Comparing Global and Regional Maps of Intactness in the Boreal Region of North America: Implications for Conservation Planning in One of the World’s Remaining Wilderness Areas

Pierre R Vernier,Alberto Suarez Esteban,Steven G Cumming,Fiona Schmiegelow,Shawn J Leroux,Kimberly Lisgo,Meg A Krawchuk

doi:10.3389/ffgc.2022.843053

Abstract

North America’s boreal forest contains some of the largest remaining intact and wild ecosystems in the world. However, human activities are systematically reducing its extent. Consequently, forest intactness and human influence maps are increasingly used for monitoring and conservation planning in the boreal region. We evaluated nine national and global maps to determine how well they agreed with each other and how effectively they captured recent anthropogenic disturbances. As a function of each map’s spatial coverage in North America, the area identified as intact ranged from 55 to 79% in Canada and from 32 to 96% in Alaska. Likewise, the similarity between pairs of datasets in the Canadian boreal ranged from 0.58 to 0.86 on a scale of 0–1. In total, 45% of the region was identified as intact by the eight most recent datasets. There was also variation in the ability of the datasets to account for anthropogenic disturbances that are increasingly common in the boreal region, such as those associated with resource extraction. In comparison to the recently produced high resolution Boreal Ecosystem Anthropogenic Disturbance dataset, the four human influence datasets (Human Footprint, Global Human Modification, Large Intact Areas, and Anthropogenic Biomes) omitted 59–85% of all linear disturbances and 54–89% of all polygonal disturbances. In contrast, the global IFL, Canadian IFL, and Human Access maps omitted 2–7% of linear disturbances and 0.1–5% of polygonal disturbances. Several differences in map characteristics, including input datasets and methods used to develop the maps may help explain these differences. Ultimately, the decision on which dataset to use will depend on the objectives of specific conservation planning projects, but we recommend using datasets that (1) incorporate regional anthropogenic activities, (2) are updated regularly, (3) provide detailed information of the methods and input data used, and (4) can be replicated and adapted for local use. This is especially important in landscapes that are undergoing rapid change due to development and have an active natural disturbance regime, such as the boreal forest of North America.

Highlights

North America’s boreal forest contains some of the largest remaining intact areas in the world (Potapov et al, 2017; Watson et al, 2018)
Note that we describe the Boreal ecosystem anthropogenic disturbance (BEAD) dataset which was used to assess the accuracy of the other datasets. 1If the year of the dataset is not provided, we use the date of latest imagery used as input. 2Values in brackets for vector maps indicate approximate effective grid resolution, similar to minimum mapping unit for polygon data. 3The distance around disturbances that is removed from the estimation of intact areas. 4A more complete list of thematic maps and satellite imagery used as inputs can be found within the references listed for each dataset
The third objective of this study was to assess how well the binary intactness maps account for the specific anthropogenic disturbances that are common in the boreal region, namely those associated with fossil fuel exploration and extraction, forestry, and mining

Summary

Introduction

North America’s boreal forest contains some of the largest remaining intact areas in the world (Potapov et al, 2017; Watson et al, 2018). Large intact areas support biodiversity, ecological and evolutionary processes including wildlife migrations and natural disturbances, and ecosystem services such as carbon capture and sequestration (Mittermeier et al, 2003; Leroux et al, 2010; Watson et al, 2016) They play an important role in climate change mitigation (Price et al, 2013; Melillo et al, 2016; Carroll and Noss, 2020) and can serve as ecological benchmarks to guide sustainable land management practices (Arcese and Sinclair, 1997). To identify and conserve additional intact areas, reliable and up-to-date spatial information is required This has led to the production of global and regional datasets that attempt to map anthropogenic disturbances or their complement, areas with little or no evidence of human activities (McCloskey and Spalding, 1989; Bryant et al, 1997; Sanderson et al, 2002; Potapov et al, 2008; Hansen et al, 2013). A quantitative comparison of these maps would assist conservation planners and researchers with the selection of the most appropriate product(s) for their purposes

Objectives

Methods

Results

Conclusion