approach to land-cover characterization that attempts to address requirements of the global-change research community and others interested in regional patterns of land cover. An experimental 1 -kilometer-resolution database of land-cover characteristics for the coterminous U.S. has been prepared to test and evaluate the approach. Using multidate Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer (AVHRR) satellite data complemented by elevation, climate, ecoregions, and other digital spatial datasets, the authors define 152, seasonal land-cover regions. The regionalization is based on a taxonomy of areas with respect to data on land cover, seasonality or phenology, and relative levels of primary production. The resulting database consists of descriptions of the vegetation, land cover, and seasonal, spectral, and site characteristics for each region. These data are used in the construction of an illustrative 1:7,500,000-scaIe map of the seasonal land-cover regions as well as of smaller-scale maps portraying general land cover and seasonality. The seasonal land-cover characteristics database can also be tailored to provide a broad range of other landscape parameters useful in national and global-scale environmental modeling and assessment.

Explore related subjects

90° N90° S · 180° W ← longitude → 180° E
Source-reported bounding extent: 25.08° to 49.38905° latitude; -124.68721° to -66.96466° longitude. This indicates report coverage, not an exact sampling location. View area on OpenStreetMap.

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Thomas R. Loveland, James W. Merchant, Jesslyn F. Brown, Donald O. Ohlen, Bradley C. Reed, Paul Olson, John Hutchinson. 1995. Seasonal land-cover regions of the United States. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8306.1995.tb01798.x

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

Relations of alpine plant communities across environmental gradients: Multilevel versus multiscale analyses

Alpine plant communities vary, and their environmental covariates could influence their response to climate change. A single multilevel model of how alpine plant community composition is determined by hierarchical relations is compared to a separate examination of those relations at different scales. Nonmetric multidimensional scaling of species cover for plots in four regions across the Rocky Mountains created dependent variables. Climate variables are derived for the four regions from interpolated data. Plot environmental variables are measured directly and the presence of thirty-seven site characteristics is recorded and used to create additional independent variables. Multilevel and best subsets regressions are used to determine the strength of the hypothesized relations. The ordinations indicate structure in the assembly of plant communities. The multilevel analyses, although revealing significant relations, provide little explanation; of the site variables, those related to site microclimate are most important. In multiscale analyses (whole and separate regions), different variables are better explanations within the different regions. This result indicates weak environmental niche control of community composition. The weak relations of the structure in the patterns of species association to the environment indicates that either alpine vegetation represents a case of the neutral theory of biogeography being a valid explanation or that it represents disequilibrium conditions. The implications of neutral theory and disequilibrium explanations are similar: Response to climate change will be difficult to quantify above equilibrium background turnover.

Annals of the Association of American Geographers↗

The participatory vulnerability scoping diagram - deliberative risk ranking for community water systems

Natural hazards and climate change present growing challenges to community water system (CWS) managers, who are increasingly turning to vulnerability assessments to identify, prioritize, and adapt to risks. Effectively assessing CWS vulnerability requires information and participation from various sources, one of which is stakeholders. In this article, we present a deliberative risk-ranking methodology, the participatory vulnerability scoping diagram (P-VSD), which allows rapid assessment and integration of multiple stakeholder perspectives of vulnerability. This technique is based on methods of deliberative risk evaluation and the vulnerability scoping diagram. The goal of the methodology is to engage CWS managers and stakeholders collectively to provide qualitative contextual risk rankings as a first step in a vulnerability assessment. We conduct an initial assessment using a case study of CWS in two U.S. counties, sites with broadly similar exposures but differences in population, land use, and other social sensitivity factors. Results demonstrate that CWS managers and stakeholders in the two case study communities all share the belief that their CWS are vulnerable to hazards but differ in how this vulnerability manifests itself in terms of the exposure, sensitivity, and adaptive capacity of the system.

Annals of the Association of American Geographers↗

Comment in reply

No abstract available.

Annals of the Association of American Geographers↗