Publikasjoner
NIBIOs ansatte publiserer flere hundre vitenskapelige artikler og forskningsrapporter hvert år. Her finner du referanser og lenker til publikasjoner og andre forsknings- og formidlingsaktiviteter. Samlingen oppdateres løpende med både nytt og historisk materiale. For mer informasjon om NIBIOs publikasjoner, besøk NIBIOs bibliotek.
2019
Sammendrag
Det er ikke registrert sammendrag
Sammendrag
Aim: Many countries lack informative, high‐resolution, wall‐to‐wall vegetation or land cover maps. Such maps are useful for land use and nature management, and for input to regional climate and hydrological models. Land cover maps based on remote sensing data typically lack the required ecological information, whereas traditional field‐based mapping is too expensive to be carried out over large areas. In this study, we therefore explore the extent to which distribution modelling (DM) methods are useful for predicting the current distribution of vegetation types (VT) on a national scale. Location: Mainland Norway, covering ca. 324,000 km2. Methods: We used presence/absence data for 31 different VTs, mapped wall‐to‐wall in an area frame survey with 1081 rectangular plots of 0.9 km2. Distribution models for each VT were obtained by logistic generalised linear modelling, using stepwise forward selection with an F‐ratio test. A total of 116 explanatory variables, recorded in 100 m × 100 m grid cells, were used. The 31 models were evaluated by applying the AUC criterion to an independent evaluation dataset. Results: Twenty‐one of the 31 models had AUC values higher than 0.8. The highest AUC value (0.989) was obtained for Poor/rich broadleaf deciduous forest, whereas the lowest AUC (0.671) was obtained for Lichen and heather spruce forest. Overall, we found that rare VTs are predicted better than common ones, and coastal VTs are predicted better than inland ones. Conclusions: Our study establishes DM as a viable tool for spatial prediction of aggregated species‐based entities such as VTs on a regional scale and at a fine (100 m) spatial resolution, provided relevant predictor variables are available. We discuss the potential uses of distribution models in utilizing large‐scale international vegetation surveys. We also argue that predictions from such models may improve parameterisation of vegetation distribution in earth system models.
2018
Sammendrag
The long history of human land use have had a strong influence on ecosystems and landscapes in the boreal forest region of Northern Europe and created semi-natural habitats of high conservation value. In this study, we quantify land-cover change and loss of semi-natural grassland in an agricultural landscape (6.2 km2 ) in the boreal region of Norway from 1960 to 2015, and document a 49.1% loss of area that was seminatural grassland in 1960. The remaining semi-natural grasslands became smaller and the connectivity between them decreased. Intensification and abandonment of agricultural land use were of approximately equal importance for the loss of semi-natural grassland although the relative contribution of these processes depended on the topography and distance to farmsteads. The study provides an example of how change in land cover can be estimated and key drivers identified on a scale that is relevant for implementation of management and conservation measures.
Forfattere
Eva Lieungh Eriksen Heidrun Asgeirsdatter Ullerud Rune Halvorsen Sigrun Aune Harald Bratli Peter Horvath Inger Kristine Volden Anders Kvalvåg Wollan Anders BrynSammendrag
Questions: Substantial variation between observers has been found when comparing parallel land-cover maps, but how can we know which map is better? What magnitude of error and inter-observer variation is expected when assigning land-cover types and is this affected by the hierarchical level of the type system, observer characteristics, and ecosystem properties? Study area: Hvaler, south-east Norway. Methods: Eleven observers assigned mapping units to 120 stratified random points. At each observation point, the observers first assigned a mapping unit to the point independently. The group then decided on a ‘true’ reference mapping unit for that point. The reference was used to estimate total error. ‘Ecological distance’ to the reference was calculated to grade the errors. Results: Individual observers frequently assigned different mapping units to the same point. Deviating assignments were often ecologically close to the reference. Total error, as percentage of assignments that deviated from the reference, was 35.0% and 16.4% for low and high hierarchical levels of the land-covertype system, respectively. The corresponding figures for inter-observer variation were 42.8% and 19.4%, respectively. Observer bias was found. Particularly high error rates were found for land-cover types characterised by human disturbance. Conclusions: Access to a ‘true’ mapping unit for each observation point enabled estimation of error in addition to the inter-observer variation typically estimated by the standard pairwise comparisons method for maps and observers. Three major sources of error in the assignment of land-cover types were observed: dependence on system complexity represented by the hierarchical level of the land-cover-type system, dependence on the experience and personal characteristics of the observers, and dependence on properties of the mapped ecosystem. The results support the necessity of focusing on quality in land-cover mapping, among commissioners, practitioners and other end users.
Forfattere
Anders Kvalvåg Wollan Harald Bratli Anders Bryn Eva Lieungh Eriksen Anne B. Nilsen Heidrun Asgeirsdatter Ullerud Rune HalvorsenSammendrag
Det er ikke registrert sammendrag
Sammendrag
Det er ikke registrert sammendrag
Sammendrag
Questions : Land-cover maps are used for nature management, but can they be trusted? This study addresses three questions: (1) what is the magnitude of between field worker inconsistencies in land-cover maps and what may cause such inconsistencies; (2) in which ways and to what extent do spatial scale and mapping system influence inconsistencies between maps; and (3) are some biomes mapped more consistently than others, and if so, why? Location : Gravfjellet, Øystre Slidre municipality, southern Norway. Methods : Two different mapping systems, designed for mapping at different spatial scales, were used for parallel mapping by three different field workers, giving a total of six maps for the study area. Spatial consistency of the resulting maps was compared at two hierarchical levels for both systems. Results : The average pair-wise spatial consistency at the highest hierarchical level was 83% for both systems, while the average pair-wise spatial consistency at the lowest hierarchical level was 60.3% for the coarse system and 43.8% for the detailed system. Inconsistencies between maps were partly caused by the use of different land- cover units and partly by spatial displacement. Conclusions : Field workers made different maps despite using the same mapping systems, materials and methods. The differences were larger at lower hierarchical levels in the mapping systems and increased strongly with system complexity. Consistency among field workers should be estimated as a standard quality indicator in all field-based mapping programmes.
Sammendrag
Det er ikke registrert sammendrag
Sammendrag
Det er ikke registrert sammendrag
Sammendrag
Det er ikke registrert sammendrag