Search USGS⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search USGS

Results for “Journal of Time Series Analysis”

Search indexed USGS publications on groundwater, aquifers, geologic maps, mineral resources and earthquakes. Explore source records by subject and place.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

146 records · Page 9Linked to original sources
USGS2009

Global irrigated area map (GIAM), derived from remote sensing, for the end of the last millennium

A Global Irrigated Area Map (GIAM) has been produced for the end of the last millennium using multiple satellite sensor, secondary, Google Earth and groundtruth data. The data included: (a) Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer (AVHRR) 3-band and Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI) 10 km monthly time-series for 1997-1999, (b) Syste me pour l'Observation de la Terre Vegetation (SPOT VGT) NDVI 1 km monthly time series for 1999, (c) East Anglia University Climate Research Unit (CRU) rainfall 50km monthly time series for 1961-2000, (d) Global 30 Arc-Second Elevation Data Set (GTOPO30) 1 km digital elevation data of the World, (e) Japanese Earth Resources Satellite-1 Synthetic Aperture Radar (JERS-1 SAR) data for the rain forests during two seasons in 1996 and (f) University of Maryland Global Tree Cover 1 km data for 1992-1993. A single mega-file data-cube (MFDC) of the World with 159 layers, akin to hyperspectral data, was composed by re-sampling different data types into a common 1 km resolution. The MFDC was segmented based on elevation, temperature and precipitation zones. Classification was performed on the segments. Quantitative spectral matching techniques (SMTs) used in hyperspectral data analysis were adopted to group class spectra derived from unsupervised classification and match them with ideal or target spectra. A rigorous class identification and labelling process involved the use of: (a) space-time spiral curve (ST-SC) plots, (b) brightness-greenness-wetness (BGW) plots, (c) time series NDVI plots, (d) Google Earth very-high-resolution imagery (VHRI) 'zoom-in views' in over 11 000 locations, (e) groundtruth data broadly sourced from the degree confluence project (3 864 sample locations) and from the GIAM project (1 790 sample locations), (f) high-resolution Landsat-ETM+ Geocover 150m mosaic of the World and (g) secondary data (e.g. national and global land use and land cover data). Mixed classes were resolved based on decision tree algorithms and spatial modelling, and when that did not work, the problem class was used to mask and re-classify the MDFC, and the class identification and labelling protocol repeated. The sub-pixel area (SPA) calculations were performed by multiplying full-pixel areas (FPAs) with irrigated area fractions (IAFs) for every class. A 28 class GIAM was produced and the area statistics reported as: (a) annualized irrigated areas (AIAs), which consider intensity of irrigation (i.e. sum of irrigated areas from different seasons in a year plus continuous year-round irrigation or gross irrigated areas), and (b) total area available for irrigation (TAAI), which does not consider intensity of irrigation (i.e. irrigated areas at any given point of time plus the areas left fallow but 'equipped for irrigation' at the same point of time or net irrigated areas). The AIA of the World at the end of the last millennium was 467 million hectares (Mha), which is sum of the non-overlapping areas of: (a) 252 Mha from season one, (b) 174 Mha from season two and (c) 41 Mha from continuous year-round crops. The TAAI at the end of the last millennium was 399 Mha. The distribution of irrigated areas is highly skewed amongst continents and countries. Asia accounts for 79% (370 Mha) of all AIAs, followed by Europe (7%) and North America (7%). Three continents, South America (4%), Africa (2%) and Australia (1%), have a very low proportion of the global irrigation. The GIAM had an accuracy of 79-91%, with errors of omission not exceeding 21%, and the errors of commission not exceeding 23%. The GIAM statistics were also compared with: (a) the United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) and University of Frankfurt (UF) derived irrigated areas and (b) national census data for India. The relationships and causes of differences are discussed in detail. The GIAM products are made available through a web portal (http://www.iwmigiam.org). ?? 2009 Taylor & Francis.

International Journal of Remote Sensing↗
USGS2023

Climate change and the global redistribution of biodiversity: Substantial variation in empirical support for expected range shifts

Background Among the most widely predicted climate change-related impacts to biodiversity are geographic range shifts, whereby species shift their spatial distribution to track their climate niches. A series of commonly articulated hypotheses have emerged in the scientific literature suggesting species are expected to shift their distributions to higher latitudes, greater elevations, and deeper depths in response to rising temperatures associated with climate change. Yet, many species are not demonstrating range shifts consistent with these expectations. Here, we evaluate the impact of anthropogenic climate change (specifically, changes in temperature and precipitation) on species’ ranges, and assess whether expected range shifts are supported by the body of empirical evidence. Methods We conducted a Systematic Review, searching online databases and search engines in English. Studies were screened in a two-stage process (title/abstract review, followed by full-text review) to evaluate whether they met a list of eligibility criteria. Data coding, extraction, and study validity assessment was completed by a team of trained reviewers and each entry was validated by at least one secondary reviewer. We used logistic regression models to assess whether the direction of shift supported common range-shift expectations (i.e., shifts to higher latitudes and elevations, and deeper depths). We also estimated the magnitude of shifts for the subset of available range-shift data expressed in distance per time (i.e., km/decade). We accounted for methodological attributes at the study level as potential sources of variation. This allowed us to answer two questions: (1) are most species shifting in the direction we expect (i.e., each observation is assessed as support/fail to support our expectation); and (2) what is the average speed of range shifts? Review findings We found that less than half of all range-shift observations (46.60%) documented shifts towards higher latitudes, higher elevations, and greater marine depths, demonstrating significant variation in the empirical evidence for general range shift expectations. For the subset of studies looking at range shift rates, we found that species demonstrated significant average shifts towards higher latitudes (average = 11.8 km/dec) and higher elevations (average = 9 m/dec), although we failed to find significant evidence for shifts to greater marine depths. We found that methodological factors in individual range-shift studies had a significant impact on the reported direction and magnitude of shifts. Finally, we identified important variation across dimensions of range shifts (e.g., greater support for latitude and elevation shifts than depth), parameters (e.g., leading edge shifts faster than trailing edge for latitude), and taxonomic groups (e.g., faster latitudinal shifts for insects than plants). Conclusions Despite growing evidence that species are shifting their ranges in response to climate change, substantial variation exists in the extent to which definitively empirical observations confirm these expectations. Even though on average, rates of shift show significant movement to higher elevations and latitudes for many taxa, most species are not shifting in expected directions. Variation across dimensions and parameters of range shifts, as well as differences across taxonomic groups and variation driven by methodological factors, should be considered when assessing overall confidence in range-shift hypotheses. In order for managers to effectively plan for species redistribution, we need to better account for and predict which species will shift and by how much. The dataset produced for this analysis can be used for future research to explore additional hypotheses to better understand species range shifts.

Journal of Environmental Evidence↗