Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current
    • Special Feature Articles - Most Recent
    • Special Features
    • Colloquia
    • Collected Articles
    • PNAS Classics
    • List of Issues
  • Front Matter
    • Front Matter Portal
    • Journal Club
  • News
    • For the Press
    • This Week In PNAS
    • PNAS in the News
  • Podcasts
  • Authors
    • Information for Authors
    • Editorial and Journal Policies
    • Submission Procedures
    • Fees and Licenses
  • Submit
  • Submit
  • About
    • Editorial Board
    • PNAS Staff
    • FAQ
    • Accessibility Statement
    • Rights and Permissions
    • Site Map
  • Contact
  • Journal Club
  • Subscribe
    • Subscription Rates
    • Subscriptions FAQ
    • Open Access
    • Recommend PNAS to Your Librarian

User menu

  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Home
Home
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current
    • Special Feature Articles - Most Recent
    • Special Features
    • Colloquia
    • Collected Articles
    • PNAS Classics
    • List of Issues
  • Front Matter
    • Front Matter Portal
    • Journal Club
  • News
    • For the Press
    • This Week In PNAS
    • PNAS in the News
  • Podcasts
  • Authors
    • Information for Authors
    • Editorial and Journal Policies
    • Submission Procedures
    • Fees and Licenses
  • Submit
Letter

Remote sensing alone is insufficient for quantifying changes in forest cover

Gregory A. Reams, Charles K. Brewer, and Richard W. Guldin
  1. Research and Development, Forest Service, US Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC 20024

See allHide authors and affiliations

PNAS September 21, 2010 107 (38) E145; https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1008665107
Gregory A. Reams
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: greams@fs.fed.us
Charles K. Brewer
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Richard W. Guldin
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

A recent PNAS article (1) estimated global gross forest cover loss. Figure 1 in ref. 1 and the conclusions drawn from both refs. 1 and 2 leave the impression that tree cover losses in the southern United States are no different from deforestation activities elsewhere around the globe. Results from the Forest Service’s Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) program depict a different, and we think more accurate, assessment of forest conditions in the southern United States, because field plots are used to validate satellite interpretations and distinguish between land cover and land use changes.

Since the 1940s, FIA has combined information from remotely sensed imagery (in the early days, aerial photography; today, LANDSAT ETM+ and MODIS imagery) with spatially coregistered data collected on ground plots (125,000 across the United States) to track changes in land use and land cover over time. In the south, fresh imagery is interpreted, and the same ground plots are revisited every 5 y. This system of paired remote sensing and ground observation confers four distinct benefits: (i) field visits validate imagery interpretations, significantly improving the accuracy of inventory statistics for both land cover and land use changes; (ii) field visits help identify where young tree seedlings are established before they are discernible on satellite imagery; (iii) repetition provides solid trend data; and (iv) changes in tree cover vs. forest land use are clarified.

A major shortcoming in ref. 1 is that the analysis is one-sided, reporting only on gross loss of tree cover over a single 5-y period. Because of absent equivalent data on gross gain in tree cover over the same time period, the net change in land cover cannot be estimated. Contrary to the authors’ assertion that net changes are relatively unimportant, our experience, both domestically and internationally, is that the trend of net change over time is particularly important to interest groups and policy makers (1). The study by Smith et al. (3) is the latest of nine detailed national FIA reports dating back to 1953 chronicling changes in forests—both as land cover and land use. Forest area in the southern United States was essentially unchanged from 1997 (214.1 million acres) to 2007 (214.644 million acres), bracketing the period used in ref. 1. Furthermore, net volume of all trees south-wide increased 12% between 1997 and 2007 (256.3–288.5 billion cubic feet), even after all losses from both natural and human-caused events are counted. These statistics present a more holistic picture of forest conditions in the southern United States than the picture emerging from refs. 1 and 2. Southern forests are being replenished and are growing well.

Although we use before and after LANDSAT data to estimate losses from disturbances, such as large fires (4), we recognize the importance of also characterizing recovery trends with remote sensing data (e.g., MODIS) (5) and field visits. This more thorough approach better characterizes disturbance and recovery than the approach used in ref. 1.

The United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization has endorsed the principle of validating satellite-derived estimates with ground-plot data or finer-resolution imagery. In the United States, we are leading this validation effort.

Footnotes

  • 1To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: greams{at}fs.fed.us.
  • Author contributions: G.A.R. and C.K.B. analyzed data; and G.A.R., C.K.B., and R.W.G. wrote the paper.

  • The authors declare no conflict of interest.

    References

    1. ↵
      1. Hansen MC,
      2. Stehman SV,
      3. Potapov PV
      (2010) Quantification of global gross forest cover loss. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 107:8650–8655.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    2. ↵
      1. Rice D
      (2010) Fading forests: U.S. losing trees faster than other heavily forested nations. USA Today, April 27, 2010.
    3. ↵
      1. Smith WB,
      2. Miles PD,
      3. Perry CH,
      4. Pugh SA
      (2009) Forest Resources of the United States (USDA Forest Service, Washington, DC).
    4. ↵
      1. Eidenshink J,
      2. et al.
      (2007) A project for monitoring trends in burn severity. Fire Ecol 3:3–21.
      OpenUrl
    5. ↵
      1. Quayle B,
      2. Brewer K,
      3. Williams K
      (2005) Proceedings of PECORA 16—Global Priorities in Land Remote Sensing, Monitoring post-fire vegetation recovery of wildland fire areas in the western United States using MODIS data (American Society of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing, Sioux Falls, SD).
    PreviousNext
    Back to top
    Article Alerts
    Email Article

    Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on PNAS.

    NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

    Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
    Remote sensing alone is insufficient for quantifying changes in forest cover
    (Your Name) has sent you a message from PNAS
    (Your Name) thought you would like to see the PNAS web site.
    CAPTCHA
    This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
    Citation Tools
    Remote sensing alone is insufficient for quantifying changes in forest cover
    Gregory A. Reams, Charles K. Brewer, Richard W. Guldin
    Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Sep 2010, 107 (38) E145; DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1008665107

    Citation Manager Formats

    • BibTeX
    • Bookends
    • EasyBib
    • EndNote (tagged)
    • EndNote 8 (xml)
    • Medlars
    • Mendeley
    • Papers
    • RefWorks Tagged
    • Ref Manager
    • RIS
    • Zotero
    Request Permissions
    Share
    Remote sensing alone is insufficient for quantifying changes in forest cover
    Gregory A. Reams, Charles K. Brewer, Richard W. Guldin
    Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Sep 2010, 107 (38) E145; DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1008665107
    del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
    • Tweet Widget
    • Facebook Like
    • Mendeley logo Mendeley
    Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences: 107 (38)
    Table of Contents

    Submit

    Sign up for Article Alerts

    Jump to section

    • Article
      • Footnotes
      • References
    • Info & Metrics
    • PDF

    You May Also be Interested in

    Smoke emanates from Japan’s Fukushima nuclear power plant a few days after tsunami damage
    Core Concept: Muography offers a new way to see inside a multitude of objects
    Muons penetrate much further than X-rays, they do essentially zero damage, and they are provided for free by the cosmos.
    Image credit: Science Source/Digital Globe.
    Water from a faucet fills a glass.
    News Feature: How “forever chemicals” might impair the immune system
    Researchers are exploring whether these ubiquitous fluorinated molecules might worsen infections or hamper vaccine effectiveness.
    Image credit: Shutterstock/Dmitry Naumov.
    Venus flytrap captures a fly.
    Journal Club: Venus flytrap mechanism could shed light on how plants sense touch
    One protein seems to play a key role in touch sensitivity for flytraps and other meat-eating plants.
    Image credit: Shutterstock/Kuttelvaserova Stuchelova.
    Illustration of groups of people chatting
    Exploring the length of human conversations
    Adam Mastroianni and Daniel Gilbert explore why conversations almost never end when people want them to.
    Listen
    Past PodcastsSubscribe
    Panda bear hanging in a tree
    How horse manure helps giant pandas tolerate cold
    A study finds that giant pandas roll in horse manure to increase their cold tolerance.
    Image credit: Fuwen Wei.

    Similar Articles

    Site Logo
    Powered by HighWire
    • Submit Manuscript
    • Twitter
    • Facebook
    • RSS Feeds
    • Email Alerts

    Articles

    • Current Issue
    • Special Feature Articles – Most Recent
    • List of Issues

    PNAS Portals

    • Anthropology
    • Chemistry
    • Classics
    • Front Matter
    • Physics
    • Sustainability Science
    • Teaching Resources

    Information

    • Authors
    • Editorial Board
    • Reviewers
    • Subscribers
    • Librarians
    • Press
    • Cozzarelli Prize
    • Site Map
    • PNAS Updates
    • FAQs
    • Accessibility Statement
    • Rights & Permissions
    • About
    • Contact

    Feedback    Privacy/Legal

    Copyright © 2021 National Academy of Sciences. Online ISSN 1091-6490