No abstract

Forests in the United States are managed by multiple public and private entities making harmonization of available data and subsequent mapping of management challenging. We mapped four important types of forest management, production, ecological, passive, and preservation, at 250-meter spatial resolution in the Southeastern (SEUS) and Pacific Northwest (PNW) USA. Both ecologically and socio-economically dynamic regions, the SEUS and PNW forests represent, respectively, 22.0% and 10.4% of forests in the coterminous US. We built a random forest classifier using seasonal time-series analysis of 16 years of MODIS 16-day composite Enhanced Vegetation Index, and ancillary data containing forest ownership, roads, US Forest Service wilderness and forestry areas, proportion conifer and proportion riparian. The map accuracies for SEUS are 89% (10-fold cross-validation) and 67% (external validation) and PNW are 91% and 70% respectively with the same validation. The now publicly available forest management maps, probability surfaces for each management class and uncertainty layer for each region can be viewed and analysed in commercial and open-source GIS and remote sensing software.

Advancements in remote sensing and computational tools have increased our awareness of large-scale environmental problems, thereby creating a need for monitoring, assessment, and management at these scales. Over the last decade, several watershed and regional multi-metric indices have been developed to assist decision-makers with planning actions of these scales. However, these tools use remote-sensing products that are subject to land-cover misclassification, and these errors are rarely incorporated in the assessment results. Here, we examined the sensitivity of a landscape-scale multi-metric index (MMI) to error from thematic land-cover misclassification and the implications of this uncertainty for resource management decisions. Through a case study, we used a simplified floodplain MMI assessment tool, whose metrics were derived from Landsat thematic maps, to initially provide results that were naive to thematic misclassification error. Using a Monte Carlo simulation model, we then incorporated map misclassification error into our MMI, resulting in four important conclusions: (1) each metric had a different sensitivity to error; (2) within each metric, the bias between the error-naive metric scores and simulated scores that incorporate potential error varied in magnitude and direction depending on the underlying land cover at each assessment site; (3) collectively, when the metrics were combined into a multi-metric index, the effects were attenuated; and (4) the index bias indicated that our naive assessment model may overestimate floodplain condition of sites with limited human impacts and, to a lesser extent, either over- or underestimated floodplain condition of sites with mixed land use.

We hypothesized topographic features alone could be used to locate groundwater discharge, but only where diagnostic topographic signatures could first be identified through the use of limited field observations and geologic data. We built a geodatabase from geologic and topographic data, with the geologic data only covering ~40% of the study area and topographic data derived from airborne LiDAR covering the entire study area. We identified two types of groundwater discharge: shallow hillslope groundwater discharge, commonly manifested as diffuse seeps, and aquifer-outcrop groundwater discharge, commonly manifested as springs. We developed multistep manual procedures that allowed us to accurately predict the locations of both types of groundwater discharge in 93% of cases, though only where geologic data were available. However, field verification suggested that both types of groundwater discharge could be identified by specific combinations of topographic variables alone. We then applied maximum entropy modeling, a machine learning technique, to predict the prevalence of both types of groundwater discharge using six topographic variables: profile curvature range, with a permutation importance of 43.2%, followed by distance to flowlines, elevation, topographic roughness index, flow-weighted slope, and planform curvature, with permutation importance of 20.8%, 18.5%, 15.2%, 1.8%, and 0.5%, respectively. The AUC values for the model were 0.95 for training data and 0.91 for testing data, indicating outstanding model performance.