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. Taxonomic reference: Lid & Lid (2005) for vascular plants. Syntaxonomic reference: Halvorsen et al. (2015) for land-cover types. Abbreviations: ED = Ecological distance; GLM = Generalised linear model; LCE = Local complex environmental variable; NiN = Nature in Norway; TPI = Topographic position index.

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.

Abstract. Vegetation is an important component in global ecosystems, affecting the physical, hydrological and biogeochemical properties of the land surface. Accordingly, the way vegetation is parameterized strongly influences predictions of future climate by Earth system models. To capture future spatial and temporal changes in vegetation cover and its feedbacks to the climate system, dynamic global vegetation models (DGVMs) are included as important components of land surface models. Variation in the predicted vegetation cover from DGVMs therefore has large impacts on modelled radiative and non-radiative properties, especially over high-latitude regions. DGVMs are mostly evaluated by remotely sensed products and less often by other vegetation products or by in situ field observations. In this study, we evaluate the performance of three methods for spatial representation of present-day vegetation cover with respect to prediction of plant functional type (PFT) profiles – one based upon distribution models (DMs), one that uses a remote sensing (RS) dataset and a DGVM (CLM4.5BGCDV; Community Land Model 4.5 Bio-Geo-Chemical cycles and Dynamical Vegetation). While DGVMs predict PFT profiles based on physiological and ecological processes, a DM relies on statistical correlations between a set of predictors and the modelled target, and the RS dataset is based on classification of spectral reflectance patterns of satellite images. PFT profiles obtained from an independently collected field-based vegetation dataset from Norway were used for the evaluation. We found that RS-based PFT profiles matched the reference dataset best, closely followed by DM, whereas predictions from DGVMs often deviated strongly from the reference. DGVM predictions overestimated the area covered by boreal needleleaf evergreen trees and bare ground at the expense of boreal broadleaf deciduous trees and shrubs. Based on environmental predictors identified by DM as important, three new environmental variables (e.g. minimum temperature in May, snow water equivalent in October and precipitation seasonality) were selected as the threshold for the establishment of these high-latitude PFTs. We performed a series of sensitivity experiments to investigate if these thresholds improve the performance of the DGVM method. Based on our results, we suggest implementation of one of these novel PFT-specific thresholds (i.e. precipitation seasonality) in the DGVM method. The results highlight the potential of using PFT-specific thresholds obtained by DM in development of DGVMs in broader regions. Also, we emphasize the potential of establishing DMs as a reliable method for providing PFT distributions for evaluation of DGVMs alongside RS.

This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

No abstract